Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
SUMMARY: During a segment in which Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head.
On the July 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," claiming that Steinberg's June 28 article on the "ominous trend" in Fox News' ratings was a "hit piece." During the segment, however, Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head. Fox News gave no indication that the photos had been altered.
After putting up the photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe, Fox & Friends also featured a photograph of Steinberg's face superimposed over that of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over that of the man holding the poodle's leash.
Below is a screenshot of Fox & Friends featuring the photo it used of Steinberg, with the original photo on its left. Comparing the two photos, it appears that the following changes have been made: Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further.
Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News and the original photo suggests that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back.
From the July 2 edition of Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: And before we go today, something's been bugging me. A couple of days --
KILMEADE: Well, go back outside.
DOOCY: We will. A couple of days ago, when most newspapers in America were doing these positive stories about how Fox News Channel, once again, number one --
KILMEADE: Like the LA Times.
DOOCY: -- for many, many years. There was a hit piece by somebody in The New York Times. The writer was a fellow by the name of Jacques Steinberg, and he's been doing a bunch of attack stories on Fox News Channel. Well, there's some backstory to it, and that is this: His boss, the guy who assigned him to this, is a fellow by the name of Steven Reddicliffe, and Mr. Reddicliffe actually used to work for this company. He worked -- I think he was the editor in charge of TV Guide until circulation went down under his tenure --
KILMEADE: Right.
DOOCY: -- something like, 40 percent. So, he got fired, and according to Radar Online, this guy has had an ax to grind.
KILMEADE: Yeah, he does, because, I think, Steve, according to reports -- according to Radar and another online magazine -- he was making close to a million dollars here, and now with his new job --
DOOCY: Yeah.
KILMEADE: -- he's making significantly less. How about a tenth of that?
DOOCY: So, anyway, Radar says he's had an ax to grind, and that's why he sends his attack dog Jacques Steinberg out -- that fellow right there, the writer for The New York Times -- to do these hit pieces. So, he essentially is his attack dog. His -- his poodle, if you will.
KILMEADE: So --
DOOCY: Oooh! Very, very nice.
KILMEADE: -- Radar Online has unlocked the mystery. And there you go, because that story was oddly in the Arts section of The New York Times, in the Sunday Times.
DOOCY: Anyway, we just thought we'd -- cute. I wonder if he's going to show him at Westminster this year.
KILMEADE: I'm not really sure. We know a beagle won last year, and this -- he's dressed as a poodle.
Of course it is.
FOX is a classless operation...but I do wonder how the Jewish employees of FOX feel when they see tings like this.
Must be difficult holding in their feelings or disgust.
HA HA HA HA HA HA ! My god that is so damned funny. I'm SURE they were trying to incite racism. HA HA HA HA HA
I guess the Left would have been fine with placing their faces in a jar of urine right? What if Fox claims artistic expression as a defense? Sucks to be a liberal when your own tactics are spit right back at you.
Lighten up people. There are far bigger fish to fry than making fun of someone. After all, this is all that Olbermann does for a living, so what's the big deal?
The fact that you are too ignorant to understand that Fox doesn't get to claim artistic license when they distorted these people's photos to make them look uglier and scarier than they really are doesn't surprise me.
They don't have the right, as a News organization, to make a personal attack on these people. That's what photoshopping those pictures is - a personal attack.
Top that off with the fact that Fox was saying that the people they did this to were "attack dogs", and it's a classic example of hypocrisy. Fox was the attack dog. These reporters talked about the facts in viewership changes between Fox, MSNBC and CNN, and how Fox isn't doing as well as they have in the past.
The fact that you start your response with an insult proves to me that you can't separate your emotions from the facts.
I am not saying that Fox is exercising artistic license. I am simply pointing out how something that offends one person might be perceived differently by another. I was offended by the Crucifix in Urine. You are offended by attacks on journalists.
Tell me, are those pictures any worse than what has been displayed or said by Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews? Who determines who has the right to attack anyone? What exactly is an attack? Where is the line between attack and politically protected free speech and satire drawn? Steve Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bill Mahr et al all have crossed lines.
Is it perhaps that in this particular case it is a supposedly conservative network poking the fun? Who really cares what Fox & Friends thinks? They are not much different than The View in my opinion.
My main point was to point out the hypocrisy of how the left will claim racis, at the drop of a hat, unless it happens to be incited by their favorite presidential candidate.
I am not saying that Fox is exercising artistic license.
You sure suggested that they could legitimately do so when you said "What if Fox claims artistic expression as a defense?", and so I said "The fact that you are too ignorant to understand that Fox doesn't get to claim artistic license when they distorted these people's photos to make them look uglier and scarier than they really are doesn't surprise me." You demonstrate your ignorance again by thinking you're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes by denying that!
I am simply pointing out how something that offends one person might be perceived differently by another.
It's a personal attack from Fox News. If that doesn't offend you, that a news organization made a personal attack upon two men who published a report that you and they didn't like, that makes you ignorant and a jackass. I get offended by anyone or any group who makes a personal attack on another person instead of addressing the issues. Just call me a decent human being. Personal attacks aren't okay, even if I don't like the person being attacked.
What exactly is an attack? Where is the line between attack and politically protected free speech and satire drawn?
This is a news channel - did you miss that? Is your ignorance so pervasive that you can't understand the difference between Stephen Colbert and Fox News? This isn't a free speech issue, and lastly, if you can't see that making these reporters look ugly is an attack, you have a terrible moral compass - take it out of your butt right now.
Is it perhaps that in this particular case it is a supposedly conservative network poking the fun? Who really cares what Fox & Friends thinks? They are not much different than The View in my opinion.
Okay, so now, since you think it isn't a big deal, that negates it totally?
My main point was to point out the hypocrisy of how the left will claim racism, at the drop of a hat, unless it happens to be incited by their favorite presidential candidate.
Not only is what you say not true, but it has nothing to do with Fox News smearing these two reporters with personal attacks. It's wrong no matter who does it. Only ignorant people would think that it's okay for some, but not okay for others. Get out the mirror, because the ignorant person who thinks hypocrisy is okay is staring right back at ya!
Let me help you understand. The Crucifix in Urine was a piece of art. This was a so-called news report. You don't seem to understand that news is not suppose be about doctoring photos. I don't understand how one can justify this action at all, in anyway. When satirical shows do this kind of stuff it is different as well because they don't claim to be news. I don't understand why you think this is hypocracy.
You make no sense. It seems you are comparing a freedom of expression argument of art exhibits with journalistic accuracy and integrity. You think journalism and art are the same thing (or even analogous in any way)? I suppose you wouldn't mind a little touch up on your favored candidates then? You cannot really be that stupid. Can you?
Open mind....
Think about it, how bright is the target market of this type of propaganda and mis-information....or the Swift boating of John Kerry?
There is the lazy market which unfortunately is becoming much of America. Where their ignorance stems from not taking the time to fact check....this is why the chain emails are so effective, many are lazy and accept what ever they see, read, or are told. There is always hope for the lazy, as they might change if they given a chance to see the truth, discuss both sides or review the facts.
There are the ignorant who are devout followers, who don't want to think for themselves. They want to believe anything fed to them by their leader, political party, group affiliation, church, etc.. If their candidate is a proven liar and scoundrel they will vote for him/her because they have to be sure to vote for the one they are told is best, or will follow their beliefs best.
I think the last are the ignorant whose lives are ruled by anger, fear, prejudice, racism, etc.. They would believe anything said about anyone who they feel is not one of them; religious beliefs, race, gender, or doesn't fit their idea of patriotism, guns, national defense, right to life, etc..
Great post. Absolutely true.
The unfortunate part of that particular argument is that it can be labeled "elitist", by the cynical bastards who are smart enough to see it coming. I have heard Limbaugh defend it that way. "See? Liberal elitists think you're stupid!"
Or is open debate with a conservative not up your alley?
Once you show us one capable of open debate, we'll be glad to do so.
Puh-LEASE!!! Step off of the ego express for just a moment!
How long ahve you been a member at MMFA? My cann0nba11 name is a reference and tip of the hat to Cannonball Adderley, one of my musical idols. Please get over yourself. I've been posting at MMFA for a long time, just ask SOLON. He and I have traded posts for quite a while.
Instead of poking fun at me, why don't you read my post on this subject. I don't usually post blog links here, but I think it makes sense in this case to defend MY name and perhaps deflate an ego on the process.
Prepare to be shocked at opinions contrary to the flavor of this site. I have repeatedly given MMFA props for allowing the flow of free speech and debate from all sides of the political spectrum, a concept quite foreign to the fine folks at DailyKOS.
http://cann0nba11.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/obama-and-wesley-clark/
By looking on google, I see "cann0nba11" posts here at Media Matters from early 2007.
Have you been around that long, Cannonball?
cann0nba11 (zero not oh, one, not el) is my id. I'm not sure when my first post was, but a google search found me one from March of 2007 and an earlier reference to me defending glenn beck from Dec of 2006.
Has cannonball (all letters, no numbers) been around that long? Seriously, I'm not trying to steal someone's ID here. I've asked this before but didn't see a response from cannonball.
Can you share with us when you joined MMFA?
The point isn't what would make Liberal's happy, the point is what they did is ethically wrong, and what they did was not only unprofessional, but it was really childish.
As for your urine alnology - it doesn't work because its Post Hoc Ergo Promptor Hoc logic (faulty logic, "Therefore because of this"). Not only are comparing two completly unrelated events, but the action of one doesn't justify the other.
Perhaps you should take the advice of Abrham Lincoln: "Its one thing to be thought a fool, it something else to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
I teach Adobe Photoshop and other software retouching software.
While the journalistic aspects of this are appalling, the other thing that is so sad is that the retouching skills are quite poor.
Most of my first-week students working in Photoshop can do a MUCH better job.
i hope media matters forwards this to the adl and every other jewish org in the country. proof positive that the right is filled with nazis and jew haters
Everynight we get to see people in unflattering, touched up photos for his segments
Unflattering and altered are two different things. Olbermann uses unflattering actual photographs. Fox alters pictures to resemble most egregious Jewish stereotypes.
Wow, just when I thought Fox could not possibly sink any lower. I haven't seen journalistic ethics this high since Pravda.
Tell me which is worse:
a) displaying a blatantly obvious charicature of two reporters for a story
b) reporting fradulent documents documents as fact to slight a sitting president
Although that's hardly the issue, let's play that game.
Both are poor journalism. The first is a deliberate attempt to distort the images (literally) of opponents. The second is a failure to vet sources. The first is an incident of malice. The second is incompetence.
Which is more deserving of punishment, malice or incompetence? I would certainly say the former. However, let's say for the sake of argument that both are equally bad, or at least that it's debatable. Since Dan Rather lost his job because of it, shouldn't these two also be sent packing (or the managing editor, or the graphics hacks--lets face it, it's pretty crappy Photoshop work)?
On another note, you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to imply that there is a difference in terms of the target of the reporting (journalists vs. a sitting President). Why exactly should a President be afforded greater protection against misrepresentation than others?
Presenting lies based on fabricated documents to a national audience is a blatant attempt to undermine the power of the most powerful office on Earth. It is meant to drum up additional support against the leader of our country. This is exponentially more serious than creating obvious parody photos of two spare journalists.
So yes, there is a difference and yes, a president should be afforded some additional respect. It's a foreign concept to most liberals... respect for authority. Clinton so tarnished the presidency that the current crop of liberals considers it standard fare. AND, before you go off on an emotional rant about me bashing Bill Clinton, please know that I voted for him in both presidential elections.
Bush's real record in the National Guard is something to be ashamed of.
It's not the newsman's fault that exposure of that history makes Bush look bad. It's Bush's fault for making a choice to fail to appear for a physical exam. It's Bush's fault for not showing up for multiple monthly required drills.
You can try to blame the messenger, as many on the right often do. It doesn't work here. We're smarter than that.
There was no reason for even the biggest Bush Hater in the world to forge documents of this nature. It was the total lack of any evidence that Bush did any service at all that was damning.
INGNORE THIS GUY CANNONBALL
And better yet-- tag his posts as trolling.
He came way late into the game in an obvious effort to derail the derogatory anti-FOX thread-- as did several others. He started a day later at the top of the thread and deliberately threw the MMFA article off-topic.
This is a tactic, folks, and the more readers flag these Republican a-holes to MMFA, the better off we will be. Otherwise, this thuggish behavior will become epidemic.
Carli honey, you are obviously confused. This isn't the anti-free speech "oh look a troll" site known as the Daily KOS. MMFA raises the bar and actually lets opposing viewpoints be heard. If you can't take opposing viewpoints, go crawl back under the anti-patriotic and completely hypocrtical rock run by Kos.
I guess you aren't much of a fan of free speech, huh? If an opinion is contrary to yours you choose to muzzle it? I must be a troll since I posted an opposing viewpoint? I didn't derail this thread, I simply chose to point out the irony of a liberal group complaining about obvious photoshop jobs. Some idiot with an overinflated ego took this in a different direction because he thought I was deliberately copying his user id. (he still hasn't bothered to share how long he's been posting here).
I also stated that Fox is taking a beating from its audience for posting the photos. It was stupid, but just one of many stupid things done by news shows on either end of the political spectrum.
Grow up and try defending your position for once instead of whining to mommy to make the scary opinion go away.
"Professional journalism" my foot.
This is Fox News. Made for and by a bunch of overgrown children.
I tend to hang out at conservative sites (as evidient by my posted opinions). You shouild see the ripping of Fox that is taking place at HotAir . com. See, we are able to shred stupid comments no matter where they come from. The vast majority of posts at Hot Air are equally damning of Fox News as those posted here.
See? There ARE some things we can agree on. :-)
Rush NEVER pretends he's an average guy because there is nothing average about him (like say olbermaniac) whatsoever! U libs R so envious of EVERYONE'S money it's amusing to watch and listen to you.
Long after the Olbermans of the world are gone Rush will still be remembered by conservatives (and libs - since SO MANY of you listen to him!) as an entertaining individual who just happens to be right about most things political.
At least Olbermann was able to keep his sweet sweet gig at ESPN as long as he wanted it. Plus he has anchored Countdown a lot longer than Rush had his pathetic TV show. Rush wishes he had that prestige. Still, he has his money...
...and his fans.
hmmm
It's enough to make one practice their second amendment rights on themselves.
Not me, I am just envious at how stupid Republans can be...call me crazy but I will never reach the level of bliss that you nust enjoy.
P.S. We, libs understand that not all Republans are wealthy. How could you even think that? The Cons just use the TrailRepubs for votes. Any them thar folk ain't reich
Anybody can photoshop these days:
http://www.democrats.com/files/images/mccain_bush_hug.jpg
The question is: why would a purported news organization do it?
Another reason why I don't watch them.
Whoever made the decision to put those doctored photos on the air should be fired.
May as well try to inject Olbermann into the deal --
EHH????
Look! Over here! Never mind the accident, there's dog-poop on the sidewalk! HEY! Over HERE ....
Yup. KO's crew has photoshopped every right-wing dingdong in the Military Industrial Media.
If not for you, I'd never have had it "pointed out to me."
Thank you so much.
Count the Republican and Democratic parties as one, however, and it might be a tie.
I have a friend who's a Libertarian. He always counts the Democratic and Republican parties as one.....
I understand the idea, and perhaps I agree with it in a lot of respects -- but the GOP has been the face of, and the front for, disgusting, failed right-wing ideas for decades.
Ehh??
But the past 30 years' tactics -- with the abject complicity of the Military Industrial Media ....
Photoshopped caricatures are common enough, even ugly, crude ones.
<>But it's very unusual to caricature someone whose face isn't already well known.
Most people who saw this segment had no idea what the two journalists portrayed actually look like, other than these grotesque photoshopped images. That's the new low that FoxNews has established here.
<> <>Tommy,
That's not the point..... this thread is about FOX Noise's attempt at pure dishonesty.... NOT KO and whatever potential dishonest you see in him!
MMfA didn't inject KO as a comparison.... for good reason, they don't want to take away from the point of this discussion. Which is Fox Noise's inability to do the right thing.... ever!
Your injecting KO into this argument is very weak and an obvious attempt to simply show your personal hatred of him..... keep with the actual thread's concept and keep non-relevant issues of this thread out... like KO!
Tommy, I just want to be sure I understand your point about a 'double-standard'. As far as I know, the only time Olbermann uses altered photographs is in his Worst Person in the World segment, and they are cartoonishly obvious distortions presented on cartoonishly characatures of Polaroid snapshots. They also appear in a segment with an absurdly exaggerated title.
In this case, Fox digitally simply altered the photographs of these two men to make them appear ugly: they didn't add eyepatches, they didn't make any reference to what they were doing, and the photographs weren't presented any differently than any other photographs on their show.
If you're implying that MMFA or anyone else is turning a blind eye to Olbermann, then you're equating the two presentations, and I cannot understand how you fail to see a major qualitative distinction between the two cases. I'm more than open to accepting that there may be a double-standard here, but you haven't explained what that double-standard might be.
Oh look a squirrel! :-)
That being said, contrary to popular opinion, 98% of the FOX News shows I watch, I see here. :-)
I've more than thirty years of working on images, I've never seen such a poor job of photo manipulation. Those tabloids showing Bush seeking the endorsement of the Bat Boy are more real looking than this.
Both photos have been stretched from top to bottom causing the guys to have longer faces. Then at least in the case of Steinberg the chin and nose have been widened. Since these two distortions are not one move, in fact they're two exact opposite functions, it's proof that the pictures were deliberately distorted.
If you look closely at his hairline, after they distorted the height of the picture, they cloned the hairline. The two waves in his hair in the doctored photo now repeat.
And the Reddicliffe picture is just pathetic. I've taught my ten year old grand daughter to do better work than this.
What's the "ominous trend" in Fox's ratings?
I'd love to see these clowns start losing buckets of money.
C'mon, King. You've never seen a sloppier job of photoshopping?
One of my favorites too, WK. That's why I just can't bring myself to delete it.
These doctored photos remind me of one of the first times I saw Fox news, after giving up cable for several years.They had one of those split screens where the guests weren't in the studio, with the conservative on one side and the liberal on the other.
The cons background was a light blue with very subtle white areas, barely visible, but giving the effect of wispy clouds in a clear sky. He was lit very nicely.
The libs background was a deep red, and he seemed to be lit from below, like when you used to hold the flashlight under your chin while telling ghost stories.
It was just short of adding a halo and horns, and it wasn't on one of their "comedy" shows, it was on a so-called "news" show. That's what made a fan outta me!
You can always spot when someone is telling the truth when some hack at Fox "News" calls it an "attack piece".
Steve,
If so, then the Daily Show and Coulbert Report would be the first to be sued.
I seriously doubt anyone would consider Fox and Friends a news show. I only tuned to it a couple of times and found those guys trying to hard to be funny. Not strictly news but not funny. This is a classic example
They look to me to be more like a second tier radio morning show that someone put on the air.
Huh?
They do call themselves "Fox News" and "Fair and Balanced, right? You're saying "Fox News" does not do 24 hour "NEWS" programing? ...Well, we can all agree with that. The problem is, Fox Clowns and Friends are full of _ _it all the time. The photographs were doctored in a subtle way. Kieth Olberman's Countdown uses manipulation but it's obvious. Bill O's big HEAD, for example. In Worsts, he uses real photos WITHOUT manipulation.
AA: "I seriously doubt anyone would consider Fox and Friends a news show."
Is that because the show is called "Fox and Friends" or because it's on the Fox News Channel?
AA, don't you think there would have been an uproar if a conservative's photograph had been distorted and presented without any commentary about the distortion on Good Morning America or the Today Show? And those morning shows aren't even on "news channels". What exactly makes Fox and Friends exempt from broadcast standards?
In daily show and in other contexts it's obvious when something is a caricature. Here, the photo's are not. I've never seen those fellows before, and probably would've taken the photos at face value. I'm sure there is No claim here, but was just looking to see if anyone had any clever angles . . .
I'm waiting for some apologist to say that the pics were just a joke.
I realize it's Fox, but how the hell did Doocy get a job in the first place?
Oh, and don't forget to pick up his massive best selling tome: The Mr. and Mrs. Happy Handbook
They were so badly rehearsed, as if right before air time one of them decides what to say, the bottle blonde says 'you know he used to work here', and the other one going ' he used to make a million dollars and now he makes a 1/10 of that, with an axe to grind'. I've seen cable access shows with better dialog.
Basically it reminded me of a high school prank.
I think I found an accurate depiction of Steve Doocy:
Yow! Am I politically engaged yet!
"So goes the pinhead vote,so goes the nation." Reputed quote from Emile Gazachorn Surrealistic President of the United States Ret. circa 2000.
LOL, but it needs a more apt slogan...
THIS...IS... HUGE!!!!
Iran-Contra’s ‘Lost Chapter’
by Robert ParryAs historians ponder George W. Bush’s disastrous presidency, they may wonder how Republicans perfected a propaganda system that could fool tens of millions of Americans, intimidate Democrats, and transform the vaunted Washington press corps from watchdogs to lapdogs.
To understand this extraordinary development, historians might want to look back at the 1980s and examine the Iran-Contra scandal’s “lost chapter,” a narrative describing how Ronald Reagan’s administration brought CIA tactics to bear domestically to reshape the way Americans perceived the world.
That chapter — which we are publishing here for the first time — was “lost” because Republicans on the congressional Iran-Contra investigation waged a rear-guard fight that traded elimination of the chapter’s key findings for the votes of three moderate GOP senators, giving the final report a patina of bipartisanship
They should be hit by the FCC for this !! This is SERIOUS stuff. How many such things HAVEN'T been caught.
Fax News should have its license to use the Public airwaves threatened for stuff like this - unless they are willing to present themselves as an Entertainment network rather than a News one.
"Under that compromise, a few segments of the draft chapter were inserted in the final report’s Executive Summary and in another section on White House private fundraising, but the chapter’s conclusions and its detailed account of how the “perception management” operation worked ended up on the editing room floor.
The American people thus were spared the chapter’s troubling finding: that the Reagan administration had built a domestic covert propaganda apparatus managed by a CIA propaganda and disinformation specialist working out of the National Security Council.
“One of the CIA’s most senior covert action operators was sent to the NSC in 1983 by CIA Director [William] Casey where he participated in the creation of an inter-agency public diplomacy mechanism that included the use of seasoned intelligence specialists,” the chapter’s conclusion stated.
“This public/private network set out to accomplish what a covert CIA operation in a foreign country might attempt - to sway the media, the Congress, and American public opinion in the direction of the Reagan administration’s policies.”
However, with the chapter’s key findings deleted, the right-wing domestic propaganda operation not only survived the Iran-Contra fallout but thrived.
So did some of the administration’s collaborators, such as South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon and Australian press mogul Rupert Murdoch, two far-right media barons who poured billions of dollars into pro-Republican news outlets that continue to influence Washington’s political debates to this day.
Before every presidential election, Moon’s Washington Times plants derogatory — and often false — stories about Democratic contenders, discrediting them and damaging their chances of winning the White House.
For instance, in 1988, the Times published a bogus account suggesting that the Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis had undergone psychiatric treatment. In 2000, Moon’s newspaper pushed the theme that Al Gore suffered from clinical delusions. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]
As for Murdoch, his giant News Corp. expanded into American cable TV with the founding of Fox News in 1996. Since then, the right-wing network has proved highly effective in promoting attack lines against Democrats or anyone else who challenges the Republican power structure.
Exactly what was needed at these posts. And, even more important, this points up the very mission statement of MMFA: to report and uncover misinformation and lies by the main stream media. In fact the name of this blog is a sentence. "Media MATTERS for America." We all tend to be appalled at Fox, often ignoring the swill presented as "news" by the other networks. Often too-respected newspapers and magazines get a pass on their slanted presentations because of their longer history and lofty positions afforded their beginnings. We have accepted their "gaffs", "misspeaks", and "honest mistakes" far too long. MMFA performs a vital service: this is what was said or printed. This is what was really said. These are the facts that were ignored or bent to serve an agenda and to fool the public. Thank God for the internet where we can at least read and see other points of view that expose our usual diet of "official" media.
lol, how can these people still have the right to air that kind of stuff.
priceless.
in a sad way.
Therein lies our strength as a nation. We do not condone censorship, but we sure as HELL have to confront the liars with the thing they fear the most-accurate information.
Spin is their weapon, idiots their audience, victory their goal.
Every news organization worth it's salt ought to call Fox out on this.
I especially like the new big nose on the guy with the Jewish-sounding name.
Nice touch, Fox.
You swine.
Here's an interesting photo. It's a picture of George W. Bush, made from the pictures of American servicementand women who gave their lives for his illegal war:
It's posted several places on the "Internets", including www.lies.com.
For the record the Iraq War is not 'his' illegal war, but the country's perfectly legal war and approved by a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) which 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats voted for.
It is an appropriate response to a post-9/11 world. A reality that liberals REFUSE to accept. The rest of us deal in the real world rather than Fantasyland.
If the Democrats had ANY principles they could have filibustered in the Senate and defeated this resolution. But the Dems have NO principles. It's amazing you moronic liberals continue to support them. What does that say about you?
"It is an appropriate response to a post-9/11 world."
If by that you mean that in a post-9/11 world we can preemptively attack anyone we want without cause or reason, then...uh, sure...yeah, it was an appropriate response. After 9/11 I punched an Iraqi friend of mine in the face, and when he complained, I told him, "Hey, it's a post-9/11 world, so get used to it." For some reason though, he still doesn't seem like he's quite gotten used to it. You'd think he'd understand that it's perfectly appropriate to blindly lash out at anyone who looks a little too Middle Easterny. It just makes us feel better, right? Hey, Americans needed to lash out at somebody, so who better than people who sort of look and dress like the people who attacked us on 9/11, and who live in a country that's kinda close to the country that the actual attackers were from?
Clams said "You'd think he'd understand that it's perfectly appropriate to blindly lash out at anyone who looks a little too Middle Easterny."
IOKIYAR.
That's why they think it's okay to attack Obama for having Hussein as his middle name.
Just like John McCain doesn't deserve any credit towards being President because his plane got shot down - it wasn't something he did that earned him any credit, Barack Obama doesn't deserve any scorn because he has that middle name - it's nothing he did. People shouldn't look down at people with brown skin - it's nothing they did, for god's sake, it's how they were born.
It's not okay to lash out at people with brown skin. It's not okay to invade an uninvolved country because we were attacked on 9/11. It's not okay for Ann Coulter to always call Barack Obama "Hussein", and then try to justify it by saying that we called Dan Quayle "J Danforth Quayle". Dan Quayle went by the shortened version of his middle name - the more formal version of his name was J Danforth Quayle. That's what you do when people use their middle names instead of their first names. It doesn't justify what Ann Coulter does, and it's not okay to lash out at someone just because they look Middle Easterny, and it's not okay to justify our invasion of Iraq because of 9/11.
Since Bush knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq before he invaded, he violated the resolution Congress passed by proceeding with the invasion - he did not follow their mandate. Congress is not guilty - Bush is. Iraq is worse off today than it was 5 years ago because of Bush, not because of Congress.
Noleft,
Just how is the response appropriate. Also, just because there is a resolution, does that mean every law passed by Congress is legal?
We're the ones with no principles. But you thump your chest and pound your keyboard in support of the fiasco as Americans are fighting and dying for something you support with your words and your keystrokes.
Get back to us after you've put something other than words and keystrokes on the line.
For the record the Iraq War is not 'his' illegal war, but the country's perfectly legal war and approved by a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) which 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats voted for. -So Right He's Wrong.
I don't care what resolution was passed. When you tell a country you're going to war to find weapons of mass destruction and none are found, you are, in my opinion a liar! Secondly, you conservative liars want to link 9-11 to Iraq like it's still 2001. Get a clue. Osama Bin Laden is still out there chillin. We could find Saddam hiding in a hole in the ground, but we can't find the 6 foot Arab, who gave you the reason to go into Iraq in the first place. You cowards make me sick! It's real easy to type 1,000's of miles away about resolutions. Meanwhile your ass isn't out there with bullets flying past your head for a bogus war. You live in peaceful America. War was brought to a country for bogus reasons. Meanwhile you type about resolutions in your nice safe neck of the woods, right? Keep blogging.
If the Democrats had ANY principles they could have filibustered in the Senate and defeated this resolution. But the Dems have NO principles. It's amazing you moronic liberals continue to support them. What does that say about you?- No Morals Left
Your entire post is disgusting. You must be a HAAAAARD Core Republican to post that garbage. What does that say about us?? LOL. What does it say about you who support the MURDER of our servicemen and women sent to protect this country? What does it say about you who support innocent Iraqi children dying for a bogus weapons charge? What does it say about you who, from what I gathered in that garbage you posted, will support another four years of unneccessary MURDER of our servicemen and women? You're a coward who types 1,000's of miles away in his/her safe abode. Don't talk about filibusters until you have a child, or you yourself are willing to go over there and fight. Coward!!
who cares if the pictures are altered, I see this all the time with so many people, and this is big news, come on everyone get over it, FOX NEWS is still #1, no matter in one age group that cnn and msnbc may beat them, but the overall ratings everytime for every show , FOX beats them both, everyone makes a big deal about olbermanns numbers, he is so low compared to FOX NEWS. they just cant do it, cnn and msnbc try and try and spin and spin, but they still lose in the end.. gosh such jealousy this guy at nyt has, they just hate it, and I do beleive that because his boss was fired or friend or whatever he is, this is steinberg's way of getting back. just makes him look petty. we all know the real facts
Are you always this clueless? You're okay with a news network making personal attacks on people in lieu of debating the issues and arguing about the points the reporters made? Here's a clue, they couldn't argue about the points, because the reporters made an honest report that simply told the story that Fox News doesn't have the same lead it once did.
Or is it okay because they're the biggest cable news network? With that kind of thinking, why don't we just cede control to China - after all, they're the biggest nation!
Most of us know the "real facts". You, on the other hand, know the "Fox facts". The real facts were in the report these journalists filed. The "Fox facts" were the distorted photos. Did you miss the real facts that the photos of these guys were distorted by Fox? Those are not real photos, and so Fox News didn't use "real facts" to debunk the "real facts" that the reporters used!
So, who cares? People who care about the truth, and care about real facts, that's who. Not you, you say? Good to know, but scary that you'd be so ignorant to admit that, for you, "Fox facts" are the preferred lies you like.
Fox "News" has never been anything but an upgraded version of GOP-TV, the B.S. news programming that used to air on Republican-friendly stations like the Albritton-owned D.C.-area NewsChannel 8.
Can we please get the other networks to stop treating Fox "News" as an equal? I guess as long as they have people like media kiss-up (I mean critic) Howard Kurtz, they will keep getting a pass.
Wow. It's almost like FoxNews "jumped the shark"-- this is more "FoxNews" than I expect even from FoxNews. But I know they will find a way to brush it off and keep their loyal listeners and giant share of the market. For example, the fact that they also showed the "obvious" photoshop of the man's head on the dog's body (a poodle too, how predictable), they will claim something like "These were ALL obvious photoshops, we weren't trying to deceive the public or slander these men! Anyone could see we had changed their faces, it's just like putting clown makeup on their photos!"
(And it is slander, if I am not mistaken, those guys should sue).
The great irony here is that Fox is made up of almost nothing but "attack dogs"-- Hannity, O'Reily, Fox & Friends, even E.D Hill and her "terrorist fist jab."
If Murdoch did indeed rein in his "terrorist fist bump" presenter he might well consider taking similar action in this case before Fox News loses all credibility.
Tony Edwards
Do you selectively edit posts on this site?
This PROVES (especially with the siren headline on HuffPuff) that the left has NO sense of humor.
This was totally intentional by FNC to poke fun at these two losers for "stretching the truth" and playing fast and loose with the facts about FNC.
Payback. Greg Gutfeld must be running more things behind the scenes than we are lead to believe.
You guys need to get over it; it was juvenile, yes, but its not news distortion or disrespectful. Its playing around. My Lord!
Look, I know Fox News never had journalistic standards to begin with, but this is an egregious error, even if they were just joking around. Either you alter the photos to an absurd degree to make a point, so the audience knows that's not what they really look like, or you at least explain that the photos were altered. Ever taken a college level photo-journalism course? First thing you learn is don't doctor the photos.
It's not one of their more important topics they've covered, but it's still within the guidelines.
Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
These pictures were distorted to make this people look more sinister and just plain uglier than they really are. They couldn't just dispute what they said, and prove how the reporters were wrong. They made personal attacks on this reporters by distorting their pictures.
Since when is it okay for a professional organization to make fun of the people whose arguments they're trying to refute? It's not. Making these reporters look uglier than they actually are is an inaccurate portrayal of them. It's not credible criticism of the reporters when they distort their features. It makes them a news source one can't trust to be reliable because they made fun of the way these guys look after their pictures were photoshopped.
HEY I WON MY $50 BET. JUST FILLED UP MY TANK. THANKS AGAIN RIGHT-WING MEDIA. HEY I SEE MSNBC WAS SO HAPPY TODAY WHEN THAT POLL CAME DOWN AND SHOWED MCCAIN UP 44 TO OBAMA 46. HEY I GUESS THIS POLL MEAN SOMETHING UNLIKE WHEN OABAM IS UP 6 POINTS THE MEDIA LIKES TO SAY THE ELECTION IS 4 MONTHS AWAY SO WE SHOULD NOT COUNT ON THE POLLS RIGHT NOW OR CAN WE BELIEVE THESE POLLS? AND DID YOU SEE CNN THEY WENT TO THE HUFFINGTON POST AND GOT THE WEAK STORY FROM THE POST ABOUT A LOAN OBAMA GOT AND DID A REPORT ON THE STORY BUT STILL NO REPORT ON MCCAIN NOT PAYING HIS TAXES. I LOVE IT. JUST GOT PAYED TODAY SO I DON'T NEED MONEY FOR MY GAS TANK SO I WON'T BE MAKING A BET ON HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE FOR MSNBC, CBS, FOX NEWS, ABCNEWS, AND NBC TO PICK UP ON THIS STORY.
If this is not blatant proof, as to what the FOX Network is willing to stoop to, I don't know what would be. This shows a purposeful disregard for the truth. This is not just an "exposure" or "f-stop" issue. Not a misplaced word, or something taken out of context. This, in my estimation, is an actionable offense. If I were either of these two guys, I'd be owning these sons-of-bitches.
What? Are you going to tell me this is the work of some impish miscreants?
I think the hell not!!! I think Rupert Murdoch's visa should be pulled. What right does a non-citizen have to exert this much negative effect, on a country not his own.
Remember, a doctored picture is worth a "couple" of thousand words.
What right does a non-citizen have to exert this much negative effect, on a country not his own.
Why don't you find one of the 20 million illegally invading parasites and ask them the same question?
http://cynicsparty.com/2008/07/01/obama-pandering-to-religious-fanatics-promises-jesus-crazy-administration/
THis is EVEN more disgusting.
I hate this!
Nope, the way to appeal to swing voters is to speak consistently from your values. That's what Obama does and that's why he will win.
McCain is such a flip-flopper for the very fact that he's trying to appeal to so called centrists. With his wishy washy wannabe language he leaves the conservative base alienated and gives off an impression of inauthenticity to swing voters.
The way to gather up the swing voters is to stay true to your roots.
And to LIKEWOW, your link is ridiculous. It provides nothing but innuendo; proof of nothing. You gotta do better than that if you wanna make it here.
Several years ago, I watched FOX news all the time, until one day it occurred to me that no one there knew very much and were obviously using script - not free thought. Sadly, I had yet to learn of 'corporate media' and the death of all journalism in this country. In the meantime, I roamed to other news channels - until one day I discovered the INTERNET and 'truth in blog'. Now I am fulltime Internet for all my information and cancelled most of my cable subscription. No news on TV ever serves my house - I want to know the truth or at least piece it together with facts from my fellow bloggers...
Nice to meet you!
Fox commentators (if you can call them that) have no journalism credentials other than having passed Hairdo 101. They are camera ready and not a brain amongst them.
Calling this an outrage is not even strong enough. This was a FOX attempt to push the boundaries and test what they could get away with. Anyone who is able to entertain the possibility that this is just bad taste and only coincidentally similar to Goebbels style propaganda - please wake up.
FOX is very, very dangerous.
How do you people fall for "they're a bunch of fratboys" and Bush is just an idiot. We have literally just watched (well, I chose to look at the pics only) FOX step into *genocide* territory. Not overreacting here - this is a huge deal.
1. Manipulating people's features to make them look more pronounced was crucial to both German and Rwandan genocide.
2. The comparison of your adversaries to animals was part of both German and Rwandan Genocide, where the Tutsis were like cockroaches.
But what is different right now is that FOX can repeat stuff that is historically so obvious and get away with weak criticisms like: being a shoddy news source, being tied to Republicans in a general sense, being in poor taste, being fratboys, etc.
Most everyone accepts that Fox is biased. Most everyone accepts that they are in bed with Rove et al. But this is a new development. And the more that they normalize stuff like this, the more they will continue to push it.
At some point when we all look back and acknowledge that we were wrong to eschew what was so, so obvious because we had been told over and over that "conspiracy theory" was for the crazies, we're going to feel like sh*t.
"they can see the end may well be nigh for the Repugs"
are you on crack? the great non-white hope of the dems has been forced into wearing a flag-pin, leaving his church, promising not to question the "patriotism" of his opponents, suggesting that he will extend the death penalty, extend domestic surveillance and increase faith-based initiatives.
oh, but the "repugs" are on the way out. can we please get over this incredibly stupid partisan-politics game, right now? libs making fun of Bush represents the greatest mistake of the past decade. the man was dangerous and libs stoked their egos by falling for some calculated ruse that he was an idiot. can we stop with it now? can we stop with the idea that FOX is what it is because its execs and anchors are stupid boars? FOX is part of a coup. and Murdoch and Ailes are real, real smart and real forward thinking. the grand liberal past-time of mocking the idiot-king and his friends turned out to be a disaster.
its just money. period. people with money that want more. that is the problem. it is not the "GOP" or the "repugs". it is the emergence of a new form of fascism, period. and if you point it out (the obvious) you immediately get smeared as a "tin foil hat" wearer. regardless, its still true.
guarantee that fox is going real strong a few months after obama is sworn in. and doubly guarantee that, for all intents and purposes, the big stuff changes not one bit during his time in power.
However, if the NYT and everyone else in the media were to stop taking FN so seriously, IGNORE it as the Roger Ailes Gong show, or better yet, and write some feature articles about the stupid commentaries and blatant lies on FN, make them look as silly as they certainly are, maybe then the rest of us might get a break from all this "controversy" and waste of news print.
Why leave it all the Keith Olbermann ? If the NYT is so teed off, give him a helping hand.
However, if the NYT and everyone else in the media were to stop taking FN so seriously, IGNORE it as the Roger Ailes Gong show, or better yet, and write some feature articles about the stupid commentaries and blatant lies on FN, make them look as silly as they certainly are, maybe then the rest of us might get a break from all this "controversy" and waste of news print.
Why leave it all the Keith Olbermann ? If the NYT is so teed off, give him a helping hand.
I don't know why you think we take them seriously.
We take the damage they do to our nation seriously. We take the misinformation they lead people to believe seriously. We take the venom they spew seriously. So should you.
Ignoring them barely works with some school-aged bullies. It didn't work with Rush Limbaugh, it didn't work with the SwiftBoatVets, and it doesn't work to ignore Fox News.
I'm not sure why you would be a serious liberal and think it would. They're the biggest cable news network with far more viewers than any other cable news network, and you think that if we don't pay them any attention they'll shrink?
I've often wondered what happens to those bullies who wander the halls of high schools to torture and abuse those who are "different" from them in any way. Now we know they grow up to laughingly call themselves "news" reporters and continue to do their dirty deeds, only this time they are getting paid to do it by the biggest bully of them all, that Murdock character who is trying to hard to destroy America.
FOX NOISE is exactly that, noise. But their falling ratings point to the apparently fact that the morons who turn in for their daily helping of vituperation against those they view as enemies to their cause of destroying our country are wising up to being so manipulated. It is hoped, anyway.
So much like typical Republican whine-pieces (they are tremendous whiners aren't they); absolutley no refudiation of the facts. They don't mention, nor do they dispute the ratings numbers that form the foundation of the 'hit piece' (NY Times news article).
It's just like watching two 6 year old boys take verbal stabs at the teacher who'd disciplined them for bad behavior. And, being tremendously insecure, they must post altered pix to get a laugh, and to help salve their fragile egos.
When will these CONservatives, these Republicans ever grow up?
Everytime Fox News states "fair and balanced," the entire nation should collapse in raucous laughter. Everytime Fox says, "we report, you decide," we should all collapse in raucous laughter. Everytime Bill O. says "the spin stops here," the entire world should collapse in raucous laughter. Unfortunately for Fox, their excessive Obama bashing just keeps blowing right back into their own faces. Good! (I remember when the Rev. Wright tapes surfaced, Sean Hannity predicted that this would surely end Obama's political career. Now I'm collapsing in raucous laughter.)
Although there are 1st amendment issues here, Steinberg and Reddicliffe have good cause for a defamation lawsuit. The first ammendment does not protect against willful lies aimed at destroying a person's reputation. Intentionally distorting a person's image and then displaying it on a 'news' report (as opposed to a comedy channel) implies they are trying to pass it off as the truth.
The sad thing is that so many people eat this up and DO believe Fox News is something more than a big joke. A successful lawsuit might open up some eyes.
There's actually far less to this than there seems to be. Basically, it looks like a simple Video codec conversion issue.
Digital Video, strange as it seems, use pixels that are a little narrower than they are tall. The actual aspect ration is 0.9x1. With that in mind, take the original picture, lengthen it by 110% and... you guessed it--you get an exact copy of the "nefariously" altered picture. The yellowing of the teeth is actually part of an overall color cast in the picture (the yellow values are consistent across the entire picture, which is itself consistent with the sort of color shifting that frequently happens when converting between codecs and video/still systems).
Basically, Fox looks like they used the wrong video settings when loading in the still picture for their online video system, which caused the pictures to stretch.
(I recognized the effect since I accidentally did something similar <but in reverse> on an early video project I edited years back. In my version, the camera very literally added 20 pounds to the subjects).
-PEte
That was a lame feature. It was done poorly. The problem was, in my opinion, simply that Fox and Friends should have left no doubt that the pics were doctored, It was obvious to me after I saw the poodle shot. But I didn't take the feature seriously because this is fox and friends and not Britt Hume or one of the serious opinion shows. It is kind of like The View as someone opined. They slant right instead of left...big deal. Don't do satire half way! Racist? Nah. So Fox slants right and ESPN, MSNBC slant left. No news there.