On Fox News
They’re not the only ones doing it, obviously. But they were the first to go this far with it. And I guess it’s some measure of the lingering memories of a bygone era that I still find it somewhat shocking that Fox News stoops this low in its efforts to manage its reputation.
See this write-up from David Carr at the New York Times: When Fox News is the story. It has additional back-story regarding this item from Media Matters, showing altered photos of NY Times reporters that were run on the “Fox & Friends” show: Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters.
I mean, really, guys. Can we go back to a world where grown-ups are in charge?
July 8th, 2008 at 8:11 am
hopefully that world will be led by Barack Obama (despite his ‘run to the center’ FISA disappointment).
Frankly I wonder who would want the job. The economy is clearly in a recession (no matter how imaginatively you cook the books), our national debt is crushingly monstrous (Clinton left office with a budget surplus by the by), the wars aren’t going well at all (say where is that Osama bin Forgotten feller?), and oil is $145 and climbing. We’ll be lucky to avoid another Greater Depression the way the current fools are farking things up.
I love how they made Steinberg look more like Obama (ears, nose). har de har har the good ol boys at faux musta busted a nut laughing it up on this petty stunt.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I’m struck by how clumsy their photoshop skills are.
And the answer to your question is no, we can’t go back. We have to go forward. I recommend signing up for the campaign that’s starting to start restoring our government’s respect for the constitution:
http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
July 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’ll be interested to see how much money goes to the R’s and how much goes to D’s. I wonder if this PAC will hold themselves accountable in the future and disclose where the money goes.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Don’t forget the best part … when people started calling Fox News out about the obvious alterations, O’Reilly jumped in and said it was “hypocritical” for the NYT to be upset about Fox using the altered photos when they had previously published caricatures of him with devil horns.
As if people might confuse the cartoon drawing with an unedited photo of Bill O’Reilly.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807080003
July 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Enk,
This one is for you: “Now Repeat After Me…We’re Electing a President, Not a Messiah” http://www.bobboblog.org/bobbo-46
July 8th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Steve,
Yeah, as someone who spent his evenings and weekends for the last few months mostly in Photoshop, I was struck by how obvious the manipulations were, too. But I guess that’s because this was intended as a quick gag. When they want to avoid being caught (inflating crowds of jubilant Iraqis at Saddam’s statue-toppling, or whatever), the Photoshoppers probably work a little harder at it.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:26 am
Fox and Friends is an entertainment show, it’s not like Time Magazine using unflattering pictures of conservatives on it’s cover for years. Newt and Rush being the two best examples. Would you be so upset if Jon Stewart did something similar to a picture of Brit Hume? So it was childish, Fox and Friends is a childish show. I’ve never been able to watch more than a few minutes of it, just enough to ogle the great legs on the gal.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:00 am
With names like “Newt” and “Rush” you expect flattering pictures of fat microcephalic rage-a-holic wwnjs? Maybe they should run a story about newtie and have that pic of him serving divorce papers to his wife while she is in hospital dying of cancer. I hear that is a very flattering picture!
My nine year old has better pshop chops.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
How different really is this from the countless websites (of ALL political stripes) that do this:
A. Write a negative post about a particular person.
B. Include a captured still shot of the subject’s face with the most unflattering look on their face (usually taken as the person is speaking).
Equally childish and unnecessary.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
… or conversely, a puff piece with an extremely flattering picture with the subject kissing a dog or petting a child.