"At Fox News, media relations is a kind of rolling opposition research operation intended to keep reporters in line by feeding and sometimes maiming them. Shooting the occasional messenger is baked right into the process." David Carr on the pleasures of covering the Ailes operation.

Comments

[Ian McDowell]

Possibly because I don't watch FOX News unless it's playing while I'm waiting for my take-out at Manhattan Subs and Pizza (where I'm bemused to see it always playing, since the owner is named Mohammed), I was unaware of the photoshopped caricature technique. That seems particularly childish.

[Dave Dobson]

I'm just waiting for Sam to come by and accuse us of FNDS. Hard to imagine a serious news service doing this.

[Spag]

Nah, Dave I just think it's funny. Why Fox News would think that anyone is out to get them is a real mystery to me.

I don't know what's worse, Time making OJ look more sinister, Dan Rather and CBS putting out fake documents, or a morning gabfest on FOX stretching someones head. People still read Time and watch CBS, but they aren't FOX now, are they?

Too funny.

[Ged Maheux]

There is a MAJOR difference between what happened at CBS and this bullshit FOX pulled and YOU KNOW IT Sam. It's okay, I've learned not to expect fairness or actual logic from you anymore on these subjects so I don't know why I bother engaging you any more.

This had to be one of the stupidest, most puerile things any so-called "news" agency ever did, and they did it completely with an agenda and a purpose that had NOTHING to do with trying to report the facts of a story. CBS may have been in the wrong with theirs but I don't believe there was a motive behind the events that transpired there. In addition, when the facts were brought to light, Rather apologized and took the heat for the inaccuracies. Something that WILL NEVER happen at FOX.

Like you give one rat's ass.

[Spag]

Ged, you are showing the FNDS with your blow up here. Calm down. You claim there is a major difference between what happened on CBS and the Fox photo manipulation- and the major difference is:

YOU "don't believe there was a motive behind the events that transpired there."

Well that settles it. If YOU don't believe there was a motive, than who am I to doubt you.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the FOX photo manipulations were intended to be a joke? The Fox morning show isn't exactly the News Hour or World News Tonight. I reckon Keith Olbermann has never done such a thing on his show, has he? Maybe added some horns to the worst person in the world? If this is the best you have, more power to you.

Here's an idea- don't engage me anymore. You are obviously always fair and completely logical and I am not. That is because fairness and logic necessarily dictate that one adopt a liberal point of view, right? Otherwise, you would have to concede that conservatives had a point every now and then in order for you to be fair and logical. You don't, so being fair and logical is either the exclusive province of liberals or you aren't being fair and logical either. Or maybe we are both fair and logical but simply disagree.

[Ged Maheux]

I am simply astounded that you think something so obviously and knowingly unprofessional, childish and libelous as what FOX pulled is acceptable. Was it a joke? No, it was not. Even if it was, they would have admitted it as such by now and they have not.

Was it an error in judgement of the highest order? Yes.

If you disagree with that position then I'm sorry Sam, but you are wrong and I am right. There is no "other way of looking at it".

You didn't answer my point about Rather apologizing for the documents episode either. Was Rather forced out of his 30+ year position at CBS as a result? Yes. Did he have a personal "grudge" against Bush? If so, I challenge you to produce evidence of that. You will find none. He might have been lied to, he might have been over-zealous on the story, but it wasn't, by ANY degree, similar, equal to or on the same motivations of what FOX did to the Times reporters.

Sometimes people of honest faith can't "disagree" on things. Believe it or not, sometimes one side is right, and other the other side is wrong. If you are defending in any way what FOX did, I'm afraid you are on the side that is wrong.

[Spag]

Lying about the military service of a candidate for President during a campaign is somehow equivalent to a manipulated picture of a journalist that nobody knows on a morning gabfest?

Guess I'm missing the more serious offense here. There is plenty of evidence that there were serious questions about the CBS story before they ran it, and they ran it anyway. And although Rather apologized on the air before he left CBS, after he left he continued to stand by the story and said that even if the documents were fake, he believed the underlying story was true. So he is FOS.

[Dave Dobson]

Well, now Sam, they didn't really lie about the president's (lack of) service. They just supported their reporting of what's likely the truth - that Bush quit even the light duty he was serving to avoid the draft, and wasn't punished for it - with questionable documents. That the gotcha was faked doesn't mean the underlying facts are wrong.

[Beelzebubba]

Remember boys and girls-the news does not sell the medium ..the medium sells the news. The journalists who finally get to peddle the product are like Survivor contestants who have never packed their own lunch. This works great with an audience which settles for answers while they seek understanding. The power seekers have taught the truth seekers a valuable lesson. Dont bother with facts-just report what we tell you the facts are.

[Spag]

Again Dave, what is the more serious crime? Photo manipulation of two unknown reporters on a gabfest or putting out fake documents in a Presidential election in a hard news story? And what about Olbermann????

[Dave Dobson]

You're asking me to respond to a hypothetical thing you suppose Olbermann might do, and I can't do that, having never watched his show except in a couple snippets on the web. Plus, that's just silly. At least let me evaluate something he, you know, did.

The question would be one of intent and disclosure. The CBS guys didn't intend to use fake sources, and apologized when it was discovered that they had. The Fox guys did intend to fake the photos, and they didn't disclose that they had. The CBS guys apologized and got fired. The Fox guys attacked.

The relative importance? Definitely the TANG story, but that was four years ago, and Ed linked to a current story, so I was kind of thinking we'd discuss that. It goes to maturity and attitude - I'd like to see you actually defend Fox this time, rather than attacking a fired guy on a show from when Kerry was leading in the polls. The CBS story actually probably helped Bush, in net terms, by providing a distraction from his actual craven avoidance of service and failure even to complete the minimal requirements of his sweetheart national guard deal, and by giving Republicans the opportunity to whitewash the whole thing as lies, when in fact only the CBS sources appear to have been lies.

It's a maturity and seriousness thing. You often say Fox is a serious, fair news organization, and that we only think it's not because we're deranged and partisan. The photo alteration, and the rest of the shenanigans referenced in the article, demonstrate that they're not, don't you think?

[Ged Maheux]

This thread wasn't about CBS or MSNBC, but somehow, once again, Sam changed the subject and avoided the central issue. This isn't a "which is worse" situation. We're talking about what Fox did and their intention to deceive and defame. What they did was wholly unprofessional, biased, immature and plain rude. They should apologize on air, to the Times reporters for the craven attack they leveled against them for no other reason than childish revenge.