O'Reilly compared altered Fox & Friends photo with an illustration of him by the NY Times
SUMMARY: Discussing the controversy over Fox & Friends' airing of altered photos of two New York Times staffers, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly compared the photo of Times reporter Jacques Steinberg, which Fox & Friends did not indicate was distorted, to a Times illustration of him.
On July 7, Fox News O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly responded to the controversy over Fox & Friends' airing of altered photos of two New York Times staffers by criticizing The New York Times. He compared the photo of Times reporter Jacques Steinberg, which Fox & Friends did not indicate was distorted, to what was clearly an illustration of O'Reilly published by the Times in January 2007. He said of the recent controversy over the Fox & Friends photos: "Well, some folks at the Times are outraged, as are the far-left loons at Media Matters. Now, this is rich, because here are the caricatures The New York Times used of me when they slashed my book, Culture Warrior. Nice images ... you notice the horn in there? Isn't that nice?"
As Media Matters for America documented, on July 2, Fox & Friends aired an altered photo of Steinberg, as well as of Times editor, Steven Reddicliffe, during a segment claiming that Steinberg's June 28 article on the "ominous trend" in Fox News' ratings was a "hit piece."
Here's what Fox & Friends aired:
Here's what O'Reilly compared Steinberg's doctored photo to:
Discussing the O'Reilly segment, the Gawker website noted that the Times illustration "is by no stretch a caricature, defined by Merriam-Webster as 'exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics.' It is a series of straightforward renderings of O'Reilly as he looks on camera. A variety of unnatural colors are used, but not in the service of exaggerating anything about O'Reilly or making him look bad." Gawker also stated: "There is no 'horn' attached to O'Reilly. The illustration includes little dialog bubbles, like in comic books, with pointy parts of the bubbles aimed at O'Reilly's mouth. Maybe the host missed that when his producer or whoever briefed him on his outrage during a break."
O'Reilly began the segment by saying: "And now, for perhaps the most hypocritical situation we have ever seen." He continued: "This man, New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg, recently wrote an article saying that our competitors were catching up to Fox News in the ratings. If you read the piece, you'd think we were in trouble." He later stated, "So, Fox & Friends poked a little fun at Steinberg for misreporting the situation, as he does all the time, and they used an unflattering caricature of him." According to a July 7 Times column by David Carr, Times television reporter Bill Carter considers the photo -- the display of which constituted, in O'Reilly's words, "pok[ing] a little fun at Steinberg" -- "an anti-Semitic caricature." Carr also wrote that Brian Lewis, Fox News' executive vice president for corporate communications, called the "suggestion that there was something anti-Semitic about the depiction of Mr. Steinberg 'vile and untrue.' "
From the July 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: And now, for perhaps the most hypocritical situation we have ever seen. This man, New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg, recently wrote an article saying that our competitors were catching up to Fox News in the ratings. If you read the piece, you'd think we were in trouble.
Now, the truth is that, in the second quarter of this year just ended, Fox News was the sixth-highest rated cable network in the country -- CNN 21st; MSNBC 27th.
So, Fox & Friends poked a little fun at Steinberg for misreporting the situation, as he does all the time, and they used an unflattering caricature of him.
Well, some folks at the Times are outraged, as are the far-left loons at Media Matters. Now, this is rich, because here are the caricatures The New York Times used of me when they slashed my book, Culture Warrior. Nice images, aren't -- you notice the horn in there? Isn't that nice?
OK. So, let me get this straight, New York Times people. We can't mock you, but you can mock us? Am I getting this? If the Times editor, Bill Keller, would wise up, perhaps their business might improve.
Finally, Canada will return some American military deserters and, of course, we applaud that.
The pic of OReilly's caricature isn't working for me. I haven't seen it but I doubt it's as disgusting as the altered photos.
Those responsible for ordering and distributing those photos should be brought to court for libel and fraud and the very least.
It's not a caricature at all. Just a series of fairly accurately drawn pictures. (And a HORN? W(here)TF does that come from? Doesn't he know what a speech bubble looks like?)
I swear Bill O'Rielly is sofa king stupid.
Of course they're caricatures.
But BOR's analogy is stupid and dishonest. Not only are they obviously caricatures designed to accompany an article about a well known, controversial public figure, but they are drawings that are not purporting to be accurate depictions of the individual.
At no time did FOX identify their doctored photos of the reporters. They displayed them as reference material. Plus, they are not public figures.
BOR is not just being an idiot. He's criminally reckless with his phony analogies. But what else is new.
This is a battle of good vs. evil, with evil taking the form of irrationality and hate. It's gone beyond annoying. Who's gonna win?
This is pretty simple:
Doctored photographs without mention of distortion over here... Line drawings that do not purport to be anything other than artistic representations over there.
O'Reilly knows his position is weak or he would have actually shown the photoshopped images. The fact that he goes on the air anyway and tries to argue Fox's case is just more evidence that there's a shock collar with a big "FNC" logo on it around his neck, hiding somewhere underneath that wattle of his.
"O'Reilly knows his position is weak or he would have actually shown the photoshopped images."
That is exactly right. BillO is being dishonest to his viewers by not showing them the photos so they can decide for themselves and dishonest in his lame argument. The drawings are NOT the same thing as what was done to the photos.
Kilmeade and Doocy were also being dishonest by presenting the photos without noting the distortions to the viewers.
They must seriously think we're all stupid.
They must seriously think we're all stupid.
No...just their regular FOX viewers.
I entirely agree. The interesting thing here, to me, is that O'Reilly's attempt at a defense of Fox's morning show (or an attack against other media) is so laughable, so completely without substance, and so absurd that I wonder if it actually resonates with anyone in his audience.
It's easy to overthink a response to O'Reilly's claims: photographs have a kind of unspoken credibility and authority because unlike other forms of representation, they are considered to be the products of natural laws rather than by human intervention. (My photograph and my face look similar not because of the skill of the photographer as an artist but because the light reflecting from my face was focused by a camera lens onto film.) People get upset when you 'doctor' a photograph because altering the photographic image is tantamount to hijacking the authority of nature: intervening in a natural process and passing the results off as proof that something fictional really exists. On the other hand, the idea of "doctoring a drawing" or a caricature is self-contradicting: there's nothing to doctor, since there was never any presumption that the drawing represented anything other than the artist's subjective expression.
But all that is obvious. Everything I just wrote is, frankly, common sense -- or at least, it should be common sense. I hope it is. It will be interesting to see if O'Reilly gets any support for this vapid and desperate defense. If he does, it will only reflect the presence of a widening crevasse between Fox's core audience and reality.
They're not caricatures. There's no distortion of any of O'Reilly's features as far as I can see. There is no exaggeration for effect, which is what defines the term. Not that it would make O'Reilly's point valid even if they were caricatures of him, of course.
Of course they are caricatures. BOR growling, making faces, glowering. Gimme a break. It's cartoon imagery.
When parties won't even agree on terms-- with one of them being idiotic like yourself- what hope is there? Up is down, left is right, peace is war, right?
This is why debating people is futile these days. You can't argue with a liar and you can't talk to an ignorant person and expect to get anything done. It's the bane of the age.
So all hope for debate is lost, because I posted a perfectly civil correction of your misuse of a term and you were supposedly forced to respond with personal attacks? Sure, the person who works off of an actual dictionary definition is "idiotic" for not agreeing to what you think "caricature" means. If you're really interested in reaching such agreement, you should realize that you are not the sole arbiter of the meanings of words. If you can't work off of that perfectly sensible standard, you're the problem.
"Cartoon imagery" does not constitute "caricature". Look it up before you claim others are "ignorant". There has to be distortion, exaggeration of some sort. The pictures of O'Reilly here do not qualify, whether "cartoon" or not. He really makes those faces while on his show, if you've ever seen it or seen the still shots of him posted here and countless other places on the internet.
I'll thank you kindly in advance for shutting the hell up now.
Brab, the confusion here is because Bill O'Reilly IS a caricature... ;>)
Agree Dex...
I would think the reporters could sue for libel. I hope they do. O'Dork could be an accessory after the fact.
Or, maybe "an accessory head-up-his-ass."
It all depends upon how the court views them as not being public figures. FOX screwed up by trying to reference the photos without a satirical comment.
But courts nowadays? Gimme a break. They're packed with right-wingers who think that authority and property rights are the be all and end all of civilization.
The problems go far beyond FOX and BOR. They're just symptoms.
I see the tenets of true Dhimmi-tude have infested this place. You're all reacting like the moslems did to the Danish cartoons over this. Obviously the pickings must be really lean for this to become a "top issue". Face it, the reporters are public figures and I suppose the left is blameless in such matters such as past photoshopping images of President Bush into a chimp, etc, in the past.
Grow up and get a life. Keep playing the victim on your side and you always will be one. ...
"I suppose the left is blameless in such matters such as past photoshopping images of President Bush into a chimp, etc, in the past."--missdee
Which news organization did that? None. Really? Thanks for the invalid insipid analogy there, cupcake.
O'Reilly really is a tool.
The illustration won't load for me either ... but I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as what his Fox mates did.
His capacity for defending the indefensible is truly amazing.
I know that, and I acknowledged that. Not sure why you chose to say it again.
Well...by it's very definition a cartoon is stylized representation of reality that, on it's face, appears as such. Unless the viewers were advised of the mockery in progress, the doctored photos were presented as actual depictions of the two gentlemen. Big difference... ;>)
To tell you the truth, just from looking briefly at the illustrations of O'Reilly, they appear to be actual photos of him, but they've been heavily, heavily altered. It's clear they've been altered, mostly because I doubt O'Reilly is really purple one day and orange the next ;)
This is just more evidence that no one at Fox News actually understands how journalism works.
So FOX is admitting that it retaliated against The New York Times simply because the newspaper wrote that FOX News' competitors were catching up in the ratings. Sounds kind of unprofessional and thin-skinned for the top-ranked cable news network. What are they, Nazis...?
The first post in this thread was me saying how disgusting and wrong the photo doctoring was. I was under the impression that the nytimes did it and I don't know whether the photos were announced to be doctored before or after Fox showed them.
But saying that insulting caricatures are correlated with Nazi propoganda against Jews is taking it a huge step too far. Of course you would say I was ridiculous if I walked around calling Obama "Stalin" and Hillary "Castroette", because it is ridiculous, even though you could find something similar. Heck, even Hitler was right about the sky being blue.
Whenever you doctor photos of Jews by making their noses look bigger and their foreheads protruding and their hairlines wierd, that's classic anti-Semitic imagery.
Pleading ignorance of this is no excuse. It's Jew-baiting pure and simple-- no ifs, ands, or buts.
"...Hitler was right..."--Dexteritas
Sorry Dex, but that is my favorite out of context quote ever. I will have to refer to it the next time we disagree. Just kidding.
; )
So FOX is admitting that it retaliated against The New York Times simply because the newspaper wrote that FOX News' competitors were catching up in the ratings. Sounds kind of unprofessional and thin-skinned for the top-ranked cable news network. What are they, Nazis...?
Who in the hell is "we" that he always refers to? How does this man still have an audience? Don't they know that he is a perverted old man who sexually harrassed a young woman who worked for him? Don't they know he got some kind of sick pleasure out of calling this girl and bragging about himslef while he masturbated on the phone? Don't they know that he threatened a young woman if she told of his perverted advances? Is there anyone here who would feel comfortable leaving your young daughter in his care while you went out for a haircut or something, given his perverted history? Shouldn't his audience ask themselves the same thing considering that he holds himslef up as this beacon of truth and integrity?
In the hope that O'Reilly or his "we" people are reading this.....O'Reilly, you are a sick, perverted, nasty old man. You are a coward who wormed your way out of serving your country, yet you expound the virtues of war and even have the audacity to call others America haters. I feel sorry for your children because they had no choice, but your wife must be as dumb as a rock for stayng with you, unless of course you have her scared too death? Surely you wouldn't intimidate your wife into sticking by you after you got caught engaging in the vile things you got taped doing...right?
"...your wife must be as dumb as a rock for stayng with you..."
To borrow a quote from Mrs. John Gotti: He's a good provider...
I recall a similar flap over a picture of O'Reilley included on an Al Franken book cover. I begin to wonder if O'Reilley truly lives in a land without mirrors, or never sees himself in a monitor during the show?
Actually, mirrors don't work on O'Reilly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire
Finally, Canada will return some American military deserters and, of course, we applaud that.
Finally, someone will get fed up with his lies and stupidity and slap Bill O upside the head, and, of course, we'll applaud THAT. :-)
Hasn't be been called on his lies enough? You would think with as much negative attention as he gets, someone would think to pull him off the air.
I wonder how many people watch him for the entertainment factor over his "content".
All I did was read the headline to the item: not the item itself, or even its summary: I clicked the video, but did not bother to turn the speakers on, and then watched the video in its silence... for one specific reason: to see if bill o'reilly would air the doctored photographs on his show.
He didn't. That's good.
MMFA has a number of these "follow-up" or "response" type items, where someone is commenting on or explaining (and sometimes apologizing for) something that was originally cited here in these MMFA pages... of course this item is one of those "response" type items.
The most important element always, to any response or explanation or even apology, for any thing, is whether or not the person responding explaining apologizing will take the opportunity to repeat the thing that may have offended someone in the first place... I've even seen MMFA run items where they claim that someone has apologized for something, and when I see that the supposed apology contained within it a repetition of the offense, I always wonder whether people even get the point I'm making here, about how repeating something that offended someone, is not an apology for the offense, but an aggravation of it: no matter how many times the word apology or sorry or sorrow or regret is said, it doesn't matter at all, if the offense is repeated.
Recent examples of the good kind of response I'm describing, are when andrea mitchell apologized for using the term redneck to describe folks from West Virginia (or western Virginia, I can't remember), and managed to do so without saying the word redneck again. Also, a guy who called Mrs. Clinton a witch, apologized on-air, and did so without saying the word witch. Contrast that with every and any supposed apology or explanation that this guy beck makes, which is always just an opportunity to say the offensive thing again, maybe several times (don't think this is lost on him either, as I'm sure he thinks it's giggling hilarious to find the opportunity to repeat again and again something that he said, that maybe offended somebody).
Anyway, the o'reilly silent movie that I just watched, didn't contain the doctored photos: good... I don't need to even read the item, not even its summary... and I don't need to hear o'reilly's voice in the video clip either: I never need to hear his voice at all, for any reason.
Very good point DEM...
Also, studies have shown you can add 8 years to your life (one for each home?) if you refuse to watch vile, foolish, clowns like Ted Baxter.
"So, Fox & Friends poked a little fun at Steinberg for misreporting the situation, as he does all the time, and they used an unflattering caricature of him."
Fox and Friends didn't "poke a little fun". A cable news channel made a personal attack on two journalists instead of attempting to debunk the journalists' report (here's a hint - they couldn't debunk their report that the gap between Fox News and other cable news channels has diminished, so they made a personal attack on these guys.)
Steinberg didn't misreport anything. O'Reilly can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't mean it really is, and he can say that these two journalists misreported the narrowing of the gap between different cable news networks, but that doesn't make it true either! And, to top it off, even if he had misreported something, making personal attacks is not appropriate from a cable news channel! Even if they do it all the time, it's still not appropriate for them to have distorted their pictures like that rather than attacking theri arguments.
They didn't use an unflattering caricature of him. They used photoshopped pictures that were not identified as such.
Could O'Reilly have gotten more wrong than what he got wrong in that one sentence?
What can one say about someone who compares...
dishonestly altered pictures on TV to editorial cartoons (in this case not even a cartoon, but really just a colorful depiction) in a newspaper?
What sort of a dazed, dimwitted, imbecile is this man?
And his audience?
Could O'Reilly have gotten more wrong than what he got wrong in that one sentence?
Blonde, getting things wrong is almost what defines O'Reilly...he gets so much wrong all the time. Yet you never hear him correct himself...
8 Homes McCain:
"What sort of dazed, dimwitted, imbecile is this man?"
Is this some sort of trick question?
That's good Peebs...
You made my day.
Of course they are caricatures. They don't always have to be ridiculing.
But that's not the point. FOX never set up the NYT story as satire or mockery. They were complaining about a news story, and then they ran doctored photos as reference points.
Not to quibble, but they aren't caricatures.
1.a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things: His caricature of the mayor in this morning's paper is the best he's ever drawn. 2.the art or process of producing such pictures, descriptions, etc. 3.any imitation or copy so distorted or inferior as to be ludicrous.The images of O'Reilly do not fit the definition of caricature. They are comic book-style illustrations. And apart from the fact that they are presented in various bright hues, they all accurately depict O'Reilly's actual features and expressions. The most ridiculous one is used regularly by crooksandliars.com:
<img src="http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/mediumoreillymad202ou4.jpg"align="left">
Tell us how you really feel!
Sure was a lot cooler today. Thank god!
Domineering, angry, ill-informed, no sense of humor, and doesn't know what a word balloon looks like...
Let this be a lesson to you all!
Here's the dealio . . . MMFA has done an outstanding job of responding to rightwing information. But how effective is it for us to constantly harp on the idiocy of Bill O'Bile-ly, Hannity, Fox and Friends, et al., amongst ourselves --aren't we just creating an echoe chamber of our own?
What action can we take other than the usual calls, emails and letters that seem only appear to embolden them even more? What are NewsCorps other business interests that could be pressured to force FNC to provide more "fair and balanced" coverage. New ideas are needed.
Right on the nose, my friend. Yes, we are "preaching to the choir" while sharing ideas. What difference does it make in the real world? We all send e-mails to the various media sell-outs, without (I hope) the vitriolic cuss words, but what, if any, effect does it all have? Fox, for example, can dismiss our comments the same way we dismiss certain posters on this site. The very few ultra right-wing nuts I know behave exactly like O'Riled-up. With a dismissive wave of the hand, a smirk, and by yelling over your own voice, they treat your ideas with extreme distain. "Discussion" is a word not found in their dictionary.
Whether or not the O'Reilly drawings are characatures or not is irrelevant. The pictures of the reporters purport to be accurate photographs. The viewer does not know they have been altered. On the other hand, viewers of the drawings of O'Reilly know they are interpretations of reality. We do not criticize political cartoonists if they exaggerate some features, but we do not expect photographs to be doctored. This is just another example of O'Reilly proving that he can dish it out but not take it. I think he has the thinnest skin of any Fox personality and that is saying a lot.