Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Ok, whether or not you love or hate Fox News, this is pretty petty for any news organization. <a href="http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/03/fox-news-doctors-ny-times-photos/?icid=100214839x1204871703x1200237700" target="_blank">http://news.aol.com/political-...00237700</a> Apparently, Fox doctored two photos of New York Times employees because they both wrote about Fox New loosing ratings. The photos had yellowed teeth, big ears, receding hairlines, etc. added to make the two guys look pretty ugly. I would love to know how this is acceptible journalism? So far, no comment from Fox about it, and I wonder if they will bother. I did like the NY Time's response to "do nothing" in that it would be like fighting a pig; everyone gets dirty, and the pig likes it. Can Fox keep going in this direction and not become entertainment news like the Daily Show? How can they be taken seriously with stuff like this?
Originally Posted By dshyates Typical FOX News. I expect no less from them. They are the paradigm of journalism.
Originally Posted By DAR I think someone at Fox News forgot to wash their hands coming out of the restroom. Really are we going to nitpick everything they do. And should the NY Times give anyone a lecture about journalistic integrity cough Jason Blair cough.
Originally Posted By mele The Times isn't lecturing anyone about it. They are choosing to ignore it, it's another organization that did a story on it. It was vaguely funny for a nano-second, and then I thought of how petty and immature these people must be to actually go forward with this and put it on the air. Creepy. Man, the news media creeps the hell out of me.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Whenever someone in the media gets caught doing something like this, it usually gets top billing on Drudge Report. But looking at it today, it's not even mentioned. I wonder why that is?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I wonder why that is?<< Stunning, isn't it? Usually we have a poster here who is on top of this stuff. But today.... nada. Maybe he's out celebrating Rush's new contract and took the day off. ; ) In fairness (not that Fox really deserves it) but I remember a piece that Time did on Ann Coulter awhile back. Now I'm no fan of hers, to put it mildly. But even a casual observer could see that the photos took some "artistic" liberties -- using angles and lenses that distorted, washed out colors so as to make her look barely alive. Yeah, I know, it's Ann Coulter. But fair is fair, and if you call out one side for this stuff, you can't give a pass to the other. I haven't seen it done quite as clumsily and obvious as this latest Fox example, though. Love the dark circles under the eyes. Looks like the old Tarryton cigarette "I'd rather fight than switch!" ad campaign.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20050425,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/cover...,00.html</a>
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I do agree that no news agency should be doing this kind of thing. It's so childish. It does seem like Fox is on a roll lately though.
Originally Posted By mele That photo of Ann looks better than most I've seen. She's not very attractive (inside or out).
Originally Posted By ecdc This is nothing like the Jayson Blair situation, who got caught and lost his job immediately. This was producers deliberately doctoring photos to make their critics unattractive. More than anything, it's just remarkably childish. I'm sure plenty of Fox News fans quietly think this is funny, but it just shows how seriously they take their news.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What's interesting is that Fox rival CNN has closed the gap, in part, with shows like Glenn Beck (ugh) and Nancy Grace (triple ugh). Basically, they're eating into Fox's lead with conservative hosts. I'm sure there is data out there to say whether conservatives tend to get their news and information primarily from TV and radio vs. newspapers and news magazines.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That photo of Ann looks better than most I've seen. She's not very attractive (inside or out).<< Be that as it may, if you check out the photos with that article, there's clearly an effort to make her look strange (r than usual).
Originally Posted By mele Well, the only photos I could see were pretty flattering...some of them more flattering than her book covers. I couldn't open the article, however. It's listed as "premium content".
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Man, the news media creeps the hell out of me.>>> Bravo! ROFL ! nice mele nice.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<I'm sure plenty of Fox News fans quietly think this is funny, but it just shows how seriously they take their news.>>> I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm not defending FOX News but still, I'm not losing sleep over it. Big deal people.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I don't really think of Fox News as News. I usually go to the AP website for my news and read the AJC paper.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I don't really think of Fox News as News. >>> Ah, but that's the issue. You don't, but millions do. And they actually think not only is it news, but that it's fair and balanced.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>but millions do<< And what can anyone do about that? Not a thing. Because people tend to gravitate now, more than ever before, to news outlets that play into their own biases. There is real, HONEST information out there, and it's available, with just a little effort, in far more "fair & balanced" avenues than Fox or any of the other cable networks. But given a choice, people will choose the news source that caters to their beliefs. Much of the stuff on the internet is so out there it makes Fox look positively sedate by comparison. I don't know that it's making us any smarter about what's going on in the world. But part of a free press is the freedom to choose what to read and watch and listen to. If they choose to be deluded, it's tragic, but what can you do about it?
