I know that’s hardly news but this is a new low, to me at least. Don’t watch them. This is just sickening that they’d stoop to this kind of ridiculous behavior.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002?f=s_search
If every one reading this wrote to Fox’s advertisers saying they’re no longer buying their product due to their affiliation with them it would be a good thing.
It’s reporters dissing other reporters, using Photoshop to do so. It’ll reaffirm the beliefs of anyone who doesn’t like Fox already, but have little impact otherwise, I reckon.
The fact that Fox News is on the air, much less that it somehow remains the #1 cable news channel, is a source of continuing embarrassment to me as an American.
That’s been true for a long time. This changes nothing, all I can add is yet another :rolleyes: concerning the butt-clenching idiocy that is Fox News.
Not only that, but they can’t PhotoShop worth shit.
Sleazy and stupid (these days, why would you figure you wouldn’t get caught?).
How, though, does this compare to selectively publishing photos in news stories that flatter a politician you support, while making his/her opposition look scary or stupid?
The N.Y. Times did this during the primary season (according to my completely unbiased standards 
) by printing photos of Hillary Clinton that made her look like Ms. Smiling Mary Sunshine, while the pix of her opponents (including but not limited to Obama) often made them appear dour, glowering or downright threatening. I don’t know that any of these were selectively “touched up”, but the effect was interesting.
They’ve also appeared to emphasize dorky-looking photos of GWB, but that observation has to be tempered by the fact that GWB has an undeniable tendency to appear dorky even during Serious Presidential Business.
Hate Fox News? This might cheer you up.
Especially that last picture, I almost couldn’t tell it was PhotoShop!!
This is one of those things everybody says happens when they feel some paper ran an ugly picture of their favored candidate. It always strikes me as total crap.
I don’t get the outright hatred for Fox News, just as I don’t get the same attitude towards MSNBC.
I generally watch CNN, but when I have watched Fox or MSNBC, what usually strikes me is that the polarizing and egregious material that those networks sponsor are NOT on the actual “news”, but as a part of an op-ed “news show”.
There is a distinct difference between the two, and a lot of people are apparently conflating the two, when they are not the same.
O’Rielly and Olbermann are two halves of the same whole, and neither are news reporters, they are news opinion-sharers.
I see a huge difference between the two, and frankly I can’t really stand either. When I want to watch the news, I want to find out what’s happening in the world, on the markets, in sports, etc without adulterated bullshit along with it.
Fox News always reminds me of Richard Bachman’s (nee Stephen King) The Running Man (the book, not the movie). In fact, lots of items about the media do; most recently, it was the news story about a fugitive recognized at a bar (I don’t recall his name).
It’s kinda scary how prescient King was in this, down to the doctored photos…
But Fox also includes polarizing and egregious material in the actual “news,” and that as a matter of longstanding editorial policy, and then calls it all “Fair and Balanced”. Check out the documentary Outfoxed, and The Republican Noise Machine, by David Brock.
That video was funny, but this comment on it was funnier:
If that’s not a troll, then it’s the funniest thing ever.
Fox News is only the latest in a long line of culprits in the media who have done this sort of thing. It may be tempting to single them out for special opprobrium but they’re not the first and they won’t be the last.
I’ve made this point myself, but you know what? It’s a largely intellectual distinction - although journalists often talk it up - and it doesn’t speak to the way people really take in the news. I don’t know how many people watch a straight news program and THEN watch commentary. But I do know that many people get their news from the ‘op-ed’ shows. They can recognize the opinion of an O’Reilly or an Olbermann, of course, when it’s clearly presented as opinion, but I don’t think the presentation of the facts is always as clear.
If it was just “an ugly picture” it wouldn’t be an issue. When it happens repeatedly it becomes noticeable.
Or do you think that no news organization except Fox is capable of this tactic?
Well said. My wife is a TV news junkie, and she’ll watch just about any commentary shows she likes. It’s quite strange, really…she likes O’Rielly and Olbermann, and Chris Matthews. She doesn’t seem to care.
I on the other hand, prefer to read my news, whether it be via an actual paper or on news websites. That way I don’t have to listen to someone yammering away at me.
Compared to the Daily Mail they can.
It’s not about capabilities. I’m just noticing that different people see different biases in different pictures. The obvious conclusion to me is that they’re all wrong.
Seems like all the cable news channels show more commentary than straight-up news, except maybe CNN Headline News (which is worse than US Today, if you ask me). There are commentary shows I simply can’t watch on FOX because they are so inane, but I do like Chris Wallace’s show on Sunday, and Brit Hume has a decent show most days, even though his Washington Grapevine segment is pretty stupid. So yeah, there is a tendency to pick on the commentary shows because they are not really “news”. That’s like picking on the Op Ed page for not being news, except for the fact that the Op Ed page is usually only a fraction of the whole paper.
Anyway, the picture where they made the guy’s nose bigger is pretty egregious. I don’t think anyone could look at that and not think it was doctored-- does such a nose exist?
I thought his amorphous blob of a chin was even worse.