FOX NEWS, We Photoshop, You Decide

3 07 2008

  Fox ran two Photoshopped pictures on its ‘Fox & Friends’ show.  The pictures is Photoshopped were of a NY Times reporter & an NY Times editor.  Check out the story here ->

  How much different is this than when Katie Couric is thinned out and dewrikled?  Or when the glamour mags airbrush the models?  One could argue that the reporters Fox Photoshopped were made to be less attractive and more sinister, but that is just an opinion.  Some people may like yellow, corn nugget teeth. 

  I think what Fox did is despicable.  I think that what glamour mags do is just bad, but where and how do we draw the line?  I assume, but don’t know, that the models, KC included, allow or sign a contract allowing the mags to alter their appearances.  The two NY Times guys did not, again assumed by me.  So perhaps the only difference is legalistic and the other differences are only arbitrary.  Perhaps airbrushing the truth is as bad as distorting it.  It’s all propaganda, no?




5 responses

3 07 2008

I agree. Fox News is more entertainment than news. At best, it seems to me, their our current administration’s propaganda machine.

3 07 2008

I agree, at best, they are our current administration’s propaganda machine.

3 07 2008
Patrick Mosolf

I think there’s a difference between airbrushing someone’s picture with their own consent, and for commercial purposes, and doing it without someone’s consent, in what I assume were for political purposes.

Political discussions should remain on the rational level, without smearing someone subliminally by making them look worse to millions of viewers. I wonder if FOX could be sued for this?

Try not to miss the distinction or else you end up excusing FOX News, which, like in so many cases before, is just despicable.

5 07 2008

Patrick, thanks for the comment. In my post, I was not trying to excuse FOX at all, I was suggesting that glam mags and the news station that Photoshops Katie Couric are pretty bad as well. I was trying to set up a compare and contrast scenario that left the ‘legitimate’ news stations with dirty hands as well.

7 07 2008
Patrick Mosolf

Well I think its good that you and other bloggers have made us aware that this happened at all. I wouldn’t have been aware of that had it not been for the coverage on blogs.

I have to admit that I don’t know who Kate Couric is. When I read before I assumed she is some kind of model, but on second reading, maybe she is a news anchor?

Of course, making people look better than they really do look is a kind of dishonesty, but as you note in your post, they must have agreed to it. And I agree with you I think its fair to assume that the NYT personnel did not consent to the alteration of their images.

Another difference is that FOX news is making people look bad, while the other cases make them look better. SO I guess in my analysis those two factors make the FOX News case far worse than the other examples you cited, but that’s just my perspective…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: