Neither Steinberg nor Reddicliffe were reachable for comment Wednesday. But Times Culture Editor Sam Sifton called the Fox photo work “disgusting,” and the criticism of the paper’s reporting “a specious and meritless claim.”
“It wasn’t a hit piece,” Sifton told E&P. “It was straight news. This was a hit piece by Fox News. It is beneath comment.” Asked if the paper planned to respond to Fox’s actions, he said no: “It is fighting with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it.”
Given the amazing feats of rationalization that have followed my earlier post, I feel obligated to mention that I brought up the “Smokegate” photo because it was the target of a prolonged right-wing hissy fit disproportionate to its supposed evil intentions, while this thuggish character assassination is sure to get a pass simply because it’s their boys doing it.
I suppose it could be the world’s worst photoshop clean up job for television, but I don’t see how you accidentally end up with that outcome. I didn’t pick up on the writers being Jewish and them getting the uh, traditional treatment here. Extra ugh.
Also, jesus christ is cable news ever going to stop with the idiotic crawl?
Good grief, it’s just like all you super left wingers to immediately jump to the conclusions that fit your ideology.
How do we know that the pictures on Fox aren’t accurate and the ones on the NYT pages aren’t photoshopped to make them look better than they are? huh? Ever thought of that?
;)
What’s even sadder is what a lousy job Fox did. C’mon, a professional could have made subtle alterations that made them look just a little more … something… but done it in a way that was not really detectable unless you overlaid the photos. These look like some kid playing with a shareware caricature program.
It looks like they were going for a purposeful exaggeration that was supposed to be obvious, but that should have been mentioned as such or made obviouser (like the poodle photoshops).
After showing the altered headshots, to ram home the “attack dog” theme, they showed an obviously photoshopped picture of a dog owner and his dog with Steinberg’s and Reddicliffe’s faces.
Just because Foxnews is obviously attempting to pander to conservatives and many Christians are conservatives does not in any way imply that the people that run Foxnews are Christians. And if they are then they still don’t have the right to speak for all Christians and it’s idiotic to assume they do.
Just like the dudes that wrote the Left Behind series don’t speak for all Christians.
Just like the Pope doesn’t speak for all Christians.
Fox isn’t even specifically about pandering to Christians (although Christianists might be a better term). It’s about pandering to the “spittle-flecked middle-aged white dudes” segment of the GOP, which overlaps with the Christianists, but not perfectly. You want pandering to Christianists, you need to watch Pat Robertson’s network.
