[quopte]Now, it stands to reason that since this board leans pretty far to the left, the average poster here would think that Brit Hume is way over on the right and CNN is somewhere in the middle. But that doesn’t make it so.
[/quote]
According to this Media Matters critique of that study, The RAND Corporation is solidly liberal, the NRA is practically centrist, and the ACLU is conservative. I’m not sure how far I trust that study:
I dunno, I expect even commentary pieces from major new outlets to at least be vaguely factual. Perhaps biased and not fact checked terribly well, and of course opinionated and full of spin, but not full of outright fabrications.
Except caricatures in political cartoons aren’t misleading, its pretty clear to people they’re not meant to be realistic depictions. According to the OP’s links, this wasn’t done during the Fox report.
Brit Hume is scum. Period.
Brit Hume Goes On TV & Says He Wants to Profit Off the Terrorist Attack
Or how about this comment directed at Juan Williams?
Then there’s this propaganda piece he sold out for:
Brit Hume and the Bush administration take propaganda to a new level
Plenty more where those came from. I just can’t imagine anyone defending the schmuck.
I’m on your side about Fox being unethical in running these, especially without saying they’d been altered, but have you LOOKED at the altered pictures? It’s hard to believe anyone accepting those as real pictures. They’re blatantly deformed.
In the context of a website saying: “look at these photoshopped faces” that’s certainly true. But actually watching the show, where they throw up the faces for ~5 seconds each, I don’t think its that obvious.
Actually, you can see the pictures in context in the linked video in the Media Matters website. YMMV (and your TV might be bigger then mine) but I don’t think its that blatant unless your looking for it, especially given that I think most of us assume pictures shown during news broadcasts (even commentary) are accurate.
Well, Vanity Fair has a slideshow of Fox News personalities with their photos similarly (or to be quite honest, more grotesquely) manipulated. Brain-scrubbing payback indeed.
I beg to differ. If I were shown those faces, without the originals and with no context, clearly and for as long as 5 seconds, my reaction would be “who’s been screwing with these faces” (or jusy possibly “Those poor deformed bastards”, depending on how groggy I was) – those faces are grotesque.
Yes, but you probably have more awareness than the actual Fox News viewer. They have a lot of older viewers who probably haven’t been on the internet much and seen what photoshop can do.
And you can forget what I just said. I read your entire post this time and see you weren’t saying what I thought you were saying. :smack:
Um… hey, does anyone else think Brit Hume’s Vanity Fair picture looks kind of like William H Macy?