More Fallout Over Fox News Photo Story
Last week I posted a little something on the controversy surrounding Fox News and it’s decision to doctor photos of a New York Times reporter and editor. The reporter, Jacques Steinberg, had written a piece about an apparent weakening in Fox News ratings. The doctored images made him and his editor, Steven Reddicliffe, look bad in a silly way—yellowed teeth, big noses, etc.
Among the comments the post elicited, several stressed that Fox News was simply having innocent fun. But was it innocent? In his column in today’s Times, media critic David Carr notes that Steinberg’s image was manipulated in a particular way:
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 Fagin than the guy I work with.
By the way, a Fox News spokesperson said that any suggestion that the news organization would do such a thing was “vile and untrue.”
Carr’s piece is really interesting because he comes clean about the trepidation he feels when he writes about Fox. The angst comes from knowing that Fox’s punitive PR staff will coordinate a campaign against him—a campaign of ridicule and professional revenge. He quotes other reporters who have experienced the same treatment when they've published stories Fox doesn’t like. Who knows, maybe some of the vitriolic comments left on this blog after my earlier post were also part of this type of campaign. (I have no way of knowing.) Whatever you feel about Fox News, the real point here is very simple: news organizations have no business doctoring photos. If Fox News doesn't want to be considered a news organization, it should drop the news part.—David Schonauer
If Fox News doesn't want to be considered a news organization, it should drop the news part....
I thought they did just that quite some time ago..
Posted by: Jeff | July 07, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Every heard of Godwin's Law? I think you've reached that point. You can't win an argument logically so you just resort to unrelated comparatives of the German persuasion. Not too smart. The argument is that you're lashing out at an editorial shows 'revenge' of a write who was bad mouthing a former boss then calling foul when he was outed. But by your own logic you can not call any televised 'news' organization news, since they all carry editorial style shows of their own.
Posted by: Duluoz | July 07, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Duluoz, go back to shining Briganti's shoes. Instead of dealing with a fact-based article, Fox goes after the reporters. Stay classy, Fox.
Posted by: pamplemousse | July 07, 2008 at 01:33 PM
If Fox News doesn't want to be considered a news organization, it should drop the news part....
"I thought they did just that quite some time ago.."-Jeff
There you go thinking, again. It's probably something you're not used to.
Posted by: Tom Thumb | July 09, 2008 at 04:39 AM
Anyone catch O'Reilly last night? He was at his best, just indignant and waving his hands around over the fact that the Times had called out Fox over the image manipulation, while also promoting a book he wrote a few years ago. He called the Times's allegations hypocritic because they themselves had once published a caricature of him in its book review section. But that caricature was a cartoon illustration--not a doctored photo. He doesn't get the difference, and Fox doesn't get the difference. The point here is photo manipulation that isn't labeled. O'Reilly's disinformation shows why Fox viewers tend to be confused about events.
Posted by: David Schonauer | July 09, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Come on, Dave. Talk about confusion. The altered images were in no way meant to have anyone believe that the gentlemen genuinely appeared as portrayed. It was merely an attempt at satire that was, as it appears, a bit over your head and the heads of others at The Times.
Both you and The Times should stop trying to convey the notion that FNN having had a little fun at the expense of those two hacks is even in the same ballpark with Agence France Presse release of altered missile launch images from Iran or the altered images from Beirut provided to us by Reuters.
Posted by: Tom Thumb | July 12, 2008 at 01:50 PM
I don't believe I ever compared Fox with Iran...maybe you're confused.
Posted by: David Schonauer | July 12, 2008 at 05:16 PM
Confused? I think not. The attention you given to such a trivial matter certainly implies that you see it as being on the level of journalistic malfeasance as the two other examples I’ve cited.
Trust me, it’s not.
Posted by: Tom Thumb | July 13, 2008 at 01:54 AM
zxdm please visit odaback.1d cialis <a href=http://odaback.1d>cialis</a> jd416
Posted by: Kallfuffestaf | March 24, 2009 at 07:14 AM