Fox News alters photos of New York Times journalists

SoFlaJDM · 07-03-2008, 03:27 PM

more fox news smears:

i can't make this shit up

Video

here's a still of the obvious photoshop fox news put up for those too lazy to click the link

nice photochop fox

motivez · 07-03-2008, 04:41 PM

I really find it hard to believe we have people who still watch Fox after all the shit they've pulled.. ridiculous

SoFlaJDM · 07-04-2008, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I really find it hard to believe we have people who still watch Fox after all the shit they've pulled.. ridiculous

there's no shortage of apologists even on these forums

motivez · 07-07-2008, 08:05 AM

Looks like they did it to another guy as well:

On the July 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," claiming that Steinberg's June 28 article on the "ominous trend" in Fox News' ratings was a "hit piece." During the segment, however, Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head. Fox News gave no indication that the photos had been altered.

After putting up the photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe, Fox & Friends also featured a photograph of Steinberg's face superimposed over that of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over that of the man holding the poodle's leash.

Below is a screenshot of Fox & Friends featuring the photo it used of Steinberg, with the original photo on its left. Comparing the two photos, it appears that the following changes have been made: Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further.

Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News and the original photo suggests that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back.

From the July 2 edition of Fox & Friends:
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.

—S.S.M.

Media Matters - Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

Fox has such poor ethics when it comes to journalism, instead of trying to refute the points in the article about the trends of Fox's viewer levels, they make it personal and go after the journalists who wrote the story, smearing them and altering their photos..

Stylerod · 07-07-2008, 09:24 AM

They even yellowed the teeth!

motivez · 07-07-2008, 09:26 AM

The second one isn't even a good photoshop. You can see the blur / smudge tool being used pretty clearly in the hairline.

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 11:22 AM

The second one I see it, but the first one almost looks like the difference between widescreen TV and 4:3 TV with poor conversion on the TV end

Not that I'm defending fox news, just asking if that's a possibility

motivez · 07-07-2008, 12:47 PM

No way dude, look at how much bigger his chin and nose are.. and how yellow the teeth are.. look at the blurs around the nose and forehead on the first one

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

No way dude, look at how much bigger his chin and nose are.. and how yellow the teeth are.. look at the blurs around the nose and forehead on the first one

On a closer look (after coffee too) I see you are right. The forehead alone is enough for me

7960 · 07-07-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The second one isn't even a good photoshop. You can see the blur / smudge tool being used pretty clearly in the hairline.

my guess, it wasn't supposed to be a good photoshop.

I'm not dismissing their actions but I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be an internal prank that accidentally made it into the wrong folder and when they needed a picture they used these.

i've used PS to make fun of my boss in an email and a while later got the pictures back from another source, not knowing it was chopped.

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

my guess, it wasn't supposed to be a good photoshop.

I'm not dismissing their actions but I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be an internal prank that accidentally made it into the wrong folder and when they needed a picture they used these.

i've used PS to make fun of my boss in an email and a while later got the pictures back from another source, not knowing it was chopped.

News outlets need to have controls on their information resources though...

Either way I have my doubts about that. Fox News is like the news in Running Man, so obviously full of shit that you'd think that would never happen, people are too smart for that, rationality won't let them believe it, and yet here we are like 20 years later with news just like an old action sci-fi action movie

7960 · 07-07-2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

News outlets need to have controls on their information resources though...

obviously.

but I can also see some interns sitting around joking about this shit, and one of them making the JPGs and sending them to someone who sent them to someone.........then "hey we need pics of them, I've got some!" that exact thing happened to me and my boss was very unhappy with the picture that ended up on our internal site

JaJae · 07-07-2008, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

my guess, it wasn't supposed to be a good photoshop.

I'm not dismissing their actions but I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be an internal prank that accidentally made it into the wrong folder and when they needed a picture they used these.

i've used PS to make fun of my boss in an email and a while later got the pictures back from another source, not knowing it was chopped.

It wasn't meant to be a good photoshop. It was aired on their morning talk show "Fox and Friends" which is very much like "The View" for conservatives. It wasn't during one of their actual news casts. Fox does run a lot of opinion shows though..

ballz2wallz · 07-07-2008, 05:45 PM

I don't see how running a joke like this is taken as 'meant as fact' by all of you smart folks here?

JaJae · 07-07-2008, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

I don't see how running a joke like this is taken as 'meant as fact' by all of you smart folks here?

I don't think it's necessarily appropriate, but I agree. This isn't the first time an opinion news show has photoshopped an image to mock someone..

There's no outrage over stuff like this which is common practice and done practically daily. But the moment Fox News does it once, it's suddenly a major issue. I don't think news stations should be doing this, I think they should have more class, respect and professionalism. But, I really think the only reason a lot of people have a problem with this is because it was Fox and not a different station.

motivez · 07-07-2008, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It wasn't meant to be a good photoshop. It was aired on their morning talk show "Fox and Friends" which is very much like "The View" for conservatives. It wasn't during one of their actual news casts. Fox does run a lot of opinion shows though..

It's completely irrelevant what show it's on, they were trying to pass it off as a legitimate picture of the person while attacking them for running a story about Fox's ratings...

motivez · 07-07-2008, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

I don't see how running a joke like this is taken as 'meant as fact' by all of you smart folks here?

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

motivez · 07-07-2008, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't think it's necessarily appropriate, but I agree. This isn't the first time an opinion news show has photoshopped an image to mock someone..

There's no outrage over stuff like this which is common practice and done practically daily. But the moment Fox News does it once, it's suddenly a major issue. I don't think news stations should be doing this, I think they should have more class, respect and professionalism. But, I really think the only reason a lot of people have a problem with this is because it was Fox and not a different station.

There's a huge difference in that one is obviously not intended to be the original photograph of the person, the other was done with subtlety in hopes of passing it off as legitimate.. I don't think either is especially appropriate, but trying to pass it off as legitimate is far worse.

I suppose that difference may not matter to Fox news apologists

JaJae · 07-07-2008, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's completely irrelevant what show it's on, they were trying to pass it off as a legitimate picture of the person while attacking them for running a story about Fox's ratings...

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.