Fox News alters photos of New York Times journalists

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

I suppose that difference may not matter to Fox news apologists

I could care less about Fox News. They are not the only media outlet to photoshop images as jokes... all I'm saying is a little consistency would be desirable. I think by assuming Fox was intending to pass those obviously manipulated photos off as being real is an extremely wide stretch.

[motivez]

There's a difference between doing it as a joke (ie: putting his face on a dog, while calling him an attack dog, obviously people realize he's not an actual dog... ) and manipulating the stock photo used in a story about them

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

There's a difference between doing it as a joke (ie: putting his face on a dog, while calling him an attack dog, obviously people realize he's not an actual dog... ) and manipulating the stock photo used in a story about them

I think you're reading WAAAY too far into this to defend your position on Fox. It's a generic obvious manipulation of a photo used in a light-hearted way to mock them in a news story. It has been done over and over again on other outlets and I haven't heard a peep from the anti-Fox crowd. As soon as Fox does it all of a sudden we're analyzing it to hell as to why it's worse when Fox photoshops people to make jokes.

I disagree with Fox doing it and I disagree with other outlets doing it. But you're going to have a very large uphill battle if you're going to make an argument that when Fox does it it's worse. Other outlets photoshop stock photos of people all the time and calls them names not related to the photoshop.



This isn't anything new.

[motivez]

Generic obvious manipulation?

If you hadn't seen the pictures side by side and had never seen their pictures before, you'd probably not notice that they were altered. Even thewise1 wasn't sure it was a photoshop before taking a closer look, and he obviously looked at it more critically than most since the thread is about the pictures being altered.

On the contrary, the other examples you've shown are obvious in nature and not intended to be hidden or taken seriously as pictures of the person.

It's not when Fox does it it's worse, it's when there's an attempt to hide the manipulation and pass the pictures off as legitimate, and to further engage in character assassination that it's worse. It just so happens that's what Fox did, and no amount of apologist crap is going to change that.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Generic obvious manipulation?

In context of the show, I think it was. It was a light-hearted segment to close the show. People are free to take it out of context for their self-serving interest though...

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I could care less about Fox News. They are not the only media outlet to photoshop images as jokes... all I'm saying is a little consistency would be desirable. I think by assuming Fox was intending to pass those obviously manipulated photos off as being real is an extremely wide stretch.

i may not catch this fox humor as easily as you do, so if you can tell me the time in the video... please, be specific... where exactly, should i pick up the humor in doocy's voice that would make me think he was joking around with an OBVIOUSLY photoshopped picture?

here's another link to the video: Link

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In context of the show, I think it was. It was a light-hearted segment to close the show. People are free to take it out of context for their self-serving interest though...

Have you actually watched the segment?

The very end where they show the picture of his face superimposed on a dog is the closest you could come to calling something 'light hearted' .. you know, after they say he failed at his last job and is only making 1/10th of what he used to, and showed an edited photo to make him look horrible..

The part where they were showing the edited pictures wasn't jovial in the least.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by motivez

Have you actually watched the segment?

i think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

There's too much subtlety involved for it to be a simple joke, but rather it was a calculated move..

Yes, I bet they thought nobody would notice.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Yes, I bet they thought nobody would notice.

More like they thought their normal, uncritical viewing audience wouldn't notice, just like they didn't when Fox repeatedly linked Saddam, Iraq, and 9/11.. leading Fox viewers, far more than anyone else, to believe he was responsible for, or involved in the WTC attacks.

They don't really care who else notices, their normal audience will write off the criticism as the 'liberal media elite' or whatever term they're using these days to describe the press that does actual reporting.. and they can continue delivering misleading, inaccurate information to the willingly ignorant masses in order to benefit the GOP.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

More like they thought their normal, uncritical viewing audience wouldn't notice, just like they didn't when Fox repeatedly linked Saddam, Iraq, and 9/11.. leading Fox viewers, more than anyone else, to believe he was responsible for, or involved in the WTC attacks.

They don't really care who else notices, their normal audience will write off the criticism as the 'liberal media elite' or whatever term they're using these days to describe the press that does actual reporting.. and they can continue delivering misleading, inaccurate information to the willingly ignorant masses in order to benefit the GOP.

There was nothing subtle about those chopped photos. Why you think they put them out there with an intent to fool people, no matter who the viewers are, is beyond me.

[motivez]

Then why would thewise1 question whether it was a simple ratio mistake when he's coming into the thread talking about them being altered? He's not stupid, and he's certainly looking at them with a more critical eye than someone would be just casually watching the news.

When it's on the screen for a scant few seconds you aren't going to be looking to see if the photograph was altered, especially not one that simply exaggerates the features of the face and yellows the teeth a little bit.

Did you watch the segment? There was nothing jovial about the altered pictures, it was a serious character assassination piece until after they had shown the altered pictures.

[thewise1]

It's a common thing to want the good guy to be the good looking dude and the bad guy to look like emperor palpatine. These guys just try to use that in their favor.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

There was nothing subtle about those chopped photos. Why you think they put them out there with an intent to fool people, no matter who the viewers are, is beyond me.

I assume that the persons concerned arent "household faces", in which case any humourous intent would be minimal at best.

Either way, if we are to believe that being ugly undercuts ones credibility or message then elections really are little moere than beauty contests. Might also explain why Rupert doesnt appear on TV very often himself

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I have trouble believing anyone wouldn't realize those images weren't altered in a segment that included this picture.


It was light-hearted by nature and it was the closing of their show.

This is what they're getting up in arms about? Holy crap, stop whining about stupid shit.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Then why would thewise1 question whether it was a simple ratio mistake when he's coming into the thread talking about them being altered? He's not stupid, and he's certainly looking at them with a more critical eye than someone would be just casually watching the news.

When it's on the screen for a scant few seconds you aren't going to be looking to see if the photograph was altered, especially not one that simply exaggerates the features of the face and yellows the teeth a little bit.

Did you watch the segment? There was nothing jovial about the altered pictures, it was a serious character assassination piece until after they had shown the altered pictures.

thewise1 is the smartest man here?

It was a morning talk show, made for entertainment in the morning. They are hardly a news program.

[TankRizzo]

Does the word "context" mean nothing anymore?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Does the word "context" mean nothing anymore?

I've never heard the word.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

This is what they're getting up in arms about? Holy crap, stop whining about stupid shit.

looks like we've got another one who didn't watch the video

here's the 3rd link to the vid: Link