Is Fox News anything more than an editorial cartoon? Fox is the favorite of the administration that created a crowd of supporters with the Photoshop clone stamp tool, the administration that called a news conference with FEMA employees posing as reporters, the administration that gave Jeff (James Guckert) Gannon access to White House news briefings, to name just a few of their inept propaganda efforts.
Oops. Forgive me for confusing Fox with the Bush administration, I don’t know why I keep doing that. Anyway, for a good laugh, go to The Huffington Post, because a picture is worth a thousand words. Two reporters from the New York Times are the victims of a malicious retoucher who just discovered Photoshop.
From Editor & Publisher…
The photos depict New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg with yellowed teeth, “his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further,” according to a statement today by Media Matters for America. The other image, of Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe, with similar yellow teeth, as well as “dark circles … under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back,” according to the Media Matters statement.
The photos appear to have been flattened or extended using photoshop tools.
Not to mention that they gave Jaques Steinberg a huge nose and a chin like Buzz Lightyear. Why?
Because they wrote an article in the New York Times that Fox News is losing in the ratings. Fox saw it as a hit piece.
“It wasn’t a hit piece,” [Times Culture Editor] Sifton told E&P. “It was straight news. This was a hit piece by Fox News. It is beneath comment.” Asked if the paper planned to respond to Fox’s actions, he said no: “It is fighting with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it.”
A good quote to remember when people ask why candidates don’t respond to every slur. And remember that pictures can lie. Stalin would have loved Photoshop. Faux News–We Distort, You Deride.
Recurring Nightmare 
The difficulty with the “writing press” of all political leanings (with some exceptions) is that they take themselves too seriously, and believe their own propaganda: a) that they write well, and b) that intentions can really make up for lack of substance. The difficulty with television “journalists” is that wishful thinking does not make them journalists and most have found television as a second or third career that is worn as an uncomfotable shoe. My theory is that all the really great journalists, print and electronic, smoked and deid of lung cancerand were reformed alcoholics, relied on typewriters or had great voices (and did not die of lung cancer). The Fox lineup includes failed High School English teachers, Bill O’Reilly; lawyers, Megan Kelly, (reactionary politics). On the liberal side, there is a another failed something with the most bizarre comb-over, Allen Combs (no pun intended). Fox does have really good journalists such as Brit Hume and Wallace. All the Fox ladies seem to be clones of each other, usually more intelligent than the men, but so hard to tell apart–they are the best dressed, however and that matters I guess.
MSNBC types are all over-fed legends in their own mind who seem to have been political operatives with severe anger issues, bad hair pieces, failed politicians, and blatant neurotics. Here again, the MSNBC ladies are more intelligent but don’t get their own shows, or they fail more quicly than male-hosted programs.
CNN is all liberal rant with a “right-edge” (Dobbs) thrown in for flavor and CBS may not actually exist any more. The rumor is that it is all reruns, indicating that the news does not change. CNN is interesting because almost all the hosts are male and their substitutes (vacation time) are almost all women, usually much better than the guys. CNN is also interesting because the age-bias is towards the ancient, very heart warming for an old fossil like me.
Each of the news stations has a squad of “experts” who are not expert in much, and they get trotted out almost every day—can we spell boring. They mostly seem to be out of office politiicans, underworked lawyers, “science” experts who are not scientists, and retired generals. One never sees a retired Private or Corporal. Longer lives means that these folks will be with us for many decades.
Interestingly, the best of the pack are the financial reporting guys and gals of all the networks. These are always to the point, intelligent and have interesting things to tell us about why we are going broke. Perhaps, in the print media, this is why the Wall Street Journal or Barrons or Forbes seem to be the best written.
Finally, I notice that young people seem not to watch any of this, just as they seem not to read newspapers. That fact is troubling (or perhaps it is healthy–they have little patience for nonsense).
LikeLike
If you watch CSPAN you can be your own analyst.There sre certain people I react to by immediately turning off that channel-Keith Olbermann,Chris Matthews,Larry King,Greta van Susteren,and Nancy Grace.Oh,almost forgot Geraldo Rivera,John “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”Kasich,O’Reilly(except when he is on the issue of pedophile laws),and the crazy guy,Cramer-I don’t own any stocks,and I don’t know how anyone can listen to him.
Nancy Grace is dangerous-playing cop in real time on actual cases-I recall when she pushed an offender to suicide and the fate of that woman’s child will never be known for sure.
LikeLike
C-Span ,1,2 or 3 are the best with little or no editorializing. Brian Lamb is the best interviewer, almost nothing intrusive, and he allows guests to talk. Of course watching the Senate or House in operation can be depressing although enlightening. I never imagined there were so many potted plants and assorted veggies holding office, but that might be insulting to canteloupes.
LikeLike
IMHO, “television journalism” is an oxymoron.
Fox, however, makes very little attempt at journalism. It is an arm of the Republican party, and Roger Ailes would take that as a compliment.
Financial/business press is the best of the lot, because business needs real information. Hence you see me quote BusinessWeek a lot.
The WSJ NEWS section has traditionally been reliable, altough with Murdoch in control, that may not last. The WSJ Editorial page, I wouldn’t use to line a bird cage. Pretty much vile invective and/or flat-out lies (not that the two are mutually exclusive.)
The editorial page of Investor’s Business Daily was as bad or worse. In the run-up to the Iraq war, it kept railing against “effect diplomacy,” as if working through an issue without resort to force was for girlie-men. Imagine that: Real Men have to use force.
Bottom line: there is absolutely nothing on the Left that can begin to compare with the organized volume of the RW noise machine. I can name 8 or 10 RW Whackos, er, “air personalities” without breaking a sweat. Once you get past Olberman, who is there? And no, Combs doesn’t count. His role is solely to play the foil for Hannity.
Which is why you get such a resounding bounce on the manufactured manufactured “outrage” du jour. Like the way they tried to mischaracterize Clark’s comments as an attack on McCain’s military service.
And when Obama questioned votes that McCain had made, this was blown up as an personal attack on McCain.
Please. internet, but this lie was repeated, over and over. Back in ’93, a story got out that Bill and Hillary wouldn’t allow military uniforms to be worn in the WH. Lie. But this lie was re-circulated earlier in the year by one or the other of the Rep candidates.
So let’s make no mistake: the RW is much, much worse than the LW when it comes to twisting facts, deceptive reporting, loud-volume rants, and outright lies.
LikeLike
Oops. That penultimate paragraph should read: Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
LikeLike
Sometimes “claims” can mean different things to different people. The Gore “claim” actually goes back to a televised 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, Late Edition. Asked why voters should choose him (Gore) over Bill Bradley, Gore gave a set of reasons that included the following: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
The “claim” by Gore is real, actually happened and has neen often quoted mostly to trivialize Gore. What Gore meant was then variously explained by his supporters and detractors.
LikeLike
Sorry, Mr W. Attempt to finesse it, but my point stands.
As your quote indicates, he did not claim to have invented the internet. He took a prominent role in its inception, but that is not how it was presented.
By August of 2000, “everyone knew” that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. The deliberate misquote, and mischaracterization was never challenged by the GOP’s mainstream media lackeys, and was repeated ad nauseum by operatives of the GOP.
In a related note: Obama has pledged to end the war. He recently said
…Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time….
How is this being reported? That he has gone back on his word, that he’s not willing to stand behind his pledge.
I quote:
…”Today, Barack Obama reversed [his] position, proving once again that his words do not matter,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in a statement….”
Because Obama understands that the situation on the ground in 12 months time may not resemble the situation now, he indicated that 16 months does not mean “come hell or high water.” And yet, now the mother of all flip-floppers is saying that he’s gone back on his word.
This is the kind of crap I’m referring to. It has been deliberately, concertedly, and viciously used against the last two Dem candidates, and it continues to be used today. Rather than run on actual issues, the GOP has used smoke screens and faux outrage to torpedo any attempt at a rational debate on serious issues. And they are allowed to do this, they are helped to do this by the mainstream media, all of which is owned by large corporations.
So don’t try to finesse the edges on this while missing the big picture. Doing so is the sort of hyper-legalistic parsing that the Reps accused WJ Clinton of doing. There exists a double standard, which has led to the acronym: IOKIYAR.
“It’s OK If You’re A Republican.”
This from the party that trumpets its credibility and its high moral standards.
And this double standard has led to a crumbling of the American Dream, a crumbling of our bridges and highways to the point where we resemble the old Soviet bloc. And it’s also led to a $3 trillion dollar war that Bush started for exactly two reasons: oil, and as a political club for his opponents.
Two really good reasons for starting a war.
LikeLike
$3 trillion?..a slight exaggeration and not likely
that’s $3000 billion
that’s $3 million million
in a $14 trillion econonomy (times 6) or $84 trillion
even at $12 billion/month or $144 billion/yr, there seems to be an overstatement; then too since 60% of the money is for salaries, benefits, etc., fot 150,000 in-country and another 50,000 support people out-country, also paid anyway, the cost is further diminished..
On Al Gorpisms, it is exactly my point that his claim to “creating the internet” is or may be different from the claim that he “invented” the internet is exactly the issue, but it is this kind of self promotion that created the problem. He violated that most sacred of rules: “never believe your own propaganda,” as he has done so many times. But such is the political life.
LikeLike