FOX News Doctors NY Times Photos »
Posted by: TimALoftis 2 months ago261 Comments Report this Story
Fox News has sunk to a new low. On Wednesday, the network displayed photos that its editors had doctored of two New York Times employees--reporter Jacques Steinberg, and editor Steven Radcliffe. The before and after photos can be seen here.
Read Full Story at news.aol.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 261
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM2 months ago
OMG Media Matters takes a gag and makes it into some big story and Propeller picks it up as some big event. And defending of all publications the NYT? Now that is the really funny part. Heads should roll! LOL
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The New York Times has concluded, after an extensive internal investigation, that one of its former reporters committed "frequent acts of journalistic fraud." The Times said its own investigation showed Blair's deceptions to be much more widespread, with problems in at least 36 of the 73 articles Blair had written since transferring to the national desk in October. The investigation is continuing into more than 600 articles he wrote, and the paper is urging readers who know of additional discrepancies to come forward.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
The NY Times Hezbollah Photo Dust Up
Hezbollah dust up...
We could go on and on about the NYT.
Reply-
-
0%
Candida2 months ago
capecoralM,
Here is the clip. Was it a gag?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PKxfZ2w-Als&feature=...
.
I find it rather despicable, whatever it was.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
miklkit2 months ago
Right loverman, one news organization discovers a bad apple, fires it and apologizes. The alleged news organization consists of almost all bad apples, doesn't apologize and fires its good apples. Who do you trust?
Reply -
0%
sailr2 months ago
and the purveyors of CRAP reward Rush Limbaugh on his talk show with an outrageous contract! In their world, those who can tell the best and biggest lie wins.
Sad commentary on the intelligence of those who watch and listen to these repugnant so-called news shows.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Lurch2 months ago
But every con will be quick to remind you of Dan Rather for how he got fooled into reporting a true story, but with ONE out of many pieces of evidence that was not true. You would think that was the yellow cake papers that led to a disastrous invasion or something.
But here the cons actually spend time and effort to insult the NYT reporters on purpose, and of course it is ok.
Cons can out CIA secret agents working on the Iran nuclear program as political revenge and that is applauded, even though it is treason.
So naturally, cons like Cape would rather suck up the slime than admit they`ve been made a fool of by the very people they put the most trust in.
Nah, reality is just plain wrong, right Cape?
Reply
-
-
0%
cushi2 months ago
Lie and deny...lie and deny....lie and deny....
One track minds = one track records.
Guess what cape, you guys are all played out!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
I'd find this more believable If it came from real news sources instead of some biased Dem orgnization like "media matters."
I noticed it was filed under "Republicans" when there is no mention of Republicans whatsoever in it.
Also wouldn't be the first time someone posted a bogus story attacking Fox. Not too long ago the Propeller libs got all bent out of shape over a fake "Fox5 News" "subliminal" allegedly pushing McCain.
Reply-
0%
IAmMine2 months ago
"I'd find this more believable If it came from real news sources "
You mean like fox news?
I'm sorry but this is a pathetic post on behalf of a pathetic network....
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
"I'm sorry but this is a pathetic post on behalf of a pathetic network...."
I agree. Your post is pathetic, and I'm not sorry for saying so.
I like how the biased sources never bothered to ask Fox what was up. If anything, it was a gag. But, don't let that get in the way of a liberal hate-fest. I know how emotional and irrational libs love to get.
Reply-
0%
IAmMine2 months ago
Seriously you debate and post like your in 3rd grade....
I'm sure if fox actually decides to comment on this story and you "have your proof" that you are wrong, I'm sure you'll take back everythin you said and apologize? Or will you just sweep it under the rug and move on? I have a feeling your mind is already made up...
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect2 months ago
I would like to know the truth on this, and if it comes out that someone or several people at Fox are behind it, then let the heads roll where they may.
It's one thing to print or run news stories where people differ, but quite another to intentionally distort the news or photographs of the news or the people reporting it.
Reply-
0%
TimALoftis2 months ago
I am with you 100%, UnusualSuspect. If Fox News has an explanation I would like to hear it. If this was indeed intentional and at this point I can only assume it was, heads need to roll at the network.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002
You can view the segment right here. As I said ... it was a gag. They even "doctored" a photo with one of their faces on a poodle while the other's face appears on a man holding the poodle's leash. It's all a jab at the two being "attack dogs" and how one is a disgruntled former Fox News reporter with an ax to grind.
Funny how the libs are getting their panties in a bunch over an obvious gag piece on a morning talk show. It's called "satire" and is perfectly acceptable.
Reply-
0%
TimALoftis2 months ago
Maybe Fox News should focus more on the 'News' than on 'Satire' or childish pranks like we see here.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
"Maybe Fox News should focus more on the 'News' than on 'Satire' or childish pranks like we see here."
It was on a talk show. There is a difference.
Reply-
-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
I didn't say it was someone currently employed by Fox. You might want to pay attention to what others post before you comment.
"...one is a disgruntled former Fox News reporter with an ax to grind."
What part of "former" don't you understand? They even explain it on the segment.
Wrong again, UnusualSuspect ;)
Reply-
-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
No Biggie. We all make mistakes, even me. And, yes, as you mention below, lots of people do it. The big thing is context. If it was a satire, poorly done in this case but still satire on a talk show format, then it's not nearly as outrageous as if it were a photo presented as an actual new story.
If I recall correctly, some time ago Time Magazine ran a photo of O.J. Simpson doctored to make him look "blacker" than he actually is when on trial for the murder of his ex wife and Ronald Goldman. That was a much more outrageous act than this, in my opinion.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Lurch2 months ago
This was also posted under Fox News and Fox and Friends. Albeit Libby cannot get that straight either.
I can see why he defends these people and their actions: all stuck at the same intellectual level, third grade.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Klarissa2 months ago
1. bring advertisers
2. create entertainment
3. talk with people who aren't in the news but interesting.
4. present points of view that aren't news
5. express satire and humor
6. When they got a lot of emails they know that they are connecting, good or bad, with REAL people.
Reply
-
-
0%
wtagg2 months ago
Just checking as to the status of RL's show.
Why are there individuals that believe shows like his (on both sides of the political spectrum) are presenting news then?
They are entertainment, as you said and should be held at that benchmark and nothing more.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
sailr2 months ago
they will probably get pay increases as Rupert Murdoch and the RNC rewards anyone who can make the other side look bad. Lies, propaganda, et al, it's business as usual at Fox and Clear Channel.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
"Seriously you debate and post like your in 3rd grade...."
Seriously, you should look in the mirror when you make that comment. I have a feeling what's left of your mind is already made up.
Reply -
0%
Lincoln852 months ago
Where is the concern when the mainstream news media aka leftist media doesn't comment on pertinent issues like the surge having an impact in Iraq or the collaboration between America and anti Chavez forces getting one of our hostages out of S. America. I guess that is something different...maybe that is more of a 6th grader post. I reply to your post truly hoping you are not in college and just trying to repeat some type of mantra from some professor you are idolizing.
Reply-
0%
mesodude2 months ago
"Where is the concern when the mainstream news media aka leftist media doesn't comment on pertinent issues like the surge having an impact in Iraq..."
--I guess I'm still baffled as to why cons think the fact that Iraq is getting "better" when it's still far worse than it was before we illegally invaded is remarkable or something to be proud of?
If I broke into your house to save your life based on a rumor you were in danger and, in the process, I start a fire which burns your home to the ground and kills your entire family, would you award me a gold medal when I turned to you and told you the "good news" that the fire had finally been extinguished? I don't think you would... So why do cons want the media to report unremarkable "improvements" in the aftermath of a catastrophe caused by our recklessness? I don't get it... This is something to be ashamed of. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
0%
CRYMTYPHON2 months ago
The article said Fox did not reply or comment.
A gag?
Those doctored photos are signs of seriously sick,
malicious people out of control.
A gag?
You let us know when that fine news source is putting us on, alright?
I have often suspected you were just kidding.
I mean, no one could believe ALL that stuff.
Reply -
0%
disraeli2 months ago
Libs,
If you bother to look a little further you would find that the story originated with "Editor and Publisher", a trade journal for the newspaper industry which dates back to 1884. I'm not sure if they have a particular bias or slant, but nevertheless the story did not come from "some biased Dem organization like media matters" as you claim. So a little investigation on your part and you would not be dismissing it as "biased Dem" tripe simply because you don't like the facts presented.
It would also appear from the original article that Fox has declined to make any public comment on the matter. I infer from that they have asked Fox what it was up to.
However don't let any of that stand in the way of your anti-liberal hate fest. I know how emotional and irrational you can get when the facts appear to run counter to your little perfect world.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
I know more about Editor and Publisher than you ever will know. But, as you can see from the post, it cites Media Matters, which is a leftist attack organization.
You'll also notice the AOL poster listed "Republicans" among its categories. No where does the word "Republican" or info about Republicans appear.
It also apparently was from a talk show and does not say what the context was. There are too many holes in it to draw any legitimate conclusions. But, don't let that interfere with your pro-liberal hate-fest. I know how emotional and irrational you get when facts run counter to your ideology ;)
Reply-
0%
JamesMarcus2 months ago
Come on, libs--are you really defending this prankish, embarrassing behavior? This story is ultimately sourced from Editor & Publisher, just as the previous commenter pointed out. Media Matters merely supplied the images, and Fox has issued no denial. As for the "Republican" tag, that was added by the AOL News blogger. You may disagree with it, but it hardly invalidates the story. I know you have real respect for the facts, which I appreciate, but you're grasping at straws here.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
Look at the link I posted. It was an obvious satire piece and was not presented as news. I'm not saying it wasn't childish and more than a bit over the top, but it certainly was not the great evil that it's being made out as.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002
Definite case of satire. Poor satire, but satire all the same. As you well know, satire is a protected form of free speech.
Reply-
-
0%
JamesMarcus2 months ago
You'll notice that nobody is protesting the "poodle" montage. That's an obvious gag--witless, but clearly satiric in intent. What's childish and pathetic is Fox's doctoring of the "straight" photos to make their detractors look hideous. This has nothing to do with free speech: nobody is threatening to sue Fox, least of all the NY Times. It's just an embarrassing move by the network.
Reply-
0%
Tangent0012 months ago
For the sake of the benefit of the doubt what I suspect is that Fox intended to use actual untouched photos of the two men for the 'straight' presentation and then use the doctored photos for faces in the poodle/master piece.
If they indeed intended to use the doctored photos as it ended up in the show, that is extremely poor judgment, not to mention extremely poor humor.
Reply -
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
I was only explaining the content. As you might have noticed, one of the reporters in question is a former Fox News reporter. Obviously, their satirical point is that he has an ax to grind and is the attack dog.
I'm not saying they couldn't have done a better job of dismissing the reports, but it was a talk show.
Reply-
0%
pc252 months ago
Fox in the morning is not a hard news show....I have seen this a number of times on John Stewart, Colbert, Letterman Leno, SNL but apparently it's acceptable over there......although this is a little bit of a childish prank, it is hardly different than any liberal journalistic rag, web site or cable news station (MSNBC CNN especially Keith Ubermoron) that constantly goes out of their way to find the most unflattering pictures of the President, the Vice President, Secretary of State and other members of the current administration and uses them in hit pieces against them..........James I hate to say this but Propeller itself has been guilty of the behavior I have mentioned a number of times when attaching pictures to stories especially when those stories concern the President or Vice President......you know what turn about is fair play and long over due and that all the liberals are enraged over this well TOO DAMN BAD.............
Reply-
0%
pc252 months ago
the typical liberal reaction when things don't go there way
or there is something they don't like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcOcGNIXAJA
Reply-
-
0%
pc252 months ago
speaking of big ears I am surprised that Dumbo Obama hasn't been swept into the stratosphere by that brisk, strong Chicago winter wind.......
Reply -
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months ago
ahhhhhh, no..It's only FUNNY when someone laughs..
Have you lost that much touch with reality?
You see, there is supposed to be a connection..First the joke, then the laugh?? NOT an explanation of the joke..or it's NOT funny?? Would you like me to explain that in cartoon version?
(that was sarcasm, which is the usually a rhetorical question meant to be obvious but asked in an extreme visually simplistic manner to make a point, and need not be answered))
Reply-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months ago
Oh yes, those famous writers who everyone knows..
Hey genius..Condi is a PUBLIC international figure...
The JOKE works when more than 10 people know what the person really looks like..Get it?
Or should I write it for you in crayon?
Oh you can be so proud to tell your grandchildren that you were on of the oh so few who still insisted that the man who destroyed their future was your hero..
They may ask why..But I'm sure you can make something up.
Reply-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months ago
The future could not be more bleak due to George Bush..
You one one of the very few who still refuses to understand that. Period!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
pc252 months ago
ahhhh! Little Joey Evans let me guess the bus just dropped you off from summer day camp and you've managed to sneak on your parents computer before dinner and then being sent to bed for the evening........
Reply
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.20 Replies
-
-
0%
Klarissa2 months ago
It looks like some on here have not the experience or education to know when a segment is news, when it is talk show, when it is hard news and when it is entertainment. Perhaps it is a lack of being able to laugh at or appreciate humor - .
You seem to be able to distinguish that on MSNBC, how about transferring it over to other media.
Reply-
0%
miklkit2 months ago
Fox news is NOT news. They sued for the ability to LIE on national television. That is the point of this thread.
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
Reply-
0%
Lincoln852 months ago
Fox is the best channel to get as close to a fair and balanced report you could ask for. It is one of the few channels I let my children watch.. I am chuckling now because I realize the socialists and marxists in here will be enraged. P.S. I am raising some homegrown christian conservative capitalists! Hate on that. :)
Reply
-
-
0%
vidman042 months ago
Thank you Klarissa! Somehow these people don't want to understand that Fox not only has news segments, but they have talk show segments, hard news with interviews and such and also has entertainment segments (comedy and satire)...but it doesn't surprise me, most of this bunch believe the Jon Stewart Show is real news, they quote from it constantly...and for some unfathomable reason they like Keith Oberman ...
Reply
-
-
0%
Lurch2 months ago
> Fox isn't comedy entertainment?
That`s the Fox Entertainment channel. At least the peeps at the Fox Entertainment channel are honest about their purpose. Maybe they should change their name to keep in line with the Fox News tradition of being anything but a news channel.
Maybe Fox Elephantitis channel.
Reply
-
-
0%
pc252 months ago
hey genius Fox and Friends in the morning is not a hard news show just as Imus in the Morning on MSNBC was not a hard news show.....they are a talk show......and they also do intentional comedy.........funny that your beloved candidates would go on a PRETEND NEWS CHANNEL pandering for votes because the ratings on CNN and MSNBC are so low they don't reach a large enough cross section of the population.........
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.7 Replies
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
0%
pc252 months ago
you answered your question
at the TOP of every hour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcOcGNIXAJA
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ind062 months ago
"the ratings on CNN and MSNBC are so low they don't reach a large enough cross section of the population........."
Although FOX does have consistently higher ratings than either CNN or MSNBC that gap is appreciably narrowed in the 25-54 range.
On May 16
Total Day & Prime Time Audience (P2plus[all viewers over the age of 2])
FOX: 2,248,000
CNN: 1,422,000
MSNBC: 1,155,000
Total Day & Prime Time Audience (25-54)
FOX: 497,000
CNN: 393,000
MSNBC: 432,000
This shows that FOX's audience on this day was 78% under 25 and over 54 while CNN's was 72% under 25 / over 54 and MSNBC's was only 62% under 25 / over 54. Though you should never assume it's probably safe to draw the conclusion that all networks have an audience that skews older, FOX's slightly more so, MSNBC's less.
Reply-
0%
ind062 months ago
Also, while the total (P2plus) gap is 800,000 FOX-CNN and 1,000,000 FOX-NBC, the 25-54 gap is only 100,000 FOX-CNN and 65,000 FOX-NBC, indicating that no network pulls in the remotest fraction of American Idol.
If I were to buy into the oft stated contention that CNN and MSNBC are the liberal side while FOX is the conservative side that would make FOX's conservative daily P2plus audience 2,248,000 with the liberals splitting up between the two other networks yet offering a combined P2plus audience of 2,577,000. The 25-54 audience would break down as FOX 497,000, CNN & MSNBC 825,000, a distinct advantage to the liberal audience.
Your comment holds little water as no network is pulling in even 2% of the national viewing audience over the entire day.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/19/cable-news...
Reply
-
-
0%
sailr2 months ago
There is nothing wrong with talk shows and attempted comedy. What is reprehensible is that Fox would condone doctoring an individual's picture to make him look bad. Pure psychological propaganda. Remember the hideous depictions of jews in drawings and paintings during the Nazi regime? They were depicted as deranged, evil, etc.
Same attempt by FOX to make these two normal looking guys look like they escaped from a mental ward.
SHAME on FOX and SHAME on you for missing the point of this discussion. FOX has no class.
Reply -
0%
Lurch2 months ago
Fox and Friends claim to be news.
John Stewart makes it clear, crystal clear, over and over again that he is not news.
That`s the difference. The gullible tend to watch Fox from the very beginning, and since they are never told that Fox and Friends, O`Reilly, Hannity and others are just making up the lies on the fly, they believe that crap.
So, why do you defend a bunch of lying scumbags and america-haters anyway?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
TimALoftis2 months ago
the poodle pic is the only satire intended here. IMO the straight photos of the two Times reporters were not meant to be satire (if they wanted to that they would have added more dog features than we see here)...just doctored intentionally to make them look hideous. Very childish and unprofessional from a NEWS NETWORK - a term I use lightly.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months ago
The answer is YES..These people's ruthless and unscrupulous season has just opened..They're already coming back out of the woodwork..
You'd think they'd have done enough damage, and then you have idiotic comments like "I'm voting for Bush again".
We'll just work around them..We got McCain, and that's something they fought against and lost...
Watch who they make him take as his VP, so if he dare stray from the evildoers line they'll remove him.
Reply
-
-
0%
Tangent0012 months ago
If you visit the Media Matters story, I has the actual Fox video with context and everything.
Reply -
0%
disraeli2 months ago
I'm pleased that you know more about Editor and Publisher than I ever will.
Are you saying that Fox did not broadcast doctored photo of the two gentlemen in question? Because if not, regardless of the source of the information, then the content of the article(s) is accurate.
The veracity of a fact is not diminished by the organ that reports the fact. If the fact is indeed a fact, then it scarcely matters who reports it does it. If the fact turns out to be not so factual, well then it's pretty much fit for Fox to broadcast as fact.
The individual photos were displayed by Fox as fact. Clearly they are not fact. They were retouched. Even late night infomercials carry disclaimers regarding the unretouched nature of their photos. Apparently Fox viewers would be well advised to adopt the same level of skepticism regarding Fox programming as they do for the "Hair Club for Men"
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months ago
The context is everything. It was a satire piece, a subtlety you obviously can't quite comprehend. It was not a news piece. It appeared on a talk show.
If you had bothered to find out the entire facts, you would know it is no different than the Daily Show doctoring photos of Bush or Rush Limbaugh for satirical content.
Reply-
0%
disraeli2 months ago
I suppose you are correct, although subtlety is not something that I usually include in the same thought as Fox News.
So despite the fact that the "Fox News" logo was on screen the entire time, along with crawlers depicting various international current events along the bottom and baseball scores in a box in the bottom right corner I should have recognized the obvious. This was Fox and therefore, by definition, a joke and a farce. Broad comedy I suppose that appeals to some.
I guess it follows that Fox's website descriptions of Doocy and Kilmeade as co-anchors and the emphasis on their journalistic credentials is just a continuation of the satire. That part I get because who could possibly confuse those two as actual journalists co-anchoring a factual current events show.
Reply -
0%
CRYMTYPHON2 months ago
You obviously can't comprehend
If you had bothered
You say that because
Pin heads don't see
Peanut gallery
One more time
LMAO
Your ignorance is
You all say that because
Sigh, one more time
Anyone can see except
ROFLMAO
You obviously can't quite comprehend
If you had bothered
You say that because
Pin heads don't see
Peanut gallery
One more time
You obviously can't
If you had
You say that because
Pin heads don't
Peanut gallery
One more time
Reply
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months ago
Why do you bother to deal with these arrogant, anti-social taunters? No one is going to change their vote, and many of them are slinking back to support McCain and all that brought in Bush. Can't we just enjoy the fact that their several month absence in their Bush embarrassment was a pleasant one?
Now, let's get real and be prepared for them to make the same mistakes all over again, but this time with the guy they all hated just 5 months ago. (hence the embarrassing sabbatical)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
