Details from the Wikipedia article:

A number of critics connected the film's reception to its unusual distribution and minimal promotion, which several reviews treated as part of the story of how it reached audiences.[d] Empire'sreviewer detailed Fox's decision not to screen the film for critics and its sparse theatrical rollout, portraying this handling as a major reason the film was not widely seen at the time.[31]The Slate writer framed the release pattern as a form of institutional discomfort with the film's targets, presenting the quiet rollout as consistent with a satire that attacks corporate and media power.[30] Film Threat's reviewer likewise emphasized the limited release and lack of advertising, contrasting that treatment with what the review described as a genuinely funny film and interpreting the mismatch as evidence of tension between the filmmaker and the studio.[37] The Los Angeles Times and the Austin Chronicle both described the film as effectively dumped, with the latter suggesting that this kind of dismissive handling resembled the institutional stupidity that the film itself lampoons.[28][33]