(POL) FOX News Alters Photos of NYT Reporters

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

c'mon, this isnt ok for anyone to do. Right or Left. MBBf, Jon take a step back, a deep breath and say, "Yeah, that's pretty shady to do."

What's amazing to me is when I saw the top and my jaw hit the desk, i slowly reeled it back up only to read some of the following posts and have my jaw smack off the desk again....bruising is coming but Im calling Fox News to help me doctor my face up.

I'd say the move is pretty childish, but I'm not sure it is worth the amount of discussion it has already received.

[fantom1979]

Its really a shame when a group of people cannot even agree that editing photos is unbelievable misconduct for the news industry. I don't care if it is Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, or even freaking Al-Jazeera. This kind of stuff needs to be kept with Jon Stewart and Colbert.

[Dutch]

If Fox News is doctoring photos, and it's not a joke, the people responsible need to be fired.


OMG!!! Halt, you brown man! -- Los Angeles (One Democrat Voice) Times

(This liberal douchebag was fired for this Fake Photo. Just in case anybody was thinking only conservatives did this sort of thing.)

[JPhillips]

Just imagine the shitstorm if CNN had done this to Washington Times' reporters. MBBF would probably be the one to post his outrage.

[Dutch]

A great way to "avoid" doctoring photos is to take video footage frame-by-frame and pick out good and bad picks to display. The AP loves to do that with McCain and Obama.

[jeff061]

Come on.

Like it's easy to get a good pic of McCain.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Baloney.

It's on the FXNC version of the Today show for crying out loud, that's not exactly what I'd call hard news. And it's the weather guy & the sports guy to boot. Overall it's entertainment programming that happens to have some news elements. If somebody goofing around with a picture (if in fact that's what actually happened) in that context is considered a big deal to some, more power to them for taking time away from the lefty's who could have used the time to do something that actually caused damage instead of frittering it away on this.

So if The Today Show did this it would be OK? I have a hard time believing that if they did, you would be OK with it. I'll agree with the second part on the flip side -- I'd rather have Fox News just doctoring photos and being a general douchebag rather than hurting America like they usually do.

Credit to Dutch on this one -- anyone doing something like this should be fired regardless of their perceived bias, real or otherwise.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by sabotai

For one, we can see that the photos shown on Fox News is vastly different than the originals.

Secondly, anyone who has messed around with Photoshop for a few seconds can spot the obvious use of a smear tool. Look at the guy's forehead and hairline in the second photo. Does that look even close to natural to you?

Nuts - I was thinking, "should I put a smiley at the end" and decided not to. Oh well - sorry if I over-sarcasmed

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Credit to Dutch on this one -- anyone doing something like this should be fired regardless of their perceived bias, real or otherwise.

bingo

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

c'mon, this isnt ok for anyone to do. Right or Left. MBBf, Jon take a step back, a deep breath and say, "Yeah, that's pretty shady to do."

Maybe it's in how I look at shows like F&F. They're infotainment at most, entertainment with some news breaks at least. I really don't take much they do any more seriously than I do the Colbert or Stewart mentioned elsewhere in the thread. The latter are more intentionally funny but in terms of whether they're "news" or "entertainment", I just don't draw much of a line between them. They're all pretty much "news as entertainment". Same with Lou Dobbs nightly show, O'Reilly, etc. You have to pan the occasional good nuggets out of there, stuff like this is just the whatever you call the discarded material when you're panning for gold.

[Flasch186]

i dont think there's much comparison for middle america when one show comes on Comedy Central and another comes on X News Network.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Nuts - I was thinking, "should I put a smiley at the end" and decided not to. Oh well - sorry if I over-sarcasmed

Looking back, it wasn't over-sarcasm, it was quite brilliant.

I say bravo, CraigSca. Bravo.

[fantom1979]

When I watch a show on Fox News , I would expect a higher standard on journalism than from a show on Comedy Central.

edit --- Flasch beat me to it

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

When I watch a show on Fox News , I would expect a higher standard on journalism than from a show on Comedy Central.

edit --- Flasch beat me to it

If anybody is really convinced that any news source today holds a higher standard than Comedy Central...

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

When I watch a show on Fox News , I would expect a higher standard on journalism than from a show on Comedy Central.

edit --- Flasch beat me to it

Perhaps you will start to adjust that expectation now.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe it's in how I look at shows like F&F. They're infotainment at most, entertainment with some news breaks at least. I really don't take much they do any more seriously than I do the Colbert or Stewart mentioned elsewhere in the thread. The latter are more intentionally funny but in terms of whether they're "news" or "entertainment", I just don't draw much of a line between them. They're all pretty much "news as entertainment". Same with Lou Dobbs nightly show, O'Reilly, etc. You have to pan the occasional good nuggets out of there, stuff like this is just the whatever you call the discarded material when you're panning for gold.

In fact, it's even worse, because coming on what is supposed to be a legit news station, Fox can play both sides of this - if no one notices and people take midleading pics or misinformation about people or items in the news in a way that slants their perception, then great for Fox; but if someone calls them on it, the response is, "Hey, this is just our infotainment show, no one's supposed to take it seriously!" I'm sorry, that just doesn't cut it. And anyway, Fox already tried a Daily Show-type show that failed miserably. Since it was clearly billed as such, I wouldn't have a problem with stuff like this...although in this particular case, there isn't a real point, joking or not, other than to make them look bad by deception. That's exceedingly poor form.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i dont think there's much comparison for middle america when one show comes on Comedy Central and another comes on X News Network.

Now I see the confusion. I'm "MiddleGA", not "middle america"

Seriously though, go back & read the transcript excerpt. Attack dogs, Westminster, poodles, etc. How serious a presentation does that appear to be? It doesn't look like hard news, it reads like a cross between commentary & random banter trying to fill time. So I really do struggle to see somebody tweaking a couple of pictures in that context as worth more than a brief grin (or eye roll, depending upon your view of the characters in question).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now I see the confusion. I'm "MiddleGA", not "middle america"

Seriously though, go back & read the transcript excerpt. Attack dogs, Westminster, poodles, etc. How serious a presentation does that appear to be? It doesn't look like hard news, it reads like a cross between commentary & random banter trying to fill time. So I really do struggle to see somebody tweaking a couple of pictures in that context as worth more than a brief grin (or eye roll, depending upon your view of the characters in question).

The problem, as I pointed out above, is that there was no point to the change in the pictures. If they tweaked the pics to make them look more like German Shepards, then maybe I'd agree with you. But that's clearly not what was going on here. Those pics were changed in a way that had no connection to the story (or "skit," if I'm playing along with your line of reasoning) they were doing.

[Flasch186]

they made them look "Jewey" which as a Jew Im very offended about!!! Now lemme go eat my Gifilte Fish and count my money!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The problem, as I pointed out above, is that there was no point to the change in the pictures.

Perhaps the point was simply to irritate the handful of people who would actually give a damn if they tweaked the pictures? After all, the conversation about the subjects wasn't exactly singing their praises

And there's several possibilities for what, if anything, was done intentionally (or for a specific purpose) versus what occurred through sloppy editing.

The first thing I noticed different about the side-by-side shots was that the TV screen cap looked like a different dimension that the one described as the original (I don't think we could know what "original" the FXNC graphic dept was working from, right? Unless they tell us I mean). And that it looked first & foremost to me like the picture had been squeezed without maintaining the same ratio, which distorts the images all by itself.

The next thing I noticed (I think this was on the first one in the thread more than the second) was that the contrast between the foreground & background was different. Granted, I was looking for differences & probably started in the upper left & scanned down (one of two ways I might review an images when proofing them for work) so I picked that up first but it was obvious something was changed and that wouldn't be malicious in & of itself.

The only thing I can't account for is that the first guy's ears do look bigger in the screenie but ultimately BFD if they are AFAIC. Given the context the picture was used, he's lucky they didn't 'shop his head onto a poodle.

[Flasch186]

im confused....are you saying you dont see much editing at all between the pictures?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

im confused....are you saying you dont see much editing at all between the pictures?

Sadly, I think he is.

There is far, far more going on in both of the pictures than just a stretching because of a different aspect of the TV or whatever.

[KWhit]

Ah. So now the argument is that they weren't doctored, it was just that they were broadcast in a different ratio?

Ok. Fox can keep it's medal for high standards of journalism, then.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Sadly, I think he is.

If that's what he's saying than he will have dropped a ton of credibility with me and Im sure many others so Im going to assume that's not at all what he's saying unless he is more clear. The "if anything" is what scares me that I'm being far too kind.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

If that's what he's saying than he will have dropped a ton of credibility with me and Im sure many others so Im going to assume that's not at all what he's saying unless he is more clear. The "if anything" is what scares me that I'm being far too kind.

You're fault for giving him credibility to begin with

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If anybody is really convinced that any news source today holds a higher standard than Comedy Central...

This reminds me of Jon Stewart bashing Crossfire and saying something like "The show that follows me is about puppets making crank calls. What's your excuse?"

But, really, it *should*. And to say "see, Fox did something wrong, silly Fox" and rub their nose in it like a bad puppy and then say "but, see, no one else is perfect" is still the same straw man. Just because all are flawed doesn't mean there aren't different levels of flaws. I'll take the puppy that occasionally craps on the floor over the one who isn't potty trained at all.

SI

[Toddzilla]

I can understand this being a *big* deal if the photo's were manipulated in a subtle fashion as if to imply they were unaltered and the subjects were indeed awful-looking goons. But even I see it as a tongue-in-cheek jab at the two subjects - one that I'd expect to see on a blog somewhere, not a "major" news company's morning news program, however.

That being said, I get the feeling that Fox "News" is thumbing their noses at the liberal media critics who unyieldingly assail Fox for their near complete lack of journalistic integrity. "Yeah, we've got an agenda, so what are going to do about it?"

[sterlingice]

My wife and I were talking about this and wondering- can they (legitimately) be sued for libel for this? It's one thing for Conan to do "if they mated" where he is clearly protected by parody laws. But they tried to pass this off as fact.

SI

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I can understand this being a *big* deal if the photo's were manipulated in a subtle fashion as if to imply they were unaltered and the subjects were indeed awful-looking goons. But even I see it as a tongue-in-cheek jab at the two subjects - one that I'd expect to see on a blog somewhere, not a "major" news company's morning news program, however.

That being said, I get the feeling that Fox "News" is thumbing their noses at the liberal media critics who unyieldingly assail Fox for their near complete lack of journalistic integrity. "Yeah, we've got an agenda, so what are going to do about it?"

I did wonder as everyone flips their lid about this if it really was intended to be obviously photoshopped. If that is the case, it seems like much less of a "big deal".

This is part of why it seems crazy that Jon may think nothing was altered intentionally - to me it is SO obvious that it seems it could be a parody/joke to an extent.

[Flasch186]

ill bet that they can be sued and would likely settle out of court and admit no wrongdoing.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I did wonder as everyone flips their lid about this if it really was intended to be obviously photoshopped. If that is the case, it seems like much less of a "big deal".

This is part of why it seems crazy that Jon may think nothing was altered intentionally - to me it is SO obvious that it seems it could be a parody/joke to an extent.

Just wait until Jon figures out the better angle and he'll choose that one to defend the debauchery.

[Glengoyne]

Is anyone seriously calling any of the talkshow crap on any of the networks "news".

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This reminds me of Jon Stewart bashing Crossfire and saying something like "The show that follows me is about puppets making crank calls. What's your excuse?"

But, really, it *should*. And to say "see, Fox did something wrong, silly Fox" and rub their nose in it like a bad puppy and then say "but, see, no one else is perfect" is still the same straw man. Just because all are flawed doesn't mean there aren't different levels of flaws. I'll take the puppy that occasionally craps on the floor over the one who isn't potty trained at all.

SI

I never said it was "okay" because others did it. I did say that not just Fox News were capable of that (with cited example of a leftist source) and if Fox News people were involved in doctoring photos (and they were not in fact clowning around because those were pretty obvious at least) that they should be FIRED. So I'm not sure how you got your interpretation that I said it was "okay".

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're right. They have no inherent bias. The nation thanks them for revealing the truth in all cases.

You, and this idiotic nation thinks in two ways. Pick one, and get enraged by the other.

Go Dems!!!!
Go Reps!!!!
Yay!!!!

You party-liners all suck donkey cock.

[Schmidty]

Dola.

Those pictures aren't even shopped well. In a world of stupidity in the media, FOX takes the cake.

[jeff061]

No they aren't shopped well. But people, as a whole, are just not that bright.

I'd hazard to guess nearly everyone took it as fact, especially without the originals. Most people don't question what their told.

[BrianD]

Maybe Fox was just trying to show us the Coneheads are really among us.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by jeff061

No they aren't shopped well. But people, as a whole, are just not that bright.

I'd hazard to guess nearly everyone took it as fact, especially without the originals. Most people don't question what their told.

and, IMO, this is what they count on.

[duckman]

*yawn*

[Flasch186]

appropriate

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

appropriate

Seriously, when the shoe is on the other foot, do you get this riled up?

[Flasch186]

As stated above by someone point out somewhere where a reputable news source has altered photographs under the guise of news? Comedy Central, I would get it, but on Fox News Channel, I think it is unintentionally revealing that they are not News but a right wing mouthpiece. When they darkened OJ's picture on the cover of Time the people shouldve been fired then too because it wasn't "art" as the guy said in his defense but News.

Originally Posted by Time

Time Magazine
News Magazine - The official home of TIME Magazine online, presenting the top news stories of the day and current events from around the globe.

http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/in...n.27s_dark_day


In regards to Duckman, he will always follow me around and make sniping remarks. The key thing to note is he follows me around, not vice versa.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

appropriate

Actually, I was yawning at the whole thing between both sides. If this is the most pressing issue to have a pissing contest over, then we have a lot bigger problems than some photoshopped photos.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

In regards to Duckman, he will always follow me around and make sniping remarks. The key thing to note is he follows me around, not vice versa.

I could give two shits about you. Seriously, go the fuck away and make the world a happier place for the rest of us.

[Flasch186]

i dunno, I think the integrity of our press especially those considered News is fairly high up there in worthiness of the collective conciousness of our country...especially considering many people partially blame the newscorp for allowing Iraq to happen the way it did by not pressing enough. Would be tough to press if the newscorp we're simply full of liars who were never held to account. I mean even Dan Rather had to leave for lying.

[dawgfan]

The problem with these digital alterations is this - if they'd stuck with obvious jokes or alterations, such as the later ones they showed superimposing the headshots of Steinberg & Reddicliffe on the bodies of dogs, one could laugh it off as obvious potshots. I have my doubts that other morning "news" shows like Today and the like would engage in such petty sniping, but whatever.

However, what they did with the first digital alterations is more subtle and more chilling. The alterations are such that, when compared with the original photos, it's obvious to see the changes that were made. And if one has a screenshot from their show of their altered headshots of Steiberg & Reddicliffe, the alterations are strong enough to become obvious if one has time to examine them. But for a casual viewer watching that show live, the changes are subtle enough that most won't realize at the time that the photos were doctored.

[Shkspr]

Look, this entire photo-doctoring thing is so overblown, and it illuminates handily the treasonous bigotry that categorizes America's liberal fraternity.

* Yes, Steinberg's nose appeared to be a little larger than normal. And perhaps a little more Jewish. Why is that so offensive to liberals? Why are liberals so anti-Semitic that appearing more Jewish is considered to be a bad thing?

* Yes, Steinberg's ears, chin and hairline were altered somewhat to make him look as though perhaps he was mentally challenged. Why is this seen as a negative? The special needs community needs role models to challenge students with intellectual disabilities, and Jacques Steinberg can be that man. Unless the liberals continue to keep those with developmental disabilities in cages.

* Yes, both Steinberg and Reddicliffe were depicted with yellowed teeth, suggesting that both are smokers. Smoking is still legal in this country, though the liberals are fighting that, and still a vibrant part of our economic strength. By objecting to this minor change, aren't liberals really advocating the collapse of American agribusiness?

* Yes, Mr. Reddicliffe's eyes appear to be bloodshot with dark circles under the eyes. It is obvious that this was done to highlight Mr. Reddicliffe's hard driving work ethic. Why are liberals so afraid of hard work?

* Yes, it appears as though Mr. Reddicliffe's forehead has been enlarged and his hairline adjusted to a higher spot on his head. In America, we associate advancing baldness as a sign of wisdom and maturity, and larger cranial capacity clearly indicates advanced reasoning skills. Only in the liberal "one size fits all" America would exceptional wisdom and intelligence be singled out as negatives.

* Yes, the natural ruddiness of Reddicliffe's face is brought out a little more, which some might view as a reference to a possible drinking problem. First, drinking is still a legal activity, so nobody should take offense if Reddicliffe does happen to drink to excess. There's nothing illegal about a glass or two of wine. Even at 11 AM. Also, if he is in fact a fall-down drunkard, I'm sure he goes to AA meetings. But I suppose if he isn't relying on new-age crystal power to curb his rampant alcoholism, liberals see that as a negative portrayal.

* Finally, yes, the appearance of both men has been adjusted to make them seem more feral, with subsequent photos even making them look like dogs. Well, puppies, really. And who doesn't like puppies? A liberal, that's who.

So what drives liberals to object to cosmetic changes used merely to add context to a human interest story? Perhaps the same reason they hate hard work, intelligence, wisdom, American farmers, ingenuity, the disabled, puppies, and the Jews. Because each and every person who has ever looked at a photo of Barack Obama and not vomited is, in fact, a terrorist.

It's the only fair judgment one can make from looking at the facts.

[Maple Leafs]

Fair's fair, I guess...

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/pol...-fox-news.html

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Fair's fair, I guess...

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/pol...-fox-news.html

Somehow this doesn't bother me much either. Look people, caricatures...something we've never seen on TV or in newspapers before.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Somehow this doesn't bother me much either. Look people, caricatures...something we've never seen on TV or in newspapers before.

Which part doesn't bother you - the ones Fox did on Steinberg and Reddicliffe or Vanity Fair's tongue-in-cheek retributions?