"On the July 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," claiming that Steinberg's June 28 article on the "ominous trend" in Fox News' ratings was a "hit piece." During the segment, however, Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head. Fox News gave no indication that the photos had been altered."

This isn't the first time a major media outlet published altered photos or even staged or made up stories altogether. Is it too much to ask for journalism with integrity?

Can anyone cite another example anywhere near as outrageous as this?

They forgot the horns on Steinberg.

Steve Douchebag and Brian Killme sink to a new low?

* long low whistle *

That's really saying something cos those two fucktards are already lower than whale shit.

Now they need to stand at the top of a really tall ladder in order to touch bottom.

Fuck them frauds at FOX.

Anyone who watches those guys and thinks they are watching actual news is thicker than the proverbial brick.

Be Well.

Can anyone cite another example anywhere near as outrageous as this?

Posted by nullifidian

When they darkened Obama's skin to make him 'blacker' to scare stupid white people.

When they edited out "really" from Michelle Obama's "for the first time I'm really proud of my country" (talking about voter turnout), completely changing the statement's intent.

Just a couple that come to mind this year.

Journalistic integrity and Fox news? That's fucking hilarious.

Journalistic integrity and Fox news? That's fucking hilarious.

Journalistic integrity period is fucking hilarious.

Interesting, why would anyone care, just appears fox is trying to pick up more readers.

Goat, that "spread it out on everybody" talk is bullshit.

We are talking about a specific situation with a specific network.

When you bleat out (pun intended) "All journalists are baaaad", you are using a broad meaningless arguement device which suggests that all journalists are without integrity to the same degree that FOX is.

We are talking about degree.

They are not all the same.

Look at the nose on Steinberg. Nose, Steinberg?

Oh boy.

Way to go "big tent" Republicans!

Fox is in a league of their own on journalistic integrity. They have none.

Republicans are chickenshit pussies. FOX properly represents the modern GOP.

Where are all the usual suspects to defend this?

Where are all the usual suspects to defend this?

defend what? Oh, you mean America loving tolerant liberal comments like this....

Republicans are chickenshit pussies. FOX properly represents the modern GOP.

Be my guest Nullifidian, personally I think he is the chickenshit pussy.

just appears fox is trying to pick up more readers

~$War

Readers?

Spud thought the only people who watched FOX were folks who didn't know how to read.

/...or think independently

Be Well.

defend what?

That pretty much answers that!

Weak Yav.

as far as fox goes, I couldn't give a shit less.

they are about ratings and money.

"they are about ratings and money."

So Fox isn't "fair and balanced"?

no

neither is life

"neither is life"

True, but irrelevant. The issue is, dumbshit, Fox News' practices.

you are so weak nulli.

you post a thread about fox and spew about how unfair they are blah blah blah blah so you can wait for someone to come along and defend them and all you get are others like you who post how unfair they are blah blah blah blah blah.....

the dumbshit is you for hoping that someone gives a shit.

Thanks, Beverly, for your worthless opinion. :)

This really seems to have hit a nerve with you eberly.

Is that where you pick up your daily talking points?

Eberly, if you can't acknowledge that Roger Ailes run, Rupert Murdoch owned FOX News is the mouthpiece of the GOP in US news than you are either stupid or a liar.

"defend what? Oh, you mean America loving tolerant liberal comments like this...."

Since when does one have to accept slander and petty low blows by the "fair and balanced" in society to be "tolerant?" The "where's liberal tolerance" and "all journalists are shit" copouts are pure fucking bullshit. Show another network that consistantly sets the bar as low as fox noise and you may have a point.

Fox news leans right big deal. CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and PBS are complete left wing douchebags.

Bee Swell

CPJ, nobody has ever accused CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC or PBS photoshopping pictures of people who they are politicaally opposed to in order to make them look ugly and discredit them. Admit it, even by your low standards that is pretty dam low.

CBS News runs story of fake National Guard documents to harm Bush in 2004. Then wouldn't accept it when numerous experts showed them to be made on a modern computer.

They are not all the same.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion and/or how honest you are willing to be with yourself. What Dan Rather and CBS did to Bush was about the lowest most of us have seen in journalistic integrity. NBC staging trucks blowing up and pretending they happened because of a crash was pretty bad too. I can think of many others.

But if you think painting a practically unheard of reporter's teeth yellow equals faking papers to discredit a president, you are too blinded by partisianship to comment rationally on the issue, OWS

CPJ, nobody has ever accused CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC or PBS photoshopping pictures of people who they are politicaally opposed to in order to make them look ugly and discredit them.

No, some will fake papers. Some will fake explosions. Some will fake combat scenes or modify an arena of news for a better picture. It's still dishonest. Get off the fact it was photoshop. Dishonesty is dishonesty whether photoshop was involved or not.

Ya ya ya, Kieth Olberman does this garbage all the time, welcome to the new era of cable network news. They are all scum, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ect. They all lie, they all decieve.

I just roll my eyes whenever Olberman shows some Rep or Conservative he doesn't like dressed as Dracula or with red eyes and fangs, Like I said He does it all the time.

When they edited out "really" from Michelle Obama's "for the first time I'm really proud of my country" (talking about voter turnout), completely changing the statement's intent.

She actually made that statment in 3 differnt speeches and only said really in one of them. I've seen video of all three of them and none were edited.

just appears fox is trying to pick up more readers.

Posted by moneywar

Reading and Faux News do not go together.

I doubt the mouth breathers that believe that is an actual news organization read much more than the funnies.

WOW, this is serrious shit. This is even worse than publishing false documents about our president.

Can anyone cite another example anywhere near as outrageous as this?

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-07-02 09:01 PM

WOW, this is serrious shit. This is even worse than publishing false documents about our president.

No shit. *arms held out, palms up as if scales* Yellow teeth about a reporter? (left hand) Faked damning documents about a sitting president (right hand) Which is worse? (left hand tipping the scales -- of course)

Can anyone cite another example anywhere near as outrageous as this?

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-07-02 09:01 PM

"choose one"

I am stunned...stunned I tell ya!
Here I was sure "Faux News" invented it.

so fox is finally catching up to other news outlets? is that what you're saying, null?

that dayamed reuter's! look what they've gone and started!

WOW, this is serrious shit. This is even worse than publishing false documents about our president.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-07-03 08:48 AM

There is a small difference in the publishing of 'false' or 'forged' documents that were accurate about what happened to the president and what Doocy was doing here. Those 'documents' were based on what actually happened, and were backed up by a credible witness. These doctored photos were meant to lie about these reporters appearance to make a false perception.

So a fake document based on what really happened or a photoshopping to warp reality and denigrate. I'd say the latter is worse.

There is a small difference in the publishing of 'false' or 'forged' documents that were accurate about what happened to the president and what Doocy was doing here.

LOL IOW, sometimes it's OK for journalists to lie. It's absolutely incredible someone would defend that shit. If there is an incident that happened to a president, there should be real documents to prove it. Present them. Don't invent them. As I said, I can't believe you defend that tactic.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

the pigs from George Orwell's "Animal Farm"

Not at all Goat, the fact that they lied is bad. The fact that they showed false documents about something that actually did happen is another matter entirely. If I showed you a doctored movie about the twin towers being brought down, does that mean that the twin towers weren't brought down?
You see the difference?

Yawwwwwn...I don't get it. What's all the rhubarb? I bet I see hundreds of doctored pictures and caricatures every day. Was anyone's integrity impugned? Was anyone's life destroyed? Was someone caused to lose a job? What harm WAS done? None? Oh well, yawwwwwn...ZZZzzzzzz.

Way to go Faux News Corp! A new low!

Way to go Faux News Corp! A new low!

Nope. I stil think CBS owns that nadir.

Hey, if Fox wants to count themselves in the same class as Putin (choose one), fine with me.

"I bet I see hundreds of doctored pictures and caricatures every day."

Caricatures innately skew. Photographs, when presented in a newspaper or on a news show, are assumed to be journalistic. There's a difference, and a good reason for it.

"Was anyone's integrity impugned?"

Since you asked, yes. Would you like your snarling photo plastered all across cable & the web?

"Was anyone's life destroyed? Was someone caused to lose a job?"

No, but that's not the barometer of when folks do something wrong or idiotic.

"What harm WAS done?"

Fox lost a little more credibility. Now, when viewers see Fox's photos, they'll have to question the accuracy.

"Oh well, yawwwwwn...ZZZzzzzzz."

Oh...sorry, I forgot. It's almost time for your morning nap. Sleep well, gramps.

Nope. I stil think CBS owns that nadir.

So when will these people at Fox be fired? Oh.

I'm torn a bit though. I think the nadir is ABC.

Fox lost a little more credibility.

They'll regain it. CBS still hasn't recovered fully since Rathergate. Of course their choice in replacement anchors has a lot to be desired, too.

But Fox turned a virtually unknown reporter's teeth yellow. That'll be easier to recover from than presenting doctored documents about a president as legal.

"Of course their choice in replacement anchors has a lot to be desired, too."

As a real anchor Katie might have some promise.

When you don't believe in God you can believe in anything. Here are some of the beliefs of the Religion of Liberalism:

1. Fox News is Bad.
2. Wal Mart is evil.
3. Global warming is a fact
4. Bush and Chenet are liars
5. Republicans are all crazy
6. Liberal Media has integrity
7. Any attack on Obama is racist
8. Journalists and College Professors are not 90% left wing goons
9. Al Gore and John Kerry are not jerk-offs
10, Life on Earth started by accident

So when will these people at Fox be fired?

I don't know. I don't work for Fox. But the story just broke and it was a couple of weeks before Rather 'resigned'.

You're proof of #10.

(FWThom, not you Goatman)

Figures you'd see the righties poo-pooing those criticizing the lack of integrity at Fox. As long as it's their guy doing the deed, it's defendable. If this were Olbermann pulling this stunt, you'd have the GOP calling for his firing and people holding prayer vigils boycotting the network.

BTW, Fox is the same network that tried to peddle Steve Doofey's son as a credible representation of what kids his age think of the state of politics. Incidentally, his son looks as slow as he does.

"Oh...sorry, I forgot. It's almost time for your morning nap. Sleep well, gramps."

Not until early afternoon. I'm gonna stick around for a while and watch while you (and your little friends) change America with your profound posts. You may need to awaken DeadPud to have the most effect though.

"Can anyone cite another example anywhere near as outrageous as this?"

(FWThom, not you Goatman)

But I resemble that remark, too. *grin*

10, Life on Earth started by accident

Posted by fwthom

I'm curious, is your ego that fragile that you can't comprehend the possibility (let alone the near certainty) that we evolved from single celled organisms? Isn't that wondrous enough? Seriously, look as civilization and how far we've come from swimming in a puddle. That's pretty impressive.

"civilization and how far we've come"

Chia pets.

Decorative, and edible.

So you see, this is nothing new but your fake outrage on this is amusing.

Just as it's 'different' if a Republican does it, or it's 'different' if Bush does it, it's also 'different' if Fox does it.

In all fairness, though, the right leaning bloggers on right leaning blogs get to play by more lenient rules, too. There is no such thing as a level playing field in politics.

Chia pets.

ch ch chia is the nickname given to me on the rig. That is what is on my hard hat. The reason is that I come to the rig clean shaven and I have a heavy beard that grows fast. I do not shave before I leave. So in two weeks I have quite a growth. Hence the nickname.

Rathergate was a travesty of logic. The facts reported were true, but because they were written on papers that weren't the originals, the facts didn't matter.

Rathergate was a travesty of logic. The facts reported were true, but because they were written on papers that weren't the originals, the facts didn't matter.

That is exactly correct. If the story is true it should be easy enough to get the realy documents. Faking them is not necessary.

"The facts reported were true, but because they were written on papers that weren't the originals, the facts didn't matter."

Which video did you analyze to arrive at that conclusion, Boob?

I've been to parties with liberals and it's a lot crazier than any Church that handles snakes, talks in tongues, or starts to Holy Roll. As soon as someone brings up Fox News or Wal Nart liberals start drolling, shouting, and jumping up and down. It looks more like a troop of baboons than humans. Bring up Bush/Chrney and they go nuts. The only way to shut the motherfuckers up is to make up a new conspiracy theory involving Bush, 9-11, Area 51, and Osama Bin Laden. Then they all get quiet and listen in a trance like state.

This stunt is clownish. How can any professional journalist want to affiliate himself with a network that does bush-league crap like this? (Chris Wallace I'm looking at you when I say this.)

"Bring up Bush/Chrney and they go nuts. The only way to shut the motherfuckers up is to make up a new conspiracy theory involving Bush, 9-11, Area 51, and Osama Bin Laden. Then they all get quiet and listen in a trance like state."

What do you expect when they spent their formative years studying "Heather Has Two Mommies," watching "Star Wars" and "Brokeback Mountain" and attending rallies with Cindy Sheehan and Rosie O'Donnell.

Juvenile at the least.

I've been to parties with liberals...

I know exactly what you mean. I hosted a family reunion. One branch of the family is so far to the left and they behave exactly as you describe. As is the tradition, we have a pot that everyone puts money into to help defray the cost of the reunion. Next to that pot I put another one with a sign that said "25c fine for political talk. This was in the summer of 2000, so it was hard for them to not talk about Gore. The moderates and righties there (who leave politics for the proper forum) enforced the 'fine'. Would you believe the liberals wanted to badmouth the republicans so badly that they gladly paid to?!? We made an extra $37 from the penalty kitty, all from the libs having to badmouth someone or something on the right.

It's as if the democratic party had radio implants in their head barking out orders and buzzwords because they all talked the same BS and used the same buzzwords. It was like a script.

... that does bush-league...

rcade -- it has been going on long before bush. We can't even call it 'rather-league' because it was going on before him, too.

... that does bush-league...

Maybe we can call it "USA today league" since they doctored that picture of Condaleeza Rice to look like Satan.

Oh wait. She's a republican. That's OK.

I know exactly what you mean. I hosted a family reunion. One branch of the family is so far to the left and they behave exactly as you describe. As is the tradition, we have a pot that everyone puts money into to help defray the cost of the reunion. Next to that pot I put another one with a sign that said "25c fine for political talk. This was in the summer of 2000, so it was hard for them to not talk about Gore. The moderates and righties there (who leave politics for the proper forum) enforced the 'fine'. Would you believe the liberals wanted to badmouth the republicans so badly that they gladly paid to?!? We made an extra $37 from the penalty kitty, all from the libs having to badmouth someone or something on the right.

It's as if the democratic party had radio implants in their head barking out orders and buzzwords because they all talked the same BS and used the same buzzwords. It was like a script.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-03 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Now aren't YOU badmouthing the Liberal Democrats now?? Ironic Dontcha think??

Larry

Now aren't YOU badmouthing the Liberal Democrats now??

If telling a true story about the behavior of my Uncle John's side of the family at my family reunion is 'badmouthing', then yes, I am.

I'm surprised you find people talking about politics 'bad' Larry.

Neva Goatman.

"So you see, this is nothing new but your fake outrage on this is amusing."

Hey shithead, I was talking about the American mainstream media, not the world press.

Neva Goatman.

???

This got the bulk of my attention:

1. Fox News is Bad.
2. Wal Mart is evil.
3. Global warming is a fact
4. Bush and Chenet are liars
5. Republicans are all crazy
6. Liberal Media has integrity
7. Any attack on Obama is racist
8. Journalists and College Professors are not 90% left wing goons
9. Al Gore and John Kerry are not jerk-offs
10, Life on Earth started by accident

1. I never watch Fox News, but I've heard nothing to the contrary.
2. Evil may be in the eyes of the beholder, but W-M is an atrocity.
3. Anyone arguing against warming may argue against evolution... Oh!
4. They are chronic liars. Especially Chenet.
5. ALL crazy? No, 5o% crazy, 25% stupid, 25% criminally selfish.
6. There IS no liberal media, but some centrists do have integrity.
7. But racism is what works best for the Repub attack dogs.
8. Well, most of them DO read the papers.
9. They'd have been great presidents.
10. Anyone have any evidence to the contrary? herm

What's so evil about Wal-Mart? I personally can't stand the place, but it does provide inexpensive items. This allows millions of the poor to buy more things, maybe better coats for their kids in the winter, or an extra pound of meat or two a week. Why do the liberals not want the poor to be able to stretch their dollars further? I thought the liberals were the champions of the poor.

I think I know what it is. Wal-Mart makes a lot of money and that is evil. It is more important that a few hundred corporate meanies and stock olders not make so much money than it is that a few million people get to buy inexpensive items.

Is that it?

Question...If I can no longer watch Fox News as a result of this HORRIBLE picture doctoring, in which organization can I place my faith? CNN...nawww. CBS...you gotta be kidding. NBC, MSNBC, NY times, Boston Globe, L.A. Times,...damn, I'm having a hard time coming up with one that hasn't blatantly shown or printed some falsehood.

I guess you recommend MoveOn or DailyKos...right?

Didn't some network clowns deliberately blown up a truck/car ...letting people think it was from a defect?

"Why do the liberals not want the poor to be able to stretch their dollars further? I thought the liberals were the champions of the poor."

They ARE the champions of the poor. They just don't want anyone to make money from selling them inexpensive stuff. They want that YOU should pay more taxes so the leftist GOVERNMENT can buy them things and get more votes. C'mon Goatman, get with it, man. You must also realize that it's OK with them for SOME people to get rich (not Sam Walton,)but it's fine for Algore, George Soros, all the Hollywood contributors, and selected others.

Didn't some network clowns deliberately blown up a truck/car ...letting people think it was from a defect?

Yes. I referred to it upthread. NBC had a story about the saddle gas tanks on Chevrolet pickup trucks. They said they exploded when rammed from behind. They aired a segment that showed a car ramming the truck from behind and the truck did indeed explode. Upon close examination of the video, an incendiary device was seen going off next to the gas tanks at the moment of impact. NBC finally admitted it was staged and apologized.

"NBC finally admitted it was staged and apologized.'

Posted by goatman

CBS did a similar one back when people were claiming their cars were coming out of park and running over people when the brakes were applied.

Faked the whole shootin' match.

The final NTSB report said: "Pedal misapplication."

"Too stupid to be allowed behind the wheel of a go-kart." That's more like it.

Rathergate was a travesty of logic. The facts reported were true, but because they were written on papers that weren't the originals, the facts didn't matter.

That is exactly correct. If the story is true it should be easy enough to get the realy documents. Faking them is not necessary.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-03 10:39 AM

And that was what I was getting at. It's a real shame with the fake documents because instead the focus being on the real story of Bush being a fuck up and fucking off, it's about some stupid documents.

That's the main reason I hate Mike Moore. He may have a good comment or two or point or two, but he will distort or misrepresent which makes it easy to ignore everything he says, even if it's worthwhile.

The fact that we talk about the fake documents rather than what those fake documents say is true is painful.

BUT again, that is different to what these guys did. They distorted those images willfully to deceit, it isn't the first time this has happened, but it should be the last. When shit like this happens and it isn't a blatant parody, then there should be fines and loss of air privileges.

Body bags in New Orleans. People shooting at volunteers in New Orleans.

My news media went nuts about a gasoline shortage before Katrina. Nobody rushed the gas stations until the media went berserk. Gas stations had plenty of gas - until everyone showed up at once.

It was like a run on the banks. If the news said money was running out at the banks and it wasn't, there's be a banking problem soon.

"Rathergate was a travesty of logic. The facts reported were true, but because they were written on papers that weren't the originals, the facts didn't matter."

That is called fake but accurate for those on the left. Who needs the true facts when you are accurate with your agenda?

Most people I know learned quite a while ago to get news/info from as many sources as possible. Then filter what was gotten. I'd say this incident, and others like it, are important only to people who are too lazy to go beyond one source for their news. Yep, the biggest lesson in life is to learn to be cynical.

"FOX news doctors photos" It's about time Fox started fighting back at the New York slime machine. It is difficult to remember all the distorted reports that were made about FOX by the New York Slime.

"Can anyone cite another example anywhere near as outrageous as this?"

More Staged Photos by Reuters gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

Iranian Press TV Runs Fake Jew Photo gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

Hezbollah Busted Re-Faking Fake Photos gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

New York Times Blames Technology Not Bias for Fake Photos gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

USA Today altered a photo of Condoleezza Rice last week to give her that distorted, demonized look that they were looking for. gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

LA Times admits fake documents fiasco michellemalkin.com

Reuters fauxtography revisited michellemalkin.com

Reuters pictures of the year michellemalkin.com

Fauxtography updates michellemalkin.com

The Great Ambulance Hoax:
All your fakes are belong to us michellemalkin.com

Fauxto captions michellemalkin.com

It's not just Reuters michellemalkin.com

"Fauxtography" alert: NYTimes and USNews; plus Time and Reuters' Issam Kobeisi michellemalkin.com

Where there's smoke, there's Photoshop michellemalkin.com

Lights, camera, Hezbollywood michellemalkin.com

IS THE AP STAGING NEWS? michellemalkin.com

ORIGINS OF A FAKE MUHAMMED CARTOON michellemalkin.com

MORE FAKE NEWS: ABC'S BACKPACK STUNT michellemalkin.com

THE BOSTON GLOBE'S BOGUS SEAL HUNT STORY michellemalkin.com

So you see, this is nothing new but your fake outrage on this is amusing.

I'm glad you gave us such creditable sources. LOL

That being said, I think the Fox photos were changed enough so anyone would know they were doctored. I think its only a problem when it is not obvious.

Sorry for the spacing in the last post.

Every day someone reminds me why I will never vote for another Republican or anyone alleging he is a "conservative."

I have no problem with this, so long as someone PhotoShops the heads of a few Fox News stars onto the bodies of naked gay guys having sex and floods the Internet with the resulting fakes.

Then let's see how "fair and balanced" Fox considers the practice.

I don't think any faking would be necessary, Mary. Those Fox "guys" are fruitcakes.

BENFRANKLINN: GREAT COME BACK. THIS ARGUMENT IS SO ONE SIDED AGAINST THE LIB MEDIA IT IS LAUGHABLE. I'M SURPRISED THEY EVEN WENT THEIR.

"onto the bodies of naked gay guys having sex "

not that there is anything wrong with that...

Those Fox "guys" are fruitcakes.

Montecore has -- ahem -- 'inside' information.

Seriously, m'boor -- a disproportionate number of your posts allege homosexuality in either other posters or people in the news. What's up with that? Are you in the closet and this is the only way you get out occasionally? I'm not being snarky; I really am curious why you allude to so many people of being gay. It's kind of weird.

One day I was watching CBS News . Dan Rather was reporting from Kosavo (I may have spelled that wrong so the libs will be all over me) Rather was hiding behind a large rock with his helmet on reporting that they were taking heavy sniper fire. (No Hillary was not there) As the camera pulled back there were two soldiers leaning against a vehicle smoking and laughing at how redicules Rather looked. I'm sure this phoney got the camra man fired. I no longer watch CBS.

And then there was this one time at band camp...
-Oozie

KBM posts:
"Who needs the true facts when you are accurate with your agenda?"

Oh, you mean like the "intelligence facts" the Bush administration used to justify the Iraq invasion.
Somehow I wish that the Rather episode hadn't backfired and that Bush would have been outed as an AWOL POS because we would not be in Iraq today and our economy wouldn't be in the toilet.

SANOBAMA: THE MORE I READ YOUR COMMENTS THE MORE I REALIZE THAT YOU ARE DEMENTED. Have fun at your piece rally tomorrow!

"Have fun at your piece rally tomorrow!"

Well THAT certainly does sound like an interesting activity!

It is one thing for Dan Rather and CBS news to in good faith report a story based on questionable documents It is something totally different and far more reprehensible when FOX News intentionally doctors photos and broadcasts them to the world as if they reflect reality.
Of course all the right wingers on this thread are either too dishonest or too stupid to acknowledge this huge difference.

It is one thing for Dan Rather and CBS news to in good faith report a story based on questionable documents

LOL. You don't remember the story well, do you? Well I do. It wasn't until CBS and Dan Rather were the last people in America to believe the story and even the democrats were admitting the documents were fake that CBS finally dropped the story.

But you are ght: They are two completely different stories. One deliberately tried to discredit a sitting president's service record with forged documents and the other gave two people that no one heard of a bad mouthful of chompers. Quite different indeed.

Poor Mediadoesntmatter...must have been a slow news day.

They want to point to the photos as being "doctored" but fail to mention they put the one guys face on a french poodle dog and the other guy on a fat guy with a cell phone to his ear at the end of the segment!

Good grief...

Goatman, based on your post it is obvious that you fall under the category of "too dishonest". At the time CBS first aired those documents they believed they were legitimate. It was only after the fact that questions were raised. (And not that it is here nor there, but the underlying assertion about GWB which the documents were being used to confirm, was true!). Since you insist on playing dishonest games of moral equivalency I can conclude you are a liar and full of shit.

Faux Noise--the Mad Magazine of the air.

JohhnJK, the problem is a bunch douche bag right wingers seem to take FOX as seriously as they take Rush. Talk about the dumbing down of America...

At the time CBS first aired those documents they believed they were legitimate. It was only after the fact that questions were raised.

Yes, I was right -- you don't remember the story well. Though you are technically correct, "after the fact" was the next day. Yet CBS continued to run stand by the story even after it was proven that the typewriters of that era did have have the superscripts that were in the document. The color of the ink was a very rare one as well and unlikely to have been used by the military because of procurement. Still CBS stood by the story.

The story was originally reported on Sep 8. CBS finally retracted it on Sep 21.

Read all about it. You remember so little of it. But you libs do have selective memory I've seen many times before.

but the underlying assertion about GWB which the documents were being used to confirm, was true!).

For the fourth time this point is raised in this thread. For the fourth time I'll ask, "Why not use the real documents instead of faking them then?" My prediction is that for the fourth time I'll be greeted by silence.

Goatman, you still are dancing around the obvious difference. Are you such a partisan douchebag that you can't acknowledge how much worse FOXs behavior was?

How is "others do it" a justifiable reasoning? Am I allowed to rob a bank because others have done it?
Is decrying Fox's actions the same as admiring CBS's?
I don't think so.

Goatman, you still are dancing around the obvious difference

No, I'm sitting quite still waiting for you to answer the question or address the link I gave. But obviously you won't

I didn't think you would

Fuck your question. This thread is about the smear tactics of right wingers such as FOX News. You don't get to frame the debate. Post your own thread if that is your goal.

How is "others do it" a justifiable reasoning?

The point is not to justify the action. The point is that pales (to say the very least) to other journalistic indescritions of the past.

In the immediate, though, I am just having a grand time watching m8 dodge, tap dance, and deflect in his vain efforts to defend Dan Rather and CBS even though I freely admit they have nothing to do with the Fox story at this point.

"My prediction is that for the fourth time I'll be greeted by silence."

Well, not by me. What Dan Rather did was despicable and inexcusable. Not to mention idiotic: who goes to press with a "th" impossible to make with the typewriters of the times?!? I, for one, was thrilled he got fired.

And I am rather amused reading Montecore play you like a marionette on the other thread.

Geez Mod--the whole thread is about faux photos, faux stories, deliberate and accidental.

You want ot flame away at Fox--go right ahead.

But the posts above started going to other photos that the left crops and that just leads to phoney stories and the biggest was CBS trying to put out a phoney BS story about a sitting POTUS 55 days out from the election.

The libs on the site brought up the questions that only the right does this faux shit. Welllll--not exactly.

And CBS knew the docs were phoney --they had been working on the story for what 2 or 3 years.

They knew Burkett was a flaming liar and that was their source for the docs. The man was deranged with hatred.

They wanted a story and created shit to fit the ending.

Kinda' what cops do to some people they arrest--discount witnesses for the ones that fit the narrative.

And then pooor Rather--the end of a hack career.

Fuck your question.

LOL! Gothca, didn't I?

This thread is about the smear tactics of right wingers such as FOX News. You don't get to frame the debate. Post your own thread if that is your goal.

THen why didn't you say that at 8:35 or 8:51 or 9:04 posts which referred to the CBS issue instead of waiting until now? I'll answer since you have proven you can't tell the truth.

The reason is because I got your feet just a little too close to the fire for your comfort and you were unable to answer my question without proving yourself wrong, so you decided it's time to bail.

What a fraud and phony you are, m8

And I am rather amused reading Montecore play you like a marionette on the other thread

I missed that thread. I did see him play his gay blade routine again. I think I did read him crow about pulling strings or something. If he said it, it's gotta be true. We all know the heights of integrity someone who amuses himself by talking about people's dicks soars from.

HEY! I thought you said that this was a thread about Fox. What does Montecore have to do with Fox.

Phoniness and fraud rear their ugly heads again.

You know, m8, consistency would be the first and easiest step in not making yourself look so foolish. If you tell me this is a thread about Fox, you have to play by the same rules if you expect people to take you seriously.

But you are an amusing shard of extrement from the dregs of humanity -- I'll give you that.

I, for one, was thrilled he got fired

The honesty is refreshing, Danforth. Thank you.

"And CBS knew the docs were phoney --they had been working on the story for what 2 or 3 years."

You don't know that. Prove it.

You don't know that. Prove it.

I don't know about 2 or three years, but they knew there were significant discrepancies with the documents before they were aired. Read the link I posted upthread.

Unlike CBS, where they were duped, Faux aired photos they doctored themselves.

Unlike CBS, where they were duped,

AU -- read the link I posted upthread. CBS was not duped. They were warned by their own people about possible issues with the documents. Mary Mapes, CBS producer, was questioning them prior to airing.

" Read the link I posted upthread."

You can post the relevant text if you wish, but rehashing that old issue isn't important enough for me to read that link. This is 2008.

Not to justify what Fox did, but just to point out that photo manipulation is not something that Fox invented. USA today doctored this picture of Condaleeza Rice and published it knowingly

You can post the relevant text if you wish, but rehashing that old issue isn't important enough for me to read that link.

Not necessary. People who can be honest enough with themselves to overcome their paritisianship already know the truth. The ones who can't make that leap wouldn't believe it anyway.

Condy is a Republican and as we all know, it's party before truth.

~Goat.

That certainly seems to be the case with most republicans but liberals/progressives are much more inclined to be fair.

Spud condemns the USA Today fer stooping to such reprehensible tactics and Goat fer making such backassward generalisations.

Fair is fair.

Be Well.

We debated this issue ad nauseum at the time. You weren't here. This Fox story happened 2 days ago, not 4 years ago.

That certainly seems to be the case with most republicans but liberals/progressives are much more inclined to be fair.

My observations are different. My biggest complaint about the "party of tolerance and acceptance" is their intolerance and inability to accept those with whom they disagree. I don't see much fairness here from either side of the political aisle. Maybe four or five people tops. The rest are partisian knee jerking hacks who get their marching orders from their respective parties.

We debated this issue ad nauseum at the time. You weren't here. This Fox story happened 2 days ago, not 4 years ago.

That's why I dropped it after your last post. Why did you bring it back up?