It's weird being both a prop in a media event and also a filmmaker covering it.
But Boston 2004 is a weird thing.

It seems that what can, and what can't be photographed is backwards.

Our first night here - Sunday - before the convention began, we were shooting sights and sounds and ended up at a Rock The Vote event at a night club called "Avalon" next to Fenway park. The crowd was big, the street teaming with people, and the club a 'no-picture' zone. Not because of RTV -but the club owners who said that they'd been sued too many times buy patrons who'd had their pictures taken. Each person entering was searched for cameras. And each person had a cell phone (most with cameras). Once inside DJ BizMarkee was great- and Al Sharpton was very strong. And I would have used the pictures in the film for sure. But nope.

Then Monday night - at the Fleet Center - cameras were EVERYWHERE. DV, beta, 24p, 16mm, all shooting everything that moved. The funny hats the speeches, each other.

It was more than a media free for all. It was a technology free for all. There were bloggers. There were DV crews for ABC news. There were wireless laptops. Everyone was wired. And everyone was taking pictures. When speakers roused the audience, a sea of cell phones was at the ready. Click Click Click.

Whatever Avalon thinks - picture taking isn't going to be ruled out of existence. It's going to be the order of the day - and that's clear in Boston.

Now all we need to do is remember that America is a free speech zone - not a cage off on a dirt parking lot. But that's a debate for another day... I'm off to hear John Edwards

Why are networks using 'Reality" in place of drama? What does it mean for the documentary genre?

No one seems to think that using the world 'reality' to represent staged, faked, cast, scripted, re-enacted programming will have any long term effect on the planet.

After all, the FDA makes sure that 'Organic" and "All Natural" mean something. But no one manages the labels in the media.

But when Real means Fake - how do viewers know the difference?

Michael Moore had the temerity to go on the Today Show and answer the first softball question from Katie Couric "So Michael, why did you make this movie" with the answer "Katie, because you didn't do your job."

Wow. Hardly an 'invite me back' response.

But the truth is that the media is a villain in F 9/11 for sure. And by the way - was a villain in the last election's "Journey's With George" as well.

You see - in the past it was the Governments job to stage mange, manipulate, cast, and fake events. It was the media's job to deconstruct it.

But now networks have gotten into the act - using real people as low paid chumps and using time honored documentary non-fiction techniques to create an aura of visceral reality.

The concern about 'stealing' isn't new. It's Hollywood. If you own it prove it. If we steal it - get a lawyer. We'll settle if you have deep enough pockets and can afford to never work with us again.

(sidebar - one of the great ironies for producers is that if you sue, are completely in the right, and win - you're still considered on a black list for taking on a network. No one likes when the vendor talks back to the client - right or wrong).

But back to reality. Reality has put the final nail in the coffin of network news. Programs have already devolved in a series of franchise gimmicks and showbiz clichés. If networks label 'fake' as 'real' then how do we know what their standards are? Ever watch "the restaurant." Great show. Dramatic, fun, shocking. So - why can't we mount a camera in Martha's cell? Call it "Celebrity Incarceration".

Can she get out early with good behavior and some strategic baking? Tune in!

Entertainment vs. Information.

I read that many people coming out of Michael Moore's film F 911 said they 'enjoyed it.' I'm not sure that is the reaction of viewers from OutFoxed.

Because the facts presented are pretty much facts in plain view. Fox hasn't really made any secret of it's politics, or it's tone, or it's agenda. Much like lots of consumer marketing "Fair and Balanced" plays like "New and Improved" or "Order Before Midnight Tonight' we know it's a come on.

So why is OutFoxed successful? We'll for one thing - it's about the media. Television in particular. And for a documentary to bite the media hand that feeds it (or hypes it - or hates it) is dangerous.

How will people hear about OutFoxed? Will it get 'buzz' - or will it simply get snowed under by the Martha news or the Campaign clatter?

Well - if you check Robert Greenwald's track record - it may not matter. Because direct DVD publishing is really a revolution in the making. It's not platform releasing... it's slow motion word of mouth. It's a series of concentric circles that allow films to get talked about, blogged, linked, forwarded, and stay a part of the public discussion for as long as the material is pertinent.

That's a major shift.

No longer does a film like OutFoxed need to "Open" and "Close" in the way that we think of distribution.

And that's pretty important.

Because Greenwald sold more than 100,000 copies of his last film. And he'll do even more on this one.

That's worthwhile data for anyone who wants to work in difficult (non-studio) subject areas.

Check out www.OutFoxed.com