Robert Greenwald
The Media Giraffe Project Interview
with Robert Greenwald
Nov. 14, 2007
Interviewed by Khristine Dolor,
Univ. of Massachusetts reporting intern
Media Giraffe Project: In a quick minute just give us a quick bio of you, where you grew up, where you studied, and how you got into what you’re doing now, your business.
Robert Greenwald: I grew up in New York City then I moved to Los Angeles where I worked in the theater for two years, then moved on to commercial film and television, where I made about fifty, fifty-five TV movies, mini-series, cable movies. Shortly after 9/11 I began a transition towards documentaries, and now the short video pieces and short investigative videos.
MGP: In your words, what are you doing exactly, and why are you doing it? We just want to get inside your head and listen to your personal motivation.
RG: Making trouble, whatever way I can (laughs).
MGP: That’s a good way of putting it!
RG: What we’re doing is, at Brave New Films, both in the full-length films and now in the short investigative pieces, is using video to tell stories, to get people to take action for social change. So it’s very specific and very different from many of my very good friends and colleagues who make television movies, mini-series without the component of using it to activate action leading to social change. So all the decisions we make in terms of which films we do, which shorts we do, how we do them from a content point of view, and how we do them from a distribution point of view, are focused around the need to motivate action towards social change.
MGP: (1:54) Okay, now let’s talk about how you hit on the idea of using the internet and house parties to promote your films, because you started on basically a small budget. What was it like when you first started?
RG: It was difficult. I started doing the films because I felt there were important stories that should be told and needed to be told [and ought to be told - 2:21]. And the sort of alternative independent distribution grew over time as we sort of realized that we were doing a new thing, which was making documentaries about current political action. Before, we went into this full tilt most documentaries were about events that had happened years ago. But starting with Unprecedented about the Florida 2000 elections, which I produced, then Uncovered about the war in Iraq, and then Outfoxed and then Wal-Mart, and ultimately Iraq for Sale, I think we were able to change radically the way documentaries were viewed. And the fact that they became more and more, and many of them about current issues, and with that in mind the traditional distribution model, politics aside is not one that works quickly; there are many gatekeepers, whether it be television or theatrical film and when I realized the immediacy of what we’re doing, and the need to get it out quickly, that led organically to the internet and independent distribution.
MGP: In April you sent an e-mail to supporters describing your shift to the short form, YouTube viral approach. But you also said, “How can we generate income? Unlike films, there is no income from these campaigns.”
RG: Correct.
MGP: What are you learning about how movement media can be sustained in the long term, and does the subscriber approach on the website for contributors bring in a lot of revenue for these projects?
RG: What I’m learning is that a lot of my time is dedicated to fundraising and that even though we are closing on in the next couple of weeks we will have reached over ten million people with our shorts, which is an extraordinary number. But even with that, it takes a great deal of time and effort in order to fundraise and to allow us to continue. We fundraise both from the subscribers online, we pursue foundations and individuals who are able to give us larger sums of money. So we’re constantly going after and looking for funding in all three areas.
MGP: Is there anyone on the right taking a similar approach to what you’re doing?
RG: I don’t know. I’m not aware of anybody on the right who is doing it in a consistent fashion the way Brave New Films is doing it.
MGP: What do you think is the common thread which sparks some people to want to be change agents, to do what you guys do? Do you think that there is anything you all have in common, as to trying to get these issues across?
RG: I think probably, it starts with an emotional reaction against injustice, and from that comes a feeling which leads to a thought that one should do something, not accept the status quo, should not allow the economic injustices, the social injustices around military policy to continue, and then I think that motivates people to say, “I want to do something.”
MGP: Since things are really hectic for you right now, I actually want to ask you to talk about what’s going on today.
RG: Today, this moment? Well let’s see (laughs), today right now we are working to launch, because we’ve had an amazing response to Fox Attacks Decency, we’re at, I think over 500 thousand views in less than a week already on that one, let’s see where we are, but we’ve had this very really strong response to it, so we’re putting another piece, which is Fox News Porn, showing that you could create a whole porn channel just from Fox News. So we’re working hard to get that out, I think it’ll go out tomorrow to a large, large group, and then we’re going to ask people – yeah we’re at 551, 361, wow – so we’re going put out a so-called “sequel” to Fox News Porn. We’ll ask people to use that and to send it around and also to begin a campaign to contact advertisers and let advertisers know about this smut that is on Fox, because I think there’s an amazing opening here. So we’re working hard to do that.
Yesterday, Judith Reagan filed a lawsuit talking about the fact that people from News Corporation have obstructed her to hide some information about her boyfriend Bernie (Bernard) Kerik because it would have hurt Rudy Giuliani and Fox has been supporting Rudy Giuliani so were working to try to get a quick video out right now, Fox Loves Rudy, showing that connection.
We’re also working to get a quick video out, because in the Judith Reagan lawsuit she referred to the daily memos they get at Fox News and we were the first ones to expose those memos in Outfoxed, so we’re trying to put a short video out about that. It would also happen very quickly in order to catch the news cycle.
And we’re also working on a few longer term projects in terms of economic injustice issues which we haven’t gone public with it yet, so I’ll be a little bit vague, but let’s just say we will be focusing on the abuses in private equity and the economic disparity there, so we’re working hard to get another piece finished around that, sooner rather than later, because we want to try and get that out.
And we’re working on another piece around Rudy Giuliani. We had two very strong pieces, including one about Rudy’s radios that there’s going to be investigation in New York City as a result, and so we’re trying to get another piece done around the radios by December. And we’re also working with our friends at CREW to create a piece for their campaign, their paper that’s going to come out around the Department of Homeland Security’s fifth birthday, in which CREW exposes all kinds of things, and we’re working closely with them to help their efforts and provide a video that will support what they’re doing. So that’s a few of the things that are going on today.
MGP: It sound’s like you guys are very, very busy.
RG: Yes, it is wild.
MGP: How will you measure your success of all these efforts?
RG: Well it’s two-fold. One, is the number of views, because the more eyeballs we get the more people who are aware of the stories we’re telling, that’s sort of an opening [?]. That’s sort of one measurement. And the second measurement is people who take actions that we can measure. Now, we’re not able to measure how many people pass it on to other people – we get a pretty good sense of that, but it’s not a hard fast measurement. We can tell when something’s gone viral in a big way, but we do measure people who sign petitions, people who make phone calls, people who join other organizations as a result of our efforts. And then the third part is when there are actual, clearly defined wins, like when the investigation of Rudy Giuliani, which came about because of the videos, when we convinced them of a video about the Democrats not to co-sponsor the debate with Fox fusing the video as part of the campaign with our blogger partners and our Move On partners. When we work with Color of Change and provided a video that helped convince the leading presidentials not to participate in the Fox co-sponsored debate with the congressional black institute, we’re able to measure it there. And then we’re also to measure it in terms of media narrative, when we pushed out the Fox Attacks Iran and the great efforts to get us to go to war with Iran. Or when we pushed out early on the John McCain video, focusing on the fact that he’s not a straight shooter. We then begin to see sometimes, see changes in the media narrative, we believe influenced by the fact that we send these videos out and they go to several hundred people, and then it works its way into the media ecosystem.
MGP: Now, Brave New Films and what you’re doing right now, is this what you want to continue to do long-term or do you want to pursue other forms of media?
RG: Well there’s an amazing opportunity in the new media, and I am thrilled and excited that we – progressives – are at the front of the parade, not in the back complaining that we’ve been left behind. So to the extent possible, we want to stay out there, in the front breaking new ground. I mean, when we did the documentaries and then decided to move from the documentaries to this, we thought, why not just stay with the documentaries, you’ve done this incredible thing. Well, I thought we did, and felt it was a great breakthrough and we’ve encouraged many others, but I felt out role was to kind of be at the front line, if you will, and this is the front line right now. Now, the nature of the front line is going to change, you know we’re talking about iTunes taking over and taking some of out pieces, we’re talking about figuring out thirty-second pieces that will be on telephones, but I believe we have a very important, if you will, role in figuring out both content and distribution in the world of the new media. And that’s where I’d like us to be. The labels will change, the form will change, but essentially, I believe, we should stay there. We have an amazing group of people, I mean, really brilliant and aggressive folks at Brave New Films who, from a content side, from a distribution side, and understanding the media figuring out how to edit, shoot, produce these pieces, and that’s an amazing resource that I want to continue to use.
MGP: How would you compare your approach to this work of say, Jeff Skoll’s Participant Productions, which seems to have stayed pretty much within the mainstream of Hollywood production and distribution while still handling social cause subjects? I mean, you have your own approach but do you believe that they’re different in their own way, is one better than the other?
RG: I think I’d rather not comment on Participant. I’d be happy to talk to you off the record at some point but –
MGP: Yup, that’s fine. Let’s talk about the Iraq Veteran’s Memorial. What is it, where did you get the idea and what are the metrics of its success?
RG: Well I got the idea because the holiday – what was it, the fourth anniversary of the war I think? – well some kind of anniversary, a terrible name, but I think it was the beginning of the fourth year of the war, was coming up, and we wanted some way, in a respectful, meaningful fashion to recognize the people who had been killed as a result of the war, and to do it in the way that we are able to do it, which is not constructing a building or a memorial or a [cult], but to use what we do, which is online, so that’s where the idea grew from. And then it was also a way to reach out into new communities, which were military families, many of whom, at the time, were more positive about the war. A lot of that has changed, but we did it in a way saying yes, we are opposed to the war for sure, but this website will not take a position, it will just be a way to honor and respect those who have been killed. The metrics were just what we could get – I don’t remember how many people who would be willing to talk about this incredible, painful thing in a way that would be helpful to them and their families, and in recognizing those who’ve been killed, and their families.
MGP: Have you encountered any risks – personal, professional, financial – while doing your work?
RG: Yes. Well certainly on the financial side, because I volunteer, to do this work, and have chosen not to pursue the sort of – in this last couple of years I’ve made a decision to do this, rather than put all of my time into more traditional ways of making a living in the Hollywood system – there are some consequences. And then there are consequences when you get attacked by the right wing – I mean there have been no physical attacks but there have been, you know, the sort of name calling and the other attacks. But if one wants to be effective in making social change you have to be prepared for some consequences. If not, then you’re just pasting a band-aid on stuff. But if you are sort of really, to continue the metaphor, you know, activating the scab or getting the blood to flow a little bit, then you should expect attacks, and you should expect some consequences.
MGP: Tell us a little bit about your childhood – what has made you want to become a change agent; was there anything specific that triggered this reaction?
RG: Well I think I was brought up, and it wasn’t even a question but I was brought up in a family where the assumption was that you did more than just focus on your own narrow self-interest, that you did more than just, if you were able to, earn the living, and at a certain point if you had time, the abilities, that [all involved] positives of being part of this human species, was to try to do more, to try to do things that were not just narrowly limited to yourself.
MGP: All of us have colleagues in the mainstream media who are passionately committed to watchdog journalism, to speaking truth to power, and lots of good work is still being done in America’s newsrooms. Yet the raw numbers of feet on the ground reporters are shrinking, and there is a general perception that less long form investigative journalism is undertaking. What is your prescription for fostering the kind of journalism that is thought to be central to vibrant, inclusive, and participatory democracy?
RG: (Laughs) Well, I’m laughing because this is a long conversation, but the short answer is that there needs to be financial support, so that this kind of work can be undertaken. I don’t think news should be a profit center for large corporations. I think news, investigative journalism, in a democracy should be something that, like schools and the fire department, is provided, is made available, whether is the distribution on television where its made available a certain number of hours a day, or teaching in schools or universities, or whatever combination – but leaving news and investigative journalism to compete with Paris Hilton and music videos to become a profit center for corporations. I don’t think is a wise or necessary step for democracy. Excuse me, they’re buzzing, I have to jump off in a few minutes.
MGP: That’s fine. I appreciate your answers. I guess what I’m wondering is what’s the mechanism for getting more folks to stick their necks out the way you have, in moving sort of beyond mainstream Hollywood and sort of forging new ground technologically? Do you a media ecosystem where that’s possible or not possible?
RG: Well I think its two different questions. In terms of getting other folks to do this kind of work I don’t know, I think that’s really up to each person. I think that if you build it they will come. I hope by doing this kind of work, and realizing that you could reach people impact others, encourage others to do – I think we’ve already seen it in terms of the documentary films, right? Because when we did Unprecedented nobody was doing it, and now at Brave New Theaters, which is a free place where people can post the documentaries, I don’t know, a hundred and fifty to two hundred or something. So in that case it worked, and we’re seeing somewhat similar with the short political videos, in that we started in January people thought we were crazy, and now, almost everybody is using it. So I think there is real progress there that you do it, people see it. Now, it might now be the head of a studio, it might not be an eighteen year old in a basement someplace who has a great idea for a video expose of Gonzales. So I think that is happening in terms of the question of the, what did you call it, a media ecosystem?
MGP: Yes.
RG: I am a big believer that the new technology offers us great opportunities. I think we need to use them, because by using them and staking out territory when the inevitable happens, and it will happen. The large corporations are going to buy up the real estate one way or another, and they’re going to try and squeeze people who are not profit-making – politics aside – they are going to try and squeeze people when the going gets tough on their politics. But if we’re in there, if we’re in there with the real estate, and by that I mean the making and distributing, and [picking] up space on-line, which we’re doing, and getting ten million views, it makes us harder to dislodge us when the economical and political pressures come.
MGP: I want to ask one follow-up question to one asked, about what it was in your background that made you interested in being a change agent. You talked about growing up in a family where it was just expected of you, sort of expected that you would give back in that kind of way if you have the means to do so. Was there something specifically that your parents lectured you about that on that score, or something about the kinds of work they did, or the way they conducted themselves that you can be specific about?
RG: Well, as I parent of four, I don’t think it’s what you say, I think it’s what you do – like walk the walk, not just talk the talk. I think that in my family, with my grandfather as a union organizer, and my father and mother who were both politically active. I think it was the fact that it was in the air we breathed, it was a discussion around the dinner table, that it was my grandfather taking me down to Union Square to hear the people give speeches on the corner there. I think it was all of that in the environment, rather than anything particular, or specific speech – you know, you’re a kid and you listen, you don’t listen, you rebel, you don’t rebel, and I think just because it was all part of my parents’ and my family’s system, and the positives there, and the positives that I saw through them and then experienced at an early age myself, I think just kept increasing it. But I don’t think that it was an “ah-ha” moment where I said, “Ah, this is it.”
MGP: I have two more questions, I’ll ask them both quickly, and if you’re running short of time you can just answer the one you like best. One is, talk a little about crowd sourcing, which is sort of Jay Rosen’s term, and I want to ask you about that because the Fox Watcher Newshound thing you’ve been doing is sort of an example of an early form of crowd sourcing. The other question is just sort of to talk about the term “objectivity” a little bit, and it adheres to facts and whether what you do is objective in any sense, and does it matter either way if it is objective or not.
RG: Well I think what we do is definitely objective – everyone has a point of view – but in terms of point of view, it’s fact-based. It’s not unbalanced but objectivity is not balanced either. There are different, global warming being the key example right? Ninety-nine scientists say it’s a problem, one guy someplace says it’s not, so objectivity means telling that story. From false notion of balance means that you give the one guy equal time with the ninety-nine. But we go to great efforts to be objective, factual based, lots of research, etcetera, etcetera, knowing that we have a point of view but we look for that data. And then if its there, great, and then we tell a story. And then if it’s different than what our assumptions were, then we don’t tell a story. So I think it’s a good discretion to have, I think it’s important that we put a tremendous effort and time into it.
On the crowd sourcing, yeah we’re using the News Hounds, and now we’re asking people to watch Fox and put in the names of the advertisers, and we actually have field producers, two thousand field producers around the country who volunteer and help us and go out and film things and video things, and do research for us, and give us tips and on the Fox Decency piece we’re about to [lock] it and someone videoed in something where they’ve seen O’Reilly four months ago. We quickly found the clip and used it, cut it in, and two hours later there we were. So I see all of that as growing an impacted and important for us.
MGP: And it’s really something that wasn’t available before the current technology.
RG: Correct.
MGP: So is that really changing the political sphere in this country, and is it entirely positive or are there some negatives about it?
RG: I think it’s too soon to tell if it’s changing the political sphere. I mean, you know all the traditional stuff, you see everyone says that. I believe that it’s having a huge impact. We’ll see how it manifests itself over time, but it’s certainly a great way to restore democracy.
MGP: If we wanted to e-mail you a couple of follow up questions could we do that?
RG: Sure, just send it to Robert@BraveNewFilms.org
MGP: Okay, great.
RG: Good! All right, thanks guys.
MGP: Robert, thank you so much, we really appreciate this. Take care.
RG: Bye.
RETURN TO PROFILE PAGE
