LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

This is along the lines of Newsweek altering the OJ cover photo...
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/03/fox-news-doctors-ny-times-photos/?icid=100214839x1205054480x1200229846

As much as I loath FNC, I'm not sure I'm buying this one. Those photo distortions are pretty extreme (and shoddy from a photo manipulation standpoint). Don't suppose anyone actually SAW the "news"cast in question?

Wait... didn't notice that it was during Fox & Friends ... that show REALLY sucks ... I stand corrected

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002?f=h_top

Although, you tell by the third photo shown (faces imposed on dogs) that it is satirical. Still pretty classless ...

It's all over youtube - you can see the show where they used them.

Fortunately, none of the "reputable" cable news channels would stoop to such satire.



Get over yourselves.

To say that Fox News is the bottom of the barrel is not to say that the rest of the barrel is not filled with stinking, rotting garbage.
Barrel metaphors: they're the top of the barrel.

...barrel.

I think someone was drunk over at Fox. . .I don't really get it. . .

Jac Coyne wrote:Fortunately, none of the "reputable" cable news channels would stoop to such satire.

Ah Jac, I love your consistency buddy! When Larry Craig or David Vitter makes the news for their sex scandals you just love to ignore it and shout things like "Ted Kennedy! Ted Kennedy! Ted Kennedy!" instead of addressing the issue at hand.

Don't ever stop reading from your GOP playbook of changing the subject whenever you can, and always be sure to attack somebody else when your own heroes prove to be sleazy and you can't defend their actions.

In Jac's defense, Dan, that photo of Ann Coulter is clearly photoshopped.
Everyone knows Coulter is actually completely blind and senses her surroundings by emitting high-pitched shrieks and echolocating.

jayjaciv wrote:In Jac's defense, Dan, that photo of Ann Coulter is clearly photoshopped.
Everyone knows Coulter is actually completely blind and senses her surroundings by emitting high-pitched shrieks and echolocating.

Actually, other than the background color, it's not photoshopped - she had conjunctivitis (Pink Eye).

As someone who works in television, what they did was sophomoric and classless. Airing the headshots of the two NY Times employees, altered as they did, was dishonest at worst. They should have aired the headshots, unaltered, and then shown the mash-up full page with the unaltered headshots. As a producer, I would not have aired those photos in an altered state.

To alter them was ridiculous but then again it is FNC and Fox & Friends, so what did you really expect. Parody is one thing. What FNC was doing was trying to even a perceived score and ended up making themselves look like donkeys.

As for what Olbermann's show did, Coulter did wear the eye patch on their air, so they do have the footage to use. It is not the photo they use all the time, but they are entitled to use it, unaltered.

OAKS wrote:

jayjaciv wrote:In Jac's defense, Dan, that photo of Ann Coulter is clearly photoshopped.
Everyone knows Coulter is actually completely blind and senses her surroundings by emitting high-pitched shrieks and echolocating.

Actually, other than the background color, it's not photoshopped - she had conjunctivitis (Pink Eye).

Will is correct. From July 2002, Olbermann recalls the interview:

Then she went over-the-top: Despite an eye infection, she could not keep herself off television. I begged my bosses not to make me interview a guest who was literally wearing a huge, distracting eyepatch. Thus my imagery of her as a pirate: For a week she continued to flail away at the wrong evil while looking like a refugee from some camped-up version of "Treasure Island." But not on my show.

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/000066.html

Coulter did this to herself.

Dan-o, I'm glad I was able to flush you out. I was worried about you after Obama came out as pro-gun and pro-religion. I guess those rumors about you with a Nader sign on your front lawn were baseless...

Dan Wishengrad wrote:Ah Jac, I love your consistency buddy! When Larry Craig or David Vitter makes the news for their sex scandals you just love to ignore it and shout things like "Ted Kennedy! Ted Kennedy! Ted Kennedy!" instead of addressing the issue at hand.

Sooooo, you're jabbing me about changing the subject from Fox News to MSNBC by...bringing up Craig and Vitter? Is "ironicalness" a word? And just for the record, Craig and Vitter are hypocrites; Kennedy is a murderer. Sometimes I wonder what Dems think is worse...

Dan Wishengrad wrote:Don't ever stop reading from your GOP playbook of changing the subject whenever you can, and always be sure to attack somebody else when your own heroes prove to be sleazy and you can't defend their actions.

I didn't get my GOP playbook this year, Dan-o. With McCain running they didn't bother sending it out. They're saving the money on postage because there is no chance of winning against the Holy Trinity of "change," "hope" and "unity."

So just so I've got this right: Fox is "sophomoric and classless" because it attempts satire, but MSNBC is "entitled" to continually make fun of someone with an eye infection? Got it.

Satire. Agreed. Poorly done but nonetheless satire.

http://www.reuters.com/article/industry ... 0920080707

Fair and balanced. That's why they win the ratings.

Ouch. Truth hurts.

No, but seriously. Other than allowing her PR man to join Fox News, Hillary really, really wants Obama to win...seriously.