Originally Posted By DlandDug Anyone read the transcript of what the Fox commentators were saying when these really badly photo shopped images aired? Here it is (as reported by MediaMatters): >>DOOCY: And before we go today, something's been bugging me. A couple of days -- KILMEADE: Well, go back outside. DOOCY: We will. A couple of days ago, when most newspapers in America were doing these positive stories about how Fox News Channel, once again, number one -- KILMEADE: Like the LA Times. DOOCY: -- for many, many years. There was a hit piece by somebody in The New York Times. The writer was a fellow by the name of Jacques Steinberg, and he's been doing a bunch of attack stories on Fox News Channel. Well, there's some backstory to it, and that is this: His boss, the guy who assigned him to this, is a fellow by the name of Steven Reddicliffe, and Mr. Reddicliffe actually used to work for this company. He worked -- I think he was the editor in charge of TV Guide until circulation went down under his tenure -- KILMEADE: Right. DOOCY: -- something like, 40 percent. So, he got fired, and according to Radar Online, this guy has had an ax to grind. KILMEADE: Yeah, he does, because, I think, Steve, according to reports -- according to Radar and another online magazine -- he was making close to a million dollars here, and now with his new job -- DOOCY: Yeah. KILMEADE: -- he's making significantly less. How about a tenth of that? DOOCY: So, anyway, Radar says he's had an ax to grind, and that's why he sends his attack dog Jacques Steinberg out -- that fellow right there, the writer for The New York Times -- to do these hit pieces. So, he essentially is his attack dog. His -- his poodle, if you will. KILMEADE: So -- DOOCY: Oooh! Very, very nice. KILMEADE: -- Radar Online has unlocked the mystery. And there you go, because that story was oddly in the Arts section of The New York Times, in the Sunday Times. DOOCY: Anyway, we just thought we'd -- cute. I wonder if he's going to show him at Westminster this year. KILMEADE: I'm not really sure. We know a beagle won last year, and this -- he's dressed as a poodle.<< <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002?f=h_top" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/items/...?f=h_top</a> This claptrap aired on "Fox and Friends," their happy talk morning show. Another image (I am not making this up) showed the faces of the two reporters superimposed over a poodle and his human owner. So... is it possible that the dopes at Fox and Friends thought they were just being, you know, funny? And that the joke is actually on everyone who believes that this was a legitimate attempt to fool anyone?
Originally Posted By X-san ***A couple of days ago, when most newspapers in America were doing these positive stories about how Fox News Channel, once again, number one*** lol.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So... is it possible that the dopes at Fox and Friends thought they were just being, you know, funny?' Don't see it.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "So... is it possible that the dopes at Fox and Friends thought they were just being, you know, funny? And that the joke is actually on everyone who believes that this was a legitimate attempt to fool anyone?" No, not really, it just shows that they are petty, but I guess it's no different than the Daily show...at least that doesn't air on a 24 hour "news" network like Fox though. Fox and Friends really is entertainment news though...
Originally Posted By X-san It's all just "infotainment" to me, Fox is just the most ridiculous and blatant with their propaganda (to the point of, as in this instance, simple childishness). Pathetic.
Originally Posted By dshyates "I guess it's no different than the Daily show" Jon Stewart has more credibility than Doocey and Kilmeade put together.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So... is it possible that the dopes at Fox and Friends thought they were just being, you know, funny?<< Fox had a late night yukfest that attempted to take on The Daily Show. It was completely, and I mean entirely, laugh-free. So, considering Fox News Channel's idea of what a comedy show is, then, yes I guess it's possible Fox & Friends (sounds like a local kids cartoon show, doesn't it?) was trying to be funny.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Me either. I see an attempt to spin the spin, though.<< Oh, I won't make any excuses for Fox and Friends. I am really trying to understand why such obviously phonied up photos were used on the air, and why Fox has been silent in the face of the criticism they so richly deserve. Steve Doocy fancies himself a comic personality of vast abilities. This smacks of his crass sense of big yuks at the expense of liberals. I really cannot see how any producer or performer would imagine that these two images could actually fool anyone. And in the context of the piece-- culminating in an image that superimposed the two reporters into an image of a dog and its handler-- it seems more likely that it was supposed to be, you know, funny. That said, whatever the purpose, it's risable, but for all the wrong reasons.
Originally Posted By dshyates DAR, it was a vicious attack on a critic. Funny? I do believe they tried to pass it off as "humorous". Sort of like when I say,"DAR, your a frickin' idiot". See how I used the apostrophe? That makes it "humorous".
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Steve Doocy fancies himself a comic personality of vast abilities.<< LOL! True. He's got a good comedy name, too, but he squanders it. Doocy. Doocy. Say it, and try not to smile. And then he turns out to be this obnoxious local TV weatherman sort of guy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Me either. I see an attempt to spin the spin, though.<< <Oh, I won't make any excuses for Fox and Friends. I am really trying to understand why such obviously phonied up photos were used on the air, and why Fox has been silent in the face of the criticism they so richly deserve.> Well, that says to me they were not trying to pass them off as funny. If that were the intent, they could simply say so, and point out the dog-overlay and all that. They haven't. And the doctoring is really only as obvious as it is when the pics are freeze-framed and compared to the originals - when going by in real time in 3 seconds by themselves without anything to compare them to, not so much. I think Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation - they were being petty towards those who had criticized them - is most likely the accurate one.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I really cannot see how any producer or performer would imagine that these two images could actually fool anyone. And in the context of the piece-- culminating in an image that superimposed the two reporters into an image of a dog and its handler-- it seems more likely that it was supposed to be, you know, funny." I can see where one would HOPE this was an attempt at humor, because then just maybe it could be spun away. However, it sure seems like it was just someone being crass and obnoxious. Given the boorishness of it all, on what level would this really be funny? And to whom? Would it be in the category of it's so bad it's good?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Given the boorishness of it all, on what level would this really be funny?<< Well, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of the many, many wits who populate these boards. As far as attempting (or HOPING) to spin this, all I'm trying to do is understand it. Others here seem to agree that this is just possibly a very flat-footed attempt at humor. Crass? Obnoxious?Boorish? Oh yeah. Complete agreement on that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of the many, many wits who populate these boards." Noted.
