Media outlets -- but not Fox News -- weigh in on doctored photos
SUMMARY: MSNBC and Editor & Publisher have noted that Fox & Friends featured photos of New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered. But Fox News has yet to address the controversy.
On the July 2 edition of MSNBC's Verdict, during the nightly "Beat the Press" segment, which "look[s] back at media hypocrisy, agendas, and the amusing perils of live TV," host Dan Abrams asserted that Fox News "really outdid themselves this morning" -- a reference to the July 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, which, as Media Matters for America documented, featured photos of New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered. Specifically, the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and Reddicliffe's hairline receded. Fox News gave no indication that the photos had been altered at the time.
Additionally, a July 2 Editor & Publisher web item reported that "The Fox News channel has gained wide attention today in the blogosphere for airing photos of two New York Times staffers that appear to have been doctored to portray the Timesmen in an unflattering light." The E&P piece further reported that "[n]either Steinberg nor Reddicliffe were reachable for comment Wednesday. But Times Culture Editor Sam Sifton called the Fox photo work 'disgusting,' and the criticism of the paper's reporting 'a specious and meritless claim.' ... Asked if the paper planned to respond to Fox's actions, he said no: 'It is fighting with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it.' "
The controversy was not mentioned on the July 3 edition of Fox & Friends, and as of this posting, Fox News had yet to comment on, or apologize for, the doctored photos.
From the July 2 edition of MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams:
ABRAMS: And Fox News attacks The New York Times by literally altering pictures of a Times editor and reporter to make them look uglier than they are. Yes, they really did it and did not say that they were doing it. "Beat the Press" is next.
[...]
ABRAMS: It's time for tonight's "Beat the Press," our daily look back at media hypocrisy, agendas, and the amusing perils of live TV.
First up, over at Fox News, they really outdid themselves this morning. They were upset at a New York Times article titled, "Fox News Finds Its Rivals Closing In," which we are. So, rather than address the substance, they targeted New York Times editor Steven Reddicliffe and reporter Jacques Steinberg. But look carefully at the pictures they use.
DOOCY [video clip]: His boss, the guy who assigned to this, is a fellow by the name of Steven Reddicliffe, and Mr. Reddicliffe actually used to work for this company. ... [H]e sends his attack dog, Jacques Steinberg, out -- that fellow right there, the writer for the New York Times -- to do these hit pieces.
ABRAMS: Hit piece? How about the fact that they altered the photos? Compare the actual picture of editor Steven Reddicliffe to the one they used. They yellowed his teeth, blackened his eyes, receded his hairline. And here's reporter Jacques Steinberg, and what Fox used. They gave him a bigger nose, and, again, blackened his eyes and yellowed his teeth. They report, you decide.
From the July 2 Editor & Publisher piece, headlined "Fox News Airs Revised Photos of 'NYT' Staffers -- Sifton Calls It 'Disgusting' ":
The Fox News channel has gained wide attention today in the blogosphere for airing photos of two New York Times staffers that appear to have been doctored to portray the Timesmen in an unflattering light.
The photos depict New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg with yellowed teeth, "his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further," according to a statement today by Media Matters for America. The other image, of Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe, with similar yellow teeth, as well as "dark circles ... under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back," according to the Media Matters statement.
The photos appear to have been flattened or extended using photoshop tools.
On Wednesday morning's edition of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade aired the photos while discussing a piece in the June 28 edition of the New York Times. The piece pointed out what the newspaper called "ominous trends" in Fox News' ratings.
Neither Steinberg nor Reddicliffe were reachable for comment Wednesday. But Times Culture Editor Sam Sifton called the Fox photo work "disgusting," and the criticism of the paper's reporting "a specious and meritless claim."
"It wasn't a hit piece," Sifton told E&P. "It was straight news. This was a hit piece by Fox News. It is beneath comment." Asked if the paper planned to respond to Fox's actions, he said no: "It is fighting with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it."
In his TV spot, Doocy called the Times report, written by Steinberg, a "hit piece" ordered up by Reddicliffe. The pair then made reference to Reddicliffe's tenure as editor of TV Guide owned by Fox News' parent company, News Corporation, which ended in 2002. Reddicliffe was hired by the Times in 2004.
The anchors cited a brief item from the Web site of Radar magazine, quoting a blog called FTVLive, which stated that Reddicliffe "is still bitter about losing his gig at ... TV Guide" and "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."
The broadcast than showed an image of Steinberg's face superimposed over a picture of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over the man holding the poodle's leash.
As of this afternoon, neither Fox News or News Corp. had made a public statement on the matter.
To see the photos, go to: http://mediamatters.org/
ABRAMS: It's time for tonight's "Beat the Press," our daily look back at media hypocrisy, agendas, and the amusing perils of live TV.
First up, over at Fox News, they really outdid themselves this morning. They were upset at a New York Times article titled, "Fox News Finds Its Rivals Closing In," which we are. So, rather than address the substance, they targeted New York Times editor Steven Reddicliffe and reporter Jacques Steinberg. But look carefully at the pictures they use.
Ok Abrams and what about highlighting the lies that come out of NBC News? Abrams is such a jerk. no excuse for what FOX news did with the phots but we all remember Dateline and the car fiasco?
Ok Abrams and what about highlighting the lies that come out of NBC News? Abrams is such a jerk. no excuse for what FOX news did with the phots but we all remember Dateline and the car fiasco?
You must not remember it very well, Bob. While that story WAS on "Dateline NBC", it involved Chevrolet and GMC pickup trucks - not cars.
Who claimed they were perfect?
What does their previous error have to do with this? Nothing.
Are you saying that only perfect networks with no errors or omissions ever can point out the errors of other networks? If you aren't saying that, then you have no point. If fallible networks can point out the errors of others, then the previous errors shouldn't be pointed out whenever they do point out the errors of other networks.
Who claimed they were perfect?
If I was from Mars and watched "Beat the Press" last night I would have been given the impression that NBC is perfect and FOX and CNN make mistakes.
Peace
What?
You aren't from Mars. In the real world, we do not restrict criticism from only those people or groups who are perfect!
If it's okay for imperfect people and groups to point out errors that others make, then there's no reason for you to have brought up an error by MSNBC or NBC.
You aren't from Mars.
But Bob is definitely from SOME other planet.... :-)
No I am from Earth.
What about when Olbermann alters photos of Bill O'Reilly to show he has a big head when he names him "Worst Person in The World"? Is that justified? Would Dan Abrams cover this.
Bob, im my view that is wrong also. That was one of the reasons I stopped watching Olbermann was I did not want to sit down and watch a feud between him and O'Reilly. If I wanted to watch feuds I would watch reruns of Dallas on SoapNet.
To be fair, they aren't exactly altered that I have seen anyway. Olbermann does what MMFA does, find the worst shot imaginable and put that here.
But they don't doctor them the way Fox did.
Yes, and it's clear that they altered it. It's altered for dramatic effect, and anyone who looks at that photo can tell within two seconds that his head has been made larger (because he has a big head/ego, get it?)
When it's not clear that they altered the photos, you have to explain that they were altered. Photojournalism 101.
There are several distinctions you are ignoring. Bill O'Reilly's image is well-known and therefore altering it is pretty obvious to any casual viewer. Viewers who watched the pictures of the NY Times employees have no idea what these people really look like.
Another distinction is that Fox and Friends - although being known for some commentary and light feature type reporting regards itself and represents itself as a professional and serious news. On the other hand - Olbermann is a pretty obvious analysis/comedy style program that is more like Limbaugh in its approach. Limbaugh could probably rightly get away with doing something like this. When Limbaugh had his TV show, he frequently did this kind of thing and no one ever complained to my knowledge.
The two shows are not believably comparable.
Um....Bobthep,
If you look carefully.... BillO's entire head.... from the neck up is not in any way distorted...... if anything, the body it is attached to is what is altered to be smaller, but the head itself is its usual ugly self!
And do you know why KO does it this way??
It is a smack at the very large ego Billy has, it goes along with his big fat head that goes perfectly with said ego!
I''m not seeing your point, Bob. This picture of O'Reilly just shows his unphotoshopped face placed on tiny shoulders ... obviously the joke is that O'Reilly has a big head. This, I will grant, is comparable with photoshopping a journalist's face onto a poodle's body.
However, in your example O'Reilly's facial features weren't distorted first, a simple courtesy Fox Unfriendly didn't extend to their victims. Your comparison is neither fair nor balanced.
I had the same feeling about Abrams last night, he does make me sick with his smirk. It amazes me that he can blast others and act like he and his network are some nirvana.
What FOX news did was deplorable, but my issue with MSNBC is that they will go and attack FOX and CNN and never look at the lies and filth that come out of their own house.
Anyway I saw that Abrams thing and went back to Hannity and Colmes, i am not a big FOX fan but Hannity was off and Michael Dukakis was being interviewed it was a wonderful exchange and made me think what a mistake our nation made in 88 by not electing Dukakis. At 75 he is still sharp and witty.
hi Bob
I am not a huge fan of Dan Abrams myself, but him reporting what FAUX and Friends did should not be an issue.
The issue is why did FOX do this ,and also why do the engage in these types of personal attacks?
This has been debunked many times. Give up, you can't win on this point.
Hey Abrams was this in your "Beat the Press" piece ?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150012
Hey Abrams was this in your "Beat the Press" piece ?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150012
How about this one?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020010?f=h_latest
My point with these is that Abrams is becoming what Olbermann used to be , the stupid attack Dog for MSNBC. Yet I doubt anyone even watches Dan Abrams or cares what he says.
No one cares, yet you've made 4 comments so far.
Did you mean that no one cares, except, you?
The majority of viewers do not care , IMO.
Bob, I disagree.
Dan Abrams is for the most part fair and intelligent. Sure he leans left, but he is not unwilling to have opposing opinions on his show and he evaluates all topics pretty fairly, compared to many on cable these days. I watch him more than most when I can. He is no Olbermann, who doesn't dare have opposing opinions on his show.
To each his own. Olbermann's show is fine if you agree with him on everything and just want to sit there and nod your head for an hour and never hear the other side, and there is always another side.
At least Abrams challenges people to think and listen to both sides, which is far more instructive, for me at least.
Fair enough. Again to me Abrams tries to rip off Olbermanns material with his Beat the Press garbage and winner and loser whining.
Usually at 9pm i watch Larry King.
Agree Tommy, at least Abrams has differing views on his show. The substance of olbermann's show has become the active promotion of Obama at all costs. He's Obama's de facto press secretary, or as some would say, his poodle.
and just want to sit there and nod your head for an hour and never hear the other side, and there is always another side.
Richard Wolfe, Johnathan Turley, Jonathan Alter, Howard Fineman, Eugene Robinson - not a partisan "liberal" group at all. I guess you prefer the format of battling talking heads in which nothing gets analyzed and talking points rule the day with people screaming over each other. Kind of explains your view of today's world.
It's reasoned commentary on the political news of the day, not a battle of opinions. Would you rather listen to Coulter, Dick Morris, Newt, Ingraham, Santorum, etc.? Not me.
Bobthep, your whining is useless...
Abrams highlighted the filth of Fox News and I say "THANK YOU DAN!!!"
Of course he's not going to attack his own people. This doesn't diminish his exposing Faux one iota.
Fox needs to stop lying, and then you won't need to worry if Abrams is entitled to say something.
Fox needs to stop lying, and then you won't need to worry if Abrams is entitled to say something.
Then we not need a discussion ? No different views allowed ?
"No different views allowed ?"
Not if your view is a logical absurdity, or in your case, simply misleading.
altered photos, again, on MSNBC or the Daily Show, are clearly altered for dramatic effect. You can take one look at them and say "hey, that's not real." That's not the case for these photos. There's no real reason for them to have altered the photos, except to intentionally make these guys appear uglier than they actually are. One could be falsely misled (and many people probably were falsely misled) by these photos, and to not acknowledge that they were altered is irresponsible, dishonest, and hack yellow journalism.
If you can't tell that O'Reilly's head is altered in Olbermann's worst persons segment, then you have a cognitive impairment.
Similarly, the issue is not with the photos of the guy's face transposed onto a poodle's head. That, as you can understand, is good satire for the message they were trying to put out. Had they drawn horns on their heads, or given them lizard tongues or something like that, MMfA wouldn't have had an issue.
Additionally, a July 2 Editor & Publisher web item reported that "The Fox News channel has gained wide attention today in the blogosphere for airing photos of two New York Times staffers that appear to have been doctored to portray the Timesmen in an unflattering light." The E&P piece further reported that "[n]either Steinberg nor Reddicliffe were reachable for comment Wednesday. But Times Culture Editor Sam Sifton called the Fox photo work 'disgusting,' and the criticism of the paper's reporting 'a specious and meritless claim.' ... Asked if the paper planned to respond to Fox's actions, he said no: 'It is fighting with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it.' "
Good for Editor and Publisher.
Good for Editor and Publisher.
We agree on this Bob
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I got it, MM!
It's only bad when FOX doctors photos, but NEVER when Olbermann - whose videos you repeatedly show - and Crooks and Liars do it! GOTCHA!
Crooks & Liars and Olbermann's photos are altered for dramatic effect. It is clear the photos are altered when you look at them.
If they were ever not clear, and they didn't acknowledge they were doctored, then that would be wrong.
No, the issue is not Dan Abrams. You tried to make it about Dan Abrams, but it isn't and shouldn't be about him or MSNBC at all.
Unless it's wrong for some group which isn't perfect to ever criticize another, then MSNBC's past flaws have nothing to do with this.
MSNBC might not be perfect. KO or Abrams might not be perfect. Their previous errors have nothing to do with this unless it's only okay for perfect groups to criticize another group. And that's just not realistic. You've had this explained to you countless times. Why would you still think that it's about Dan Abrams, or that it was appropriate to bring him up?
On the nose, BB.
I'm slowly becoming convinced that certain posters here are simply trolls who are in the employ of Faux News, the way they consistently try and change to subject by launching diversionary attacks on MSNBC.
For the record, I exclude Tommy from this opinion. I think that he's mostly guilty of good old fashioned contrarianism, as he has frequently shown a willingness to criticize Faux for many of their more egregious smears.
Interesting.
I can't help but notice that CERTAIN POSTERS aren't abjecting to my portrayal of them as trolls in the pay of Faux News.
PAYDIRT!!!!
I think weekends like this when many of the regular liberal posters are here but only weird rightwingers are here is a clear sign that some of them are paid posters here to disrupt the site. They have the long weekend off.
I think that if it were a regular weekday, however, they'd be here denying it. I don't think a lack of a reply on this holiday weekend is a guarantee of anything. People could just have better things to do than to post here! LOL
This one?
Really? Cause seems to me that's just lighting and what not. I don't know, but it sure doesn't seem to have been altered afterwards. And if it was, where is Rush? Oh wait - he's put the same photo on HIS web site!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
And he seems to be quite proud of it. I started to read the story and threw up in my mouth a little so had to stop.
Conservatives simply prefer a romantic unreality to the real thing in most instances.
That's it in a nutshell, OM.It's all emotion and no logic. For anybody who questions that, listen to a few minutes of righty radio or Fox news, or read the conservative posts here. Truth is like Holy Water to vampires. Or garlic to demons, or silver stakes to mummies or wolfsbane to goblins, I get those myths all confused, being rooted in reality, but you know what I mean.
Coincidentally, Col, garlic, wolfbane, and holey water... when mixed with onions, olive oil, vinegar, and fresh habanero chilies... are key ingredients in the creation of an absolutely smoking Proletarian Salsa that is guaranteed to leave any wingnut absolutely speechless.
I've got another suggestion on what they can do with the silver stake.
Hey... I didn't specifically SAY that the silver stake should be shoved rudely up their asses.
Yeah, okay. I guess a reasonable inference COULD be made from what I said, if you wanted to get real or anything.
AND I DON'T F#CKING APOLOGISE ONE IOTA FOR THAT!!!
Happy 4th everyone!
Long live the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and F#CK GEORGE W BUSH AND HIS NEOCON HENCHMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Limbaugh had any problem with this photo of himself, I'd expect he'd complain that it adds years: he looks very aged in it. But he remains young at heart - turning up to work stoned most of the time!
The sadest part of this story is that several days after the initial expose, there actually hasn't been very much media coverage of the item.
Very disappointing.