Inside a Hollywood Hit Job: How James O’Keefe Tried and Tried to Sting His Latest Victim

[markpkessinger]

39. In one sense, you are right . . .

. . . But I think what O'Keefe was trying to do was to imply any or all of the following:

• that since the oil industry can be seen as a competitor of the natural gas industry, the acceptance of funding for a film from a party that has a financial stake in the fracking debate discredits any value the film might have from a standpoint of investigative journalism; and/or
  
  
• that it is hypocritical for a filmmaker who purports to care about the environment to accept funding from a party with a financial stake in an industry that is itself an environmental hazard; and/or
  
  
• that Fox is somehow on the side of keeping America dependent upon foreign energy, as opposed to energy independence, and therefore represents a viewpoint that is un-American or unpatriotic.

The thing is, but for O'Keefe's deception, there would be a degree of truth in the first two points above. It is always legitimate at least to question the motives and/or objectivity of a film that purports to be an exposé when the production of that film has been financed in any way by parties with a vested interest in the subject the film explores. Such financing doesn't necessarily negate the truth that the film presents, but it does cause the question to be asked, and quite legitimately so. That said, however, Fox's film didn't actually receive that financing, the party offering it was fictitious in any case, Fox did not actually to do anything other than meet to talk about the possibility of such funding for one or more of his projects, and thus it cannot be said that vested interests actually had any influence of the content of the film in question.

As to the point about hypocrisy, again it's all kind of moot since there was no agreement, and neither the party nor its funds actually existed. All it really proves is that, as documentary filmmakers, Fox and his wife are always pretty desperate for funding (as are virtually all documentary filmmakers), and thus were (indeed, by their own admission), a little too eager to bite when the bait was dangled in front of them. That doesn't actually prove they are hypocrites -- it proves they were desperate to fund their projects.

As for the third point above, the response should be, of what value is 'energy independence' if the cost of attaining it is to foul our water and despoil the environment? And further, it should be noted that setting this up as an either/or choice between the oil and natural gas industries is, in fact, a false dilemma. Opposition to one doesn't imply opposition to the other.