But don’t you see— that just proves the point even more. Not only has Fox so polluted the news, they have, thru their high ratings, **FORCED **the other news outlets to follow suit. Christianne Amanpour of CNN explained it all clearly a year ago:
Hello, beagledave. Let’s review what I’ve said from the start, shall we?
You do know the role of a photo editor, right?
Other news organizations may run the odd photo of the handshake taken from a lower-right POV, but Fox appears to making the editorial choice to run only photos from that viewpoint. As far as I can tell, they’ve run the one linked in the OP and the one you’ve linked to just now (which is on their front page at the moment,) and that’s it. No straight-on shots. This appears to be unique to FOX. I haven’t posited anything apart from a partisan editorial decision. One that’s fairly obvious.
Of course, if you can find a straight shot on the FoxNews website, or point out another news organ that has opted to run only the two forced-perspective shots, and no straight shots, then I will gladly tuck into some humble pie.
Bullshit-- no comparison. USA Today didn’t make Michael Moore their senior political correspondant-- they made a cheesy lowbrow decision to send Michael Moore to the RNC and Ann Coulter to the DNC. Of course, USAToday sucks poxy donkey cock as a news source, anyway.
-
Go here
-
Click the PHOTO ESSAYS tab…click ROUND 1
-
Go to photo #4. It’s a straight on shot of both candidates at their own podiums taken by the AP. Quite clear that Kerry is taller.
Perhaps some “mud[d] pie” is in order! 
And for the record, it wasn’t a comparison. Sheesh. Why do so many people on this board think that every statement of response is a comparison, that every comparison is an analogy, and that every analogy is a transliteration?
Here’s my favorite Fox bullshit of the week:
Headline: “Some Voters Still Flip-Flopping”
Hmmm…I wonder what that’s a reference to…or do I need a tinfoil hat too?
The distance between the podiums is specifically intended to de-emphasise the disparity in their height.
Of course, the split-screen view would nullify that distance, if people weren’t careful.
Of course, regardless of intelligence, there’s no doubt who they worked for.
Of course, this is all totally insignfiicant. I think it’s absolutely fricking hilarious that so much attention is being paid to a 5" height “advantage.” Of course, that might be because GWB has a few inches on me.
Sorry, Lib. Why then, exactly, were you responding to a comment on the bias of Fox’s lead political correspondent by mentioning a left-wing ideologue (characterized as “USAToday’s correspondent”) who wrote one story for that publication, which was supposed to be complimented by an even more vitriolic right-wing ideologue’s article. (She failed to produce anything sane enough to print.) It read as though you were suggesting that USAToday was part of that “Liberal media” we’ve heard so much about. Apologies if I misunderstood.
I’ve tried several ways of responding to this, but given your original post, this one, and another in response to it, I can’t make sense of what your position is. Your complain to Larry Mudd is ill-made: if anyone’s at fault for not knowing what you are trying to say or imply, it’s you.
Again, the reason this is a little more of interest is that this is Fox’s chief political correspondent covering John Kerry. In, you know, the field of journalism, not comedy. He wrote up this apparently hilarious and cute piece about Kerry being a big faggot. Unless the Foxnews site is like a messageboard, at some point an editor must have read it over and approved it. And this was the man who Brit Hume cited as proving that Fox’s coverage of Kerry had been fair, not overwhelmingly negative, as a facts seemed to indicate. Given that FoxNews has now also posted a story in which they pretended a Republican 527 was actually a pro-Kerry Communist group, it seems like the anti-Kerry sentiment at FoxNews is really starting to boil over.
I guess it’s not obvious from the post above (and I neglected to mention it because it seems so commonsensical that it didn’t occur to me that it ought to be pointed out) but I don’t think there was anything “sneaky” about the framing of the split-screen shots. Why would you leave a bunch of negative space at the top of one shot. Both shots were cropped consistently to focus on visually significant areas.
I guess I’m having trouble parsing exactly what you were saying.
The original claim from rjung was that Fox News digitally altered a photo to make it seem as if Bush was taller. (I do find it amusing that he uses a photo hosted at conspire.com, but thats a different kettle
Your claim was “It’s a virtual certainty that Fox’s photo editor picked that shot deliberately because it made Bush appear taller than he actually is, though.”
When pointed out that other news organizations were running similar photos…THEN the argument became …“Other news organizations may run the odd photo of the handshake taken from a lower-right POV, but Fox appears to making the editorial choice to run only photos from that viewpoint.”
The other places I listed (for example, the Seattle newspaper) only used the same “lower-right POV” for the “handshake” shot. (And trust me…it’s an AP photo…so its used by plenty of new outlets…I’m guessing plenty used ONLY that POV for the “handshake shot”).
I then link to a “straight on photo” of both candidates on the Fox website that does show a height difference…but you seem to dismiss that (I think) because of the separation between the podiums.
Are you still claiming a unique sort of bias for Fox on photos from the debate? Or am I misreading you?
Okay, I withdraw the “digitally edited” photo claim. It’s easy enough to simply attribute it to using a forced perspective to reduce the height difference between the two candidates.
But posting the “metrosexual manicure” story on their site? That’s a pretty major screwup right there. If nothing else, it’s another peek into the bias that’s at Fox, that their idea of off-the-cuff humor is to mock the Democratic candidate while leaving the Republican alone.
Not that this will make any difference to the Bush apologists, who probably still believe Fox is “fair and balanced” because they say so.
Forced perspective???
It’s 1:26 in the AM here; how much coherence d’you expect to get at this hour? 
Pffft. It’s 5am over here, and look at me!
Mike Bloomberg has about the same height as Danny Devito.
No problem. I just don’t think it’s a matter of politics, but of protocol. I’ve always presumed that reporters — even reporters with fancy titles (Apos keeps repeating how this is no ordinary reporter, but a high holy reporter) — are just people, and having seen one or two Discovery Times channel documentaries about their fraternal hijinks during their stints, I am convinced of it. It was no different a thing from all the oops-the-mic-is-on slips politicians have made. If we were to search the notes of every reporter (including high holy ones) or listen in to their private banter, we would, were we naive enough, come away disillusioned and distraught. This is just something that got through the process while everybody was tired and not paying attention, much like the CNN scroller about six months ago or so that popped up briefly while Bush was speaking with something like “the idiot speaks” or some such tomfoolery. When I saw that, I just laughed it off, and it disappered after a couple of minutes. These aren’t androids in the news business, and yes, they’re supposed to at least make some pretense at objectivity, but shit happens. The best thing to do when you see shit is walk around it, not jump in it and play as people are doing here.
Well, yes, you’re drunk again. What else is new?