(no subject)

[trinityvixen]

Ooh, I've been wanting to post this all week, and now I have something to add to it so it's even better!

So, apparently, Fox News is not only not fair and balanced (wait, wait, I need...a moment...must...recover...the shock...my heart...), but they're also big bullies who freeze out anyone who talks negatively about them or else ridicule them on the show for no other reason than to, well, ridicule them. The Times story I've linked to makes mention of the fact that they photoshopped people they don't like to make them look uglier. Now, Fox News has admitted to doing this, so there's no question that that's what's been done.

As if anyone with half a brain would question it when they see these pictures. Holy shit. The exaggerations that are small, they might have gotten away with--the yellow teeth, for instance. But the narrowing of the one guy's head and the exaggerations of his nose and chin? Those would look out of place on a sufferer of gigantism, and they do have abnormally large features. Maybe, maybe, maybe, if you're the sort of credulous idiot that watches Fox News, you could believe that man does suffer from gigantism. So does that mean you're ready to accept that the man in the bottom picture is an alien?

No, really: This Island Earth. This poor schmuck.

It's not even very good photoshop. Fox News claims that that is the point--that they were doing something satirical or something. (Satire, as a word, gets abused far more frequently than satire, the actual definition, is ever used.) Fox News is proudly declaring that it is in a league with Conan O'Brien and his "If They Mated?" sketch. Except that they are not, nor have they ever been funny.

And they are bullies. Quick test to see if you're a bully:
1) Are you attacking someone weaker than you--physically or financially or in terms of influence? If NO, go to question 2. If YES, stop: YOU ARE A BULLY (Fox News is a bully and there are still more questions to go!)
2) If you are attacking an equal, are you attacking them openly using facts in their entirety and offering them a chance to rebut your claim? If YES, go to question 3. If NO, stop: YOU ARE A BULLY (Fox News is 2 for 2!)
3) Are you attacking an equal in jest but really respect them and their opinion and expect the same in return (and get it)? If YES, congratulations, you're not a bully. If NO, YOU ARE A BULLY. (Fox News--for the win!)

And Vanity Fair has returned the favor. Brilliant. I hope they don't suffer for not having access to Fox News!

The stupidest fucking part of all this is that it is obviously fake photoshopping and that the anchors are obviously holding a grudge that, despite being #1!#1!#1! not everyone thinks their shit smells like roses. You know what? Every year American Idol is #1!#1!#1! too, and that doesn't make it good television. It just makes it popular stupidity.

I have a hard goddamned time imagining friggin' Peter Jennings whining about people not liking him and bringing him down with bad news when everything was all shineshine and puppies. Of course, the writer denigrated Fox News out of some bizarre loyalty to his boss who used to work for Fox News. How many bullshit conspiracies do they have to sling before they qualify for their own religion? Not too many more, right?

Used to be that the more paranoid you were, the stupider you looked because when pressed on your shit, you could only throw a temper tantrum and point fingers and whine about how mean the other guy was. (Hello, Senator McCarthy, I'd like you to meet Mr. Murrow.) Why do people still think a news organization that spends most of its time defending its bullshit (instead of reporting even the doctored news) is worth their time? WHY?

Comments

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I have one link for you.

http://www.goats.com/store/item/tshirt_foxlies-hanes-1.html

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't want to make it look like I supported them at all, but I appreciate that sentiment.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. For example:



ABC reports on the opinions on the presidential race in a group of 60 GIs. The reporter in the segment shows 3 soldiers supporting Obama, and 2 supporting Clinton, none supporting McCain. Actually, in the group of 60, 54 supported McCain, 4 supported Obama, and 2 supported Clinton.

Fox News is pretty nasty, but so are many of the other news organizations.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

A man with the following on his page:

Here is some information that will give you an idea of where I am coming from with the content of my posting.

I am a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN and a political junkie. I am an active member of THE VAST RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY and a PROUD SPONSOR of THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR.

I am also an avid reader and a news junkie as well. I read two/three newspapers and prowl the Internet daily. MY books are kept in my “WAR ROOM”. I figure that if Hillary can have one, then so can I. I look at MY books as a sportsman looks at his trophies.

It is my sincere hope that the readers of this blog enjoy my postings and return often to read and comment.

...hardly qualifies as a disinterested "news"man. It's also telling that, in addition to his possibly distorted presentation, his only commentary seems to be from himself. (I'm sorry, the "comment" from "Watch Dog" when the blog is Right Wing Dog makes it pretty much seem like he's responding to himself going "FUCK YEAH!" in hopes someone else will.)

Where are the links to the ABC broadcast in question? What was the point of the poll? To determine who soldiers want for president or who soldiers wanted to be president among the Democratic candidates? It would make sense to leave out the majority for McCain (if such a majority existed) if that wasn't even part of the question. Otherwise, why go through the effort of interviewing 60 people only to ignore them? I know! IT MUST BE CONSPIRACY! Do you know how nuts that is? That's as nuts as the Fox News "THEY JUST HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE BEAUTIFUL" photoshopping campaign.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

No link to the video because, well, it's not on YouTube. Snopes confirms most of the story, though, with the major exceptions of:

1. There was one McCain supporter out of the six soldiers put on the air.

2. ABC denies that a poll was conducted, so it's not clear whether there actually was one.

3. ABC denies that it was intending to present the segment as a snapshot of the net military opinion, but Snopes notes that the denial is pretty strongly undermined by the actual language of the segment.

I just used that one because it was the latest bit of network news dishonesty. The most notable one, of course, is the forged Bush TANG documents from the 2004 campaign, caught by bloggers, that cost Dan Rather his job. The point is that Fox News (while pretty despicable) isn't alone in faking news stories to suit its agenda. It may be alone in faking news stories to serve a right-wing agenda, though.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

If everyone is culpable then, where are ABCs posts of Fox News anchors photoshopped to look ugly? Vanity Fair did it in jest, admitting on the page they were doing it (and doing it to a degree of fakery that is actually funny because it is so over the top). But none have presented doctored pictures to put before a major broadcast out of spite.

Fox News: We cook the news, so why do you act surprise when we roast people we don't respect?

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

Wow, that is not even remotely similar.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I suppose not. Which is worse, distorted pictures or flat-out dishonesty? Granted, the worst was Fox News's line about "Obama's Baby Mama"...at least in tone. But have they relied on forged documents to attempt to torpedo a major presidential candidate, than refused to back down despite obvious evidence that the documents were forged?

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I have to admit I don't follow their antics all that closely. But being careful to put a question mark on the end of your lies ("A terrorist fist jab?") doesn't make them truth.