The title incorrectly conveys the essence of the film, because the film is not about some radicals with swastikas on their sleeve or about KKK, but, surprisingly, about the main television channel of the Republican Party of the United States. Perhaps someone in connection with this raises a reasonable question: does the film say something about the media of the Democratic party of the United States? The answer is no. In other words, the film shows how one-sided/partisan the Republican media is, but nothing, absolutely nothing, says about exactly the same media Democrats (not in the sense of belonging, but in the sense of who is more sympathetic). In this connection, there is a sense of the apparent absence of an important element and this feeling is so strong that I could not understand whether other viewers did not notice it.
The film tells how the father of the family “sucked” on the Republican propaganda mouthpiece and that he, in connection with this, became more aggressive, more intolerant and in general impossible to communicate with him. There are many such stories in the film, but we will be told in detail only about one family, about one person. So we're told that this person doesn't want to hear anything that would contradict the views of FoxNews and other pro-Republican media. We are even shown examples of how theory (propaganda) is implemented in practice (on the example of FoxNews, of course). I’m going to say this: does the audience, who gave the film high ratings, have doubts that the opposite side also takes advantage of this? Or do they genuinely believe that only the Republicans use bad methods of manipulation and the Democrats have nothing to do with it? According to the film, only those who watch exclusively FoxNews become aggressive and that only they become intolerant of other people, but Trump’s election (without regard for his attitude) and his entire presidency showed that Democrats are becoming just as intolerant. I didn’t see much of the “tolerance” in Antifa’s antics in the US and the BLM movement. Yes, FOX is one-sided. But CNN is not a neutral party. I remember Trump for a reason, because throughout his presidency, CNN did nothing but attack him. The question here is not whether Trump was right, but whether CNN coverage was neutral. Did viewers who watched exclusively CNN become as intolerant as FOX viewers became? The film does not address these questions at all. Judging by the film, all the evil from FOX and other than FOX there are no other media (which can be criticized for the way the coverage and presentation of the material) and no.
Yes, I agree with the idea that you can’t get news from just one source, and that in a democratic society you need to use multiple sources to have balanced and truthful information. For example, I love watching FoxNews YouTube, but I also subscribe to many other media outlets, including FRANCE 24, MSNBC, Sky, ABC News. Of course, it is not necessary to watch them all, but for a complete and most truthful assessment of a particular event, it is best to get acquainted with several opinions and then judge what happened. The movie doesn’t tell you – look at different sources. He says don't watch the Republican media. But what should a Republican party supporter watch if there are no others?
It is noteworthy that towards the end of the film, relatives, while the head of the family was in the hospital, included several democratic media in his list of daily reads by him, thanks to which - this moment struck me - he became less aggressive, became more interested in a pro-democracy view of politics and, eventually, became a supporter of the US Democratic Party. This is the Happy End. You just need to understand that we are talking about a very old man, a man over 90. And it's particularly funny that we're being shown a ninety-year-old man who changed his mind so quickly when his relatives included a few democratic media outlets on his list of readable information resources. I think it is no secret that older people, without proper training, become as trusting as children and therefore to give such an example is very incorrect. Many elderly people may fall into senile insanity and we will demonstrate this as an example of all mankind? Judging by the movie, it is quite possible. At the end of his life, the man changed his mind, not because it was his conscious choice, but because he had been deceived. But could he have changed his mind without this manipulation? Probably not, because the condition of this person indicated noticeable mental changes and not for the better.
In short, the film can be blamed for what the film’s author accuses FoxNews of manipulating the viewer and deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Not only does the author say nothing about the opposite political camp, but he also cites as an example a deep old man who, unlike the recently deceased King of Great Britain at the age of 99, has obvious mental problems. Showing this man and talking - that's what FoxNews does to people - is disgusting and disgusting, not only to the viewer, but also to his own father.
Perhaps the only thing you can find in this film is the understanding that in any country, even with strong democratic institutions, there are propaganda organizations for the benefit of some group of people. I mean not only the political propaganda of different parties, but also the propaganda of public organizations and commercial structures. Corporations pay huge sums of money to have their agenda slip into the open mind of the viewer, without the label of "propaganda" or "advertising." And this is the main thing you need to understand and know about today’s world, in which, thanks to the Internet (and if you have knowledge of a foreign language), hundreds if not thousands of different information resources in many different languages have appeared and appear, each of which may be someone’s interests. This does not mean that you should fall into paranoia and see a conspiracy everywhere. You just need to be able to filter information, and learn to listen to different points of view on the same question and then form your opinion (rather than copy the opinions of others). And that's what the movie doesn't teach. On the contrary, acting as a classical propagandist, he points to only one thing, saying that all the troubles are because of him.