Fox News - Altering Photos, Bullying Reporters, And More

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
As crude as that sounds, it works. By blacklisting reporters it does not like, planting stories with friendlies at every turn, Fox News has been living a life beyond consequence for years.
...
The accompanying photographs were heavily altered, although the audience was probably none the wiser. Mr. Reddicliffe looked like the wicked witch after a hard night of drinking, but it was the photo of Mr. Steinberg that stopped traffic when it appeared on the Web at Media Matters side by side with his actual photo. In a technique familiar to students of vintage German propaganda, his ears were pulled out, his teeth splayed apart, his forehead lowered and his nose was widened and enlarged in a way that made him look more like $$$in than the guy I work with. (Mr. Steinberg told me that as a working reporter who covers Fox News, he was not in a position to comment. A spokeswoman said the executive in charge of “Fox and Friends” is on vacation and not available for comment but added that altering photos for humorous effect is a common practice on cable news stations.)
Click to expand...
fox-20080702-steinberg.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/business/media/07carr.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The whole piece is great - I know this is not news to anyone paying attention, but the individual stories are nonetheless fascinating.

PS - I see that CAG is now (inadvertently) obscuring the names of literary characters from Oliver Twist. WTG censorship!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='freakyzeeky']That is some reallly bad photoshopping... It's way too obvious. :lol:[/quote]

You're overestimating the intelligence of people who watch Fox and Friends. I swear that blonde lady is borderline retarded. I lose 2 IQ points in the morning just for passing through Fox News on my way to MSNBC.
 
I'd have to see it in context of the video to be convinced they were deliberately trying to do a vanity-smear on people, as the article suggests.
 
as right titled as fox news is its hard to believe they as an organization did this. its much easier to believe that an individual or two did this on their own accord that work for fox news.
 
[quote name='camoor']You're overestimating the intelligence of people who watch Fox and Friends. I swear that blonde lady is borderline retarded. I lose 2 IQ points in the morning just for passing through Fox News on my way to MSNBC.[/QUOTE]

MSNBC is 12 billion times worse than Fox.

Jesus, I fucking hate Keith Olbermann.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']MSNBC is 12 billion times worse than Fox.

Jesus, I fucking hate Keith Olbermann.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

But as far as the op.... Sigh.. Media Matters and Fox News, Come on. Like mirror images of each other.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']MSNBC is 12 billion times worse than Fox.

Jesus, I fucking hate Keith Olbermann.[/quote]

Olbermann wears his agenda on his sleeve (and he's really entertaining to boot). Fox has the audacity to claim that they are fair and balanced, and they're only entertaining when O'Reilly is perving it up about luffas (WTF) or screaming his head off because a teleprompter malfunctioned.

Fair and balanced. More like fairly unbalanced AMIRITE?
 
[quote name='camoor']

Fair and balanced. More like fairly unbalanced AMIRITE?[/QUOTE]

I would never try to defend Fox as being fair and balanced. But I honestly don't feel any other mainstream American news channel is any better (with a similar variety of talk/opinion shows).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I would never try to defend Fox as being fair and balanced. But I honestly don't feel any other mainstream American news channel is any better (with a similar variety of talk/opinion shows).[/QUOTE]

Find me another channels that "jews up" photos of reporters who wrote articles on them.

In my brain, I have to go back to 1992-or-whenever OJ Simpson killed his wife/lover. I recall them adding a few photoshop layers of "black" to a front cover photo of Simpson in TIME.

Here's a good article on FOX. Don't be scared of big words that come from reading a paper written for the above-average crowd: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/business/media/07carr.html?scp=2&sq=fox+news&st=nyt

EDIT: On top of it all, you claimed to want to see the video for "context," then disregard the video when it is posted because it reconfirms the OP. What gives, hombre? We don't agree on much at all, but I would like to think you have scruples. Otherwise I wouldn't bother responding to you.
 
Look, we can throw out examples of different News Agencies doing boneheaded shit all day (Dan Rather anyone?) but this particular case does not somehow "Prove" that FoxNews Corp, as an organization and company, is actively trying to photoshop stuff to belittle or smear people. At most, this was a case of poor oversight of minions. When you have dozens of people, practically forming their own mini-companies for each show, it becomes a nightmare of oversight. That's why you see sloppy shit all the time.

A couple years ago someone right-click saved As a picture of Bush on CNN's webpage and the filename was "asshole.jpg". So using the same fair logic from this story, what does that tell us about CNN? Anything? Nothing?

I did watch it, I chalk it up to morons running a variety opinion show, which, like Olberman, is mostly inoculated from any type of journalistic standard. Had it been a guy reading today's headlines during a newsbreak, it would be a whole different, much more serious, issue.

Edit: Oh and the whole NYtimes vs Fox bullshit rivalry has been brewing and gaining momentum for awhile now. This is just one more shot in their little stupid media war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry guys but despite CNN and MSNBC not being perfect they are way better then Fox. There's been so many times that I wanted to throw my controller because of the sheer stupidity coming out of the talking heads on Fox.

I'm actually surprised that some of you are defending Fox considering this is a gaming forum, and Fox has been the media outlet that most ignorantly attacks video games. Did you guys forget the whole Mass Effect Porn thing?
 
Keep in mind that thrust is coming from a "all media is liberally biased" standpoint, and you'll oftentimes see that he is incapable of defending situations such as these, but, rather, makes allusions to other situations of impropriety so as to not condemn the action itself - but to falsely claim that everyone does it equally, so FOX is not at fault.

Because they should be forgiven, of course, for evidently not having an editor who is responsible for checking these things.
 
[quote name='Zerostatic']I'm sorry guys but despite CNN and MSNBC not being perfect they are way better then Fox. There's been so many times that I wanted to throw my controller because of the sheer stupidity coming out of the talking heads on Fox.

[/QUOTE]

do you play with your controller while watching the o'reilly factor pretending to be bill?
 
CNN better than FOX!?! Ahahahah. Ahahahhaa.

http://www.webfilehost.com/images/mainstream-media.php

I feel sorry for anyone who relies on MSNBC, FOX, or CNN for news and analysis. The political bent of the respective organizations is irrelevant; all of them focus on trashy stories and appeal to a market of idiots.

See The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist for real reporting. Bonus points if you pay for Jane's and Foreign Affairs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Keep in mind that thrust is coming from a "all media is liberally biased" standpoint, and you'll oftentimes see that he is incapable of defending situations such as these, but, rather, makes allusions to other situations of impropriety so as to not condemn the action itself - but to falsely claim that everyone does it equally, so FOX is not at fault.

Because they should be forgiven, of course, for evidently not having an editor who is responsible for checking these things.[/QUOTE]

Nice. "Falsely Claim"? eh? I'm sorry myke, there is no scientific study out there that can prove unequivocally which network provides more "truth" or more "lies" than others. Unless you are aware of one, then most of this discussion is opinion based on what we LIKE TO HEAR.

If you are going to try and say that I "falsely claim" something then back it up with facts that you so eloquently tried to deride me for NOT supplying. Otherwise, as I had assumed all along, this whole discussion comparing news network value is just opinion.

For the record, my biggest concern with ALL network news is not what they cover and how they cover it, it's mostly what they don't cover and ignore. And in that respect, yes they are all equally useless and are really just a slightly more intelligent and meaningful entertainment than reality tv.

The most frighting aspect of this is that the majority of American perception of world and reality are defined by these buffoons and shills with cameras and press passes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fox is absolutley fucking ridiculous. I'm glad not everybody fogets how hard they come down on video games. I actually saw a headline once on their webpage titled "Video gamer kills kids" It was fuckin ridiculous.

The mass effect fiasco was just one drop in the bucket that exemplifies thier freak show called "news". The biggest shame of it all is that people take it seriously. I could actually be funny on comedy central.
[quote name='mykevermin'] What gives, hombre? We don't agree on much at all, but I would like to think you have scruples. Otherwise I wouldn't bother responding to you.[/QUOTE]


Dude, I found a solution to this a while ago: Don't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin'] What gives, hombre? We don't agree on much at all, but I would like to think you have scruples. Otherwise I wouldn't bother responding to you.[/QUOTE]


Dude, I found a solution to this a while ago: Don't.
 
[quote name='Serik']CNN better than FOX!?! Ahahahah. Ahahahhaa.

http://www.webfilehost.com/images/mainstream-media.php

I feel sorry for anyone who relies on MSNBC, FOX, or CNN for news and analysis. The political bent of the respective organizations is irrelevant; all of them focus on trashy stories and appeal to a market of idiots.

See The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist for real reporting. Bonus points if you pay for Jane's and Foreign Affairs.[/QUOTE]

I endorse this post.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

Dude, I found a solution to this a while ago: I never could argue coherently, so I quit Don't.[/QUOTE]

Fixed

At least mykevermin usually does make sound arguments. He was just in an especially pissy mood today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='pittpizza']Fox is absolutley fucking ridiculous. I'm glad not everybody fogets how hard they come down on video games. I actually saw a headline once on their webpage titled "Video gamer kills kids" It was fuckin ridiculous.

The mass effect fiasco was just one drop in the bucket that exemplifies thier freak show called "news". The biggest shame of it all is that people take it seriously. I could actually be funny on comedy central.



Dude, I found a solution to this a while ago: Don't.[/QUOTE]

I think Myke gets his jollies off of his threadcop act and displaying his learnedness, I thought thrust would get tired of being smacked around so much but here we are.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Fox is absolutley fucking ridiculous. I'm glad not everybody fogets how hard they come down on video games. I actually saw a headline once on their webpage titled "Video gamer kills kids" It was fuckin ridiculous.

The mass effect fiasco was just one drop in the bucket that exemplifies thier freak show called "news". The biggest shame of it all is that people take it seriously. I could actually be funny on comedy central.

Dude, I found a solution to this a while ago: Don't.[/QUOTE]


Ha ha ha. Yes, let's all base our assessment of the news media on how they portray video games in our society.

Seriously, that was all very silly, but every media outlet runs silly shock-value stories on a number of subjects. I remember one news outlet years ago ran a "scam" where they sold people TV's out in the parking lot, only *gasp* the boxes were empty!!!! This could happen to YOU!!!!!
 
Trend stories are far more annoying than scaremongering ones. Remember last month when someone alleged that a group of high school girls formed a "pregnancy pact"? (The school principal later said the whole thing was bogus.) The media, specifically the newsmagazines, jumped all over it, claiming that it was part of a larger trend, spurred by those evil indie movies like Juno which supposedly glorify teen pregnancy. One isolated nonevent is somehow evidence to support your bogus trend thesis?
 
[quote name='Serik']CNN better than FOX!?! Ahahahah. Ahahahhaa.

http://www.webfilehost.com/images/mainstream-media.php

I feel sorry for anyone who relies on MSNBC, FOX, or CNN for news and analysis. The political bent of the respective organizations is irrelevant; all of them focus on trashy stories and appeal to a market of idiots.

See The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist for real reporting. Bonus points if you pay for Jane's and Foreign Affairs.[/quote]

WSJ? You mean the WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch's "News" Corp? (that's the group that also owns Fox News Channel, in case you weren't informed)

And The Economist? Yeah, they don't have any agenda, just straight up fact reporting there :roll:.

I'm never one for the snobby game of "my news source is better then your news source", but your post is full of fail.
 
Every source has an agenda, the main one being to MAKE MONEY, so that doesn't concern me. Politically, you'll notice that I draw from a wide spectrum. The Economist, at least, doesn't run stories about Brittney Spears on the front page.

Murdoch owns the WSJ, yes, but I've not noticed any decline in quality since he's taken over.

It may very well be snobby, but there's a reason why those sources appeal to investors, policymakers, and those who need to be informed about global news and events. That list is by no means conclusive, but my point still stands: you're doing yourself a disservice if you draw on CNN, FOX, ABC, etc. for reporting.
 
[quote name='Serik']Every source has an agenda, the main one being to MAKE MONEY, so that doesn't concern me. Politically, you'll notice that I draw from a wide spectrum. The Economist, at least, doesn't run stories about Brittney Spears on the front page.

Murdoch owns the WSJ, yes, but I've not noticed any decline in quality since he's taken over.

It may very well be snobby, but there's a reason why those sources appeal to investors, policymakers, and those who need to be informed about global news and events. That list is by no means conclusive, but my point still stands: you're doing yourself a disservice if you draw on CNN, FOX, ABC, etc. for reporting.[/QUOTE]

If you can stop servicing yourself long enough to pay attention, the only remotely non-conservative publication you listed is Foreign Affairs, which is consistently middle-of-the-road.

Other than that, you're talking about publications whose news and information are phenomenal, but who ultimately have ridiculously pro-capitalism, pro-western democracy, pro-free-market, pro-conservative ideology slants in the op/eds. As you say, there is a reason they appeal to investors, policymakers, and those with global(izing, tee-hee) interests.

As news, they are good resources, to be sure. But let's not pat ourselves on the back because we read the Financial Times. I very well may agree with much of what Charlemagne prattles on about in The Economist, and I may not; but to act as if they are middle of the road publications is absurd pretentiousness based on some sort of snide and phony assurance that the rest of the plebes at CAG get their news from sources that you consider to be intellectually somewhere around coloring books.

Because, as you know, if you get your news from a source that covers Britney Spears' latest debacle, it means you're remarkably less informed than the person who falls asleep over a WSJ on the subway.
 
[quote name='Serik']CNN better than FOX!?! Ahahahah. Ahahahhaa.

http://www.webfilehost.com/images/mainstream-media.php

I feel sorry for anyone who relies on MSNBC, FOX, or CNN for news and analysis. The political bent of the respective organizations is irrelevant; all of them focus on trashy stories and appeal to a market of idiots.

See The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist for real reporting. Bonus points if you pay for Jane's and Foreign Affairs.[/quote]
That picture is 100% null and void.
brittanyshitbz0.jpg
 
Fox has always seemed the worse to me. But I'll freely admit that's probably because I'm liberal and can't stand the conservative slant while I'm not as annoyed by the liberal slant on say MSNBC.

That said I don't watch any of those talking head shows, as they're far to biased. Only exception is I'll watch Olbermann every once in a blue moon as the show is at least entertaining and he usually lets his guests go back and forth with the bias mostly just coming in his monologues etc. But still I probably catch that once a month or so at most.

I generally just stay away from TV news and check news papers etc. online instead.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fox has always seemed the worse to me. But I'll freely admit that's probably because I'm liberal and can't stand the conservative slant while I'm not as annoyed by the liberal slant on say MSNBC.

That said I don't watch any of those talking head shows, as they're far to biased. Only exception is I'll watch Olbermann every once in a blue moon as the show is at least entertaining and he usually lets his guests go back and forth with the bias mostly just coming in his monologues etc. But still I probably catch that once a month or so at most.

I generally just stay away from TV news and check news papers etc. online instead.[/QUOTE]

Once again, dmaul, you hit the nail on the head.

People seem to dislike news sources primarily because they slant in the opposite direction than they themselves do (see my sig).

I no longer even have cable, or TV. Like you, I get most of my news on the net from variouis sources. But even then, I take most of it with a grain of salt. I generally don't consider much as "fact" unless I witnessed it myself.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] I generally don't consider much as "fact" unless I witnessed it myself.[/QUOTE]

Now there's a sig.

George Washington didn't exist, Thrustbucket never saw him.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Now there's a sig.

George Washington didn't exist, Thrustbucket never saw him.[/QUOTE]

:)

This would quickly go into esoteric philosophies of reality, which I do enjoy. But it is interesting to observe what each person is willing to swallow as "truth" and "fact" without first hand knowledge. It's a rather interesting realm of research really.

The only thing you really know exists is you, at some level. The rest is a mix of faith, hope, and crude interpretation of senses in order to construct a meaningful reality.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']:)

This would quickly go into esoteric philosophies of reality, which I do enjoy. But it is interesting to observe what each person is willing to swallow as "truth" and "fact" without first hand knowledge. It's a rather interesting realm of research really.

The only thing you really know exists is you, at some level. The rest is a mix of faith, hope, and crude interpretation of senses in order to construct a meaningful reality.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of a stretch to go from "I don't like this particular news agency" to "The only thing that you know exists is you." That's a pretty metaphysical, Dr. Strange jump for a discussion of media bias. I work in newspapers, and while I have seen some amazingly biased articles (hell, the rammussen article we're going back and forth on in the other thread), 8 times out of 10 the reporter just doesn't give enough of a damn to lie about it.
 
[quote name='Cheese']It's kind of a stretch to go from "I don't like this particular news agency" to "The only thing that you know exists is you." That's a pretty metaphysical, Dr. Strange jump for a discussion of media bias. I work in newspapers, and while I have seen some amazingly biased articles (hell, the rammussen article we're going back and forth on in the other thread), 8 times out of 10 the reporter just doesn't give enough of a damn to lie about it.[/QUOTE]

May I ask what you do at the paper or which paper? My dad is a lifer at a newspaper to. I've grown up hanging around reporters and the news office. I have written a few articles too.
 
I am the Art Director the the Community Media newspaper group, a group of local NYC papers. Previously, I was the AD for the New York Jewish Week, which is one of the largest religious papers in the states, and also amazingly biased on some things, but refreshingly unbiased on others.
 
[quote name='Cheese']I am the Art Director the the Community Media newspaper group, a group of local NYC papers. Previously, I was the AD for the New York Jewish Week, which is one of the largest religious papers in the states, and also amazingly biased on some things, but refreshingly unbiased on others.[/QUOTE]

That's cool. Thanks for answering.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you can stop servicing yourself long enough to pay attention, the only remotely non-conservative publication you listed is Foreign Affairs, which is consistently middle-of-the-road.

Other than that, you're talking about publications whose news and information are phenomenal, but who ultimately have ridiculously pro-capitalism, pro-western democracy, pro-free-market, pro-conservative ideology slants in the op/eds. As you say, there is a reason they appeal to investors, policymakers, and those with global(izing, tee-hee) interests.

As news, they are good resources, to be sure. But let's not pat ourselves on the back because we read the Financial Times. I very well may agree with much of what Charlemagne prattles on about in The Economist, and I may not; but to act as if they are middle of the road publications is absurd pretentiousness based on some sort of snide and phony assurance that the rest of the plebes at CAG get their news from sources that you consider to be intellectually somewhere around coloring books.

Because, as you know, if you get your news from a source that covers Britney Spears' latest debacle, it means you're remarkably less informed than the person who falls asleep over a WSJ on the subway.[/QUOTE]

I'm surprised to hear you feel The Economist is "conservative." I've read it for a long time and feel it's maybe a bit liberal actually, but mostly balanced. It's definitely pro-business and pro-free trade, so if you feel those positions are inherently conservative then maybe that explains your viewpoint.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Now there's a sig.

George Washington didn't exist, Thrustbucket never saw him.[/QUOTE]

I have been telling people that for what months now? Now let us watch him cry about it.
 
There is no such thing as televised news anymore. Simply entertainment shows masquerading as news. fucktards like Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace, and that sad sack of shit AJ Hammer...a grown man whose job is telling us Madonna is getting a divorce like it means a squirt of piss to anybody except Guy Ritchie (that sunumabitch is going to be RICH...no prenup FTW).
 
[quote name='camoor']Olbermann wears his agenda on his sleeve (and he's really entertaining to boot). Fox has the audacity to claim that they are fair and balanced, and they're only entertaining when O'Reilly is perving it up about luffas (WTF) or screaming his head off because a teleprompter malfunctioned.

Fair and balanced. More like fairly unbalanced AMIRITE?[/quote]

Just curious, but how is it not fair and balanced? You made the assertion now provide some examples. It seems like you are just perpetuating a liberal cliche of Fox News. Also, do you believe that objectivity exists?
 
[quote name='aerotemplar']Just curious, but how is it not fair and balanced? You made the assertion now provide some examples. It seems like you are just perpetuating a liberal cliche of Fox News. Also, do you believe that objectivity exists?[/quote]

-----------> CLICK HERE
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm surprised to hear you feel The Economist is "conservative." I've read it for a long time and feel it's maybe a bit liberal actually, but mostly balanced. It's definitely pro-business and pro-free trade, so if you feel those positions are inherently conservative then maybe that explains your viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

pro-business isn't inherently conservative, but I consider being pro-free trade conservative. It's a political perspective, regardless of who initiates it, that strips out government intervention and regulation (with limits, of course) in favor of business "interests" negotiating directly. By itself, that's fine. But since it takes place in the form of the dark side of globalization (the destruction of manufacturing work in the US, the constant movement to cheaper and cheaper forms of labor globally, the weighted negotiating power of business to get the costs of running a business - say, building a factory - subsidized with the promise of "jobs for the area"), as well as occurs with poor/no regulation leading to products made from cheap, dangerous, and potentially lethal chemicals - well, at this point we're talking about a scheme that (1) keeps government out, (2) helps only vested business interests at each step along the way, and (3) doesn't give a fuck about workers or consumers.

I'd say that's inherently conservative. Much more #1 and #2 than #3, but while #3 is not a favored consequence, it is not a maligned consequence either (because it is the expression of free trade itself; were it to be eliminated, that would coincide with government intervention, which is less desirable than healthy consumers or well paid workers).

So, yeah. I subscribed to Economist for a bit, but $100+ annually was too much for a grad assistant's salary. I do recall, however, how fucking STUNNED I was when their editorial page called for Rumsfeld's ouster after Abu Ghraib broke. Because it was so contrary to their typical stances.

I'm curious what they've been writing the past 6-9 months about the US economy being in the shitter.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, yeah. I subscribed to Economist for a bit, but $100+ annually was too much for a grad assistant's salary. I do recall, however, how fucking STUNNED I was when their editorial page called for Rumsfeld's ouster after Abu Ghraib broke. Because it was so contrary to their typical stances.

I'm curious what they've been writing the past 6-9 months about the US economy being in the shitter.[/quote]
12 Week subscription for $12 :D
 
[quote name='camoor'] Fox has the audacity to claim that they are fair and balanced.[/quote]

This.

I don't think it's a question of which news stations feed us BS, because clearly they all do at times. I feel like it's safe to say, though, that Fox sets the bar lower than anyone else. The amount of borderline racist (and occasionally blatantly racist) things I've heard said from Fox News is more than enough for me to never take them seriously.
 
[quote name='johnnypark']This.

I don't think it's a question of which news stations feed us BS, because clearly they all do at times. I feel like it's safe to say, though, that Fox sets the bar lower than anyone else. The amount of borderline racist (and occasionally blatantly racist) things I've heard said from Fox News is more than enough for me to never take them seriously.[/QUOTE]

"terrorist fist jab" is totally objective, dude.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top