Metacritic includes New York Post's (NYP) negative review of "Oufoxed" in its numeric rating of the film. The New York Post has a conflict of interest reviewing this movie as they are owned by the same company which owns Fox (and which is criticised in "Oufoxed"). Since the NYP clearly has a conflict of interest, their review should be excluded from the Metacritic numeric rating.

One could argue that NYP's review of Outfoxed should be entirely excluded from Metacritic as they fail to disclose their conflict of interest in their review. Standards of journalistic integrity demand a disclaimer whenever a (potential) conflict of interest exists.

Yeah, I was actually a little surprised that the Post didn't make at least some reference to the fact that the "documentarians" are "pickin' on my big brother!" Then again, if the film was made by Murdock, they would definitely HAVE to disclose the conflict. Fox News, whenever they cite something from the Post, always state "the Post -- which is owned by the parent company of this network" (and they often have some fun with it). But sure, you'd think the critic would have at least mentioned the fact that the Post is owned by the Parent company of Fox News.

HOWEVER -- Perhaps, and I don't know that this is true, but perhaps the editors shield the primary film critics from those kinds of political considerations, thereby leaving them up to judging films for their merit, independent of politics. Do I think that's a reality? Probably not. I don't think the critic's editor would have the balls to watch her give the movie 4 stars, only to see Rupert Murdoch pull up the review via the internet in Australia -- reaching his long arm out to grab said editor by the throat.

Who knows?? With the consolidation of media, there's probably a conflict in every 4th movie review. But yes, you've got a valid point.

This is a good point, but where do you draw the line? Corporations and conglomerates in the U.S. are so closedly interconnected it would be impossible to be fair, in this sense, to anything but an indie film.
With that in mind, Outfoxed is such an extreme, that perhaps it would be easy to draw the line here. Or, for example, if there was a film (let's say, The Heads of the NY Times Are Fascist Mind-Controlling Corporate Pigs), it would be difficult to give the same weight as usual to the NY Times review of that film.
That is why the weighted-rating system is more viable.

A line can be drawn - any review of a film that is critical of a media conglomerate and/or its media properties may not be included in the Metacritic rating if it is published by the media conglomerate and/or its media properties that are subject of the film. Reviews not falling within these parameters will be shown separately, without being included in the actual metacritic score.

What I am saying: a media conglomerate that is critically evaluated in a film should not use the appearance of giving an unbiased review of that film. In this specific case, Metacritic should not include the NY Post's review in the score. The NY Post's review can be shown separately - for information purposes only.

While this is besides the point, the New York Post should have included a disclaimer that they have a conflict of interest. It would have been good journalism. But then, Fox / NY Post have never been at the forefront of journalistic integrity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Wacker:
Metacritic includes New York Post's (NYP) negative review of "Oufoxed" in its numeric rating of the film. The New York Post has a conflict of interest reviewing this movie as they are owned by the same company which owns Fox (and which is criticised in "Oufoxed"). Since the NYP clearly has a conflict of interest, their review should be excluded from the Metacritic numeric rating.

One could argue that NYP's review of Outfoxed should be entirely excluded from Metacritic as they fail to disclose their conflict of interest in their review. Standards of journalistic integrity demand a disclaimer whenever a (potential) conflict of interest exists.

---

There's no such thing as "journalistic integrity" when you're working for Murdoch's News Corporation.