Powered by i.TV
October 21, 2014

Fox News airs doctored photos

by Kristin Sample, posted Jul 4th 2008 9:06AM
Steven ReddicliffeOn Wednesday morning's edition of Fox and Friends, the Fox News channel aired altered photos of two New York Times reporters to retaliate against a Times Saturday edition piece which pointed out some "ominous trends" in the show's ratings.

Co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade showed the photos which portrayed Jacques Steinberg with yellow teeth, a wider chin, and big ears, and Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe with the same yellow smile and a receding hairline. The caricatures seem to be done with Adobe Photoshop (tm) tools.

Jacques SteinbergDoocy called the Times report a "hit piece" and claimed that Reddicliffe is still sore about losing his job as editor of TV Guide, owned by News Corp, Fox's parent company. They also called Steinberg, the reporter who wrote the piece, Reddicliffe's attack poodle.

Neither Reddicliffe nor Steinberg were available for comment. But Sam Sifton, Times culture editor did have some words for Fox. "It was straight news. This was a hit piece by Fox News. It is beneath comment," he said. As for whether the Times would retaliate, Sifton said no: ""It is fighting with a pig -- everyone gets dirty, and the pig likes it." Methinks, them be fighting words.

Why do I bother with reality TV when all the drama is right there on the news?

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

33 Comments

Filter by:
aceempress

Isn't doctoring photos the same as lying? You mean Fox lies? What a surprise!

December 22 2013 at 6:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
mo

Now those are funny! the stupid obvious makes it funny!

September 14 2008 at 2:13 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rocketboy_X

I support the troops and the war.

But i'm not an idiot who realize that the two are not the same.

By supporting the troops you stand by and believe in the good work, name, and honor of our men and women (they are NOT boys and girls) who proudly serve in the armed forces.

By not supporting the war you feel saddened that such fine men and women are being sent to a war that, for whatever reason, you believe is unjust. And you would like to see them brought out of harm's way when they should not be there.

Gee, it sounds like two different concepts to me.

July 07 2008 at 11:09 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Craig

In the conservatives' world, there is no gray, only black and white. Supporting the troops but not the war is a pretty simple concept. It's because this war was propped up on lies and faulty intelligence that we don't want to see more troops killed. How many more have to die before it becomes unacceptable to these people? Four thousand was worth it, really? Do they honestly believe that liberals rejoice when more troops are killed?

July 05 2008 at 1:15 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Craig's comment
Franklin

"Supporting the troops but not the war is a pretty simple concept."

ROFL, yeah, so is the concept of a flying carpet. Only one problem with both concepts, they're contradictory to reality. This comes as no surprise since no lib has ever let reality get in the way of their views.

Yes, I honestly believe you rejoice, feel a swell of pride and a sense of smugness when troop deaths rise. You would take any situation as an advantage and a chance to make yourself look correct. It comes from being so wrong, so out of touch with reality for your entire lives that has given birth to this desperate need for affirmation and this horrific hatred of your own country.

On the bright side, between all the abortions and gay sex we should begin seeing a decline in the births of commies on this country. Canada's to the north, they're just like you (that's the top of the map for you libs living in the reality-free zone).

July 05 2008 at 9:15 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Michael

Well actually, Franklin, America's founding fathers were the raging liberals of their time. It was the conservative morons who wanted to keep the status quo with England. But don't worry, because in twenty or thirty years, you'll catch up to the current liberal opinions and embrace them as your own conservative viewpoints.

July 05 2008 at 7:33 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Michael's comment
Franklin

Speaking from a relative viewpoint, you are correct about the founders being the liberals of the time. Speaking from a purely ideological view, most of the principles this nation was founded upon that were deemed proper by the founders are the same ones held mainly by conservatives (by simple comparison of liberal/progressive/commie to conservative). Libertarians would be an even closer match, but the point is you whackjobs are so far off in your thinking from what this country is supposed to be as to be foreigners.

In 20 or 30 years my viewpoints will be pretty much the same as they are now, which is the same as they were 20-30 years ago. I don't need to revise my POV because it is now, always has been and always will be in line with the tenets upon which this country was founded.

In 20-30 years, you nutcases will be picketing for human rights for puppies, the right to marry trees, legalization of public sex with fast food items. All this while whining that you shouldn't have to work for anything and voting for the next hollow-skulled douchebag and having near orgasms over giving the government 85% of your pay in taxes so you don't have to be responsible for anything.

History bears out the de-evolution of the Democrat party from a noble people with fair-minded, if not idealistic, goals to today's hypocritical gaggle of communist aberrations. In a few decades you won't be discernable from a pile of shit.

July 05 2008 at 9:09 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
starky22

Franklin, you're not even close. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch the 4th of July fireworks.

July 04 2008 at 10:52 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to starky22's comment
Franklin

Your denial of my claims almost seems sincere. Almost. I would've believed you, too, except that you're not only lying to me, but to yourself. And not for the first time.

Hope you enjoyed the fireworks. If you did, thank someone who fought to keep your yellow ass free. I'm sure you aren't anywhere near people brave enough to fight and serve this country since that'd only cause you to wet yourself. I feel sorry for you.

July 05 2008 at 9:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
starky22

Franklin, do NOT presume to speak for me or others who happen to believe this war should never have happened. I fully support the troops--they're doing what they believe is right. I just think the loss of more than 4000 American lives is too high a price to pay. And your resorting to name-calling only serves to place you at the same level as Fox and the Times. Kinda makes me wonder who's been drinking all that Koolaid.

July 04 2008 at 6:31 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to starky22's comment
Franklin

Oh, I'm so sorry that you think I've pegged you wrong! So you support the troops, but not the war, right? Yeah, I had you pegged perfectly. You're just the kind of person those actually doing the fighting really dislike because you can't support the people doing the job and tell them you don't support what they're doing.

Fact is, you don't support the troops, but you don't have the balls to admit it, so you glom on to the tired, overused line, "I support the troops, but not the war." You're in that group of young idiots who believes that should a war need to be fought it ought to be over in a couple of hours with no casualties. A fine wish, but wishes don't create reality. You would never stand up for what you believe and really fight for it, you'd just protest and picket. You're all so damned useless.

What exactly do you "progressives" (libs changing their name because it's become universally despised, hah!) do on the 4th of July anyway? Do you sit around feeling embarassed to be Americans? Do you make plans to move to Canada?

Boy, if your movement, and I use that word in the most excrement-related manner possible, was around in the late 1700's we'd still be a colony of some European country. None of you sad, spineless little sandal wearers would have ever bothered to take a stand on anything if it required a true fight. Thank God our Founding Fathers weren't liberals!

July 04 2008 at 10:09 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Vincent

Franklin : are you thanking your god that the founding fathers were pro-slavery ?

July 07 2008 at 4:12 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Franklin

"So, I think it was obvious from resentment in the content that the photos were not real. Not entirely sure though."

And of course being not entirely sure is a great way to report on something, isn't it? Who cares if you're ignorant of what really happened as long as you get a dig in at Fox News, right?

It's amazing people like you get paid to do such a half-assed job and take any chance to turn a TV site into a political commentary blog. I guess AOL isn't any better than their reputation.

July 04 2008 at 5:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Franklin's comment
D-Bo

Everytime you write something you prove yourself to be an even bigger idiot. So please for my entertainment, please keep at it.

July 08 2008 at 11:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Nathaniel

Wait... this article is missing a detail: were these done in a joking manner or presented as if they were the real photos with no explanation?

July 04 2008 at 2:28 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Nathaniel's comment
Kristin Sample

From what I read on The Hollywood Reporter and Media Matters, I don't think it was explicitly pointed out that the pics were doctored. But, the piece they did was clearly scathing as they mentioned Reddicliffe's bitterness about TV Guide and Steinberg being an attack dog (later referring to him as poodle). So, I think it was obvious from resentment in the content that the photos were not real. Not entirely sure though.

July 04 2008 at 2:59 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rocketboy_X

Good question, but why let facts get in the way of a good Fox bashing, right?

Oh wait, then they would be guilty of what they always claim Fox news is about.

(BTW.. I am VERY dissapointed that they hired Laura Ingram.)

July 04 2008 at 11:26 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Creep

Is anyone naive enough to believe that Fox News is really "fair and balanced?" They are no better than TMZ or Extra but with politics. Makes me sick to think of those who watch this channel for real information.

July 04 2008 at 12:52 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners