Fox News Puts NY Times Staffers in the Dog House

Photoshop skills are necessary in the bitter cable news wars.

TV Newser noticed how Fox & Friends responded to a Saturday NY Times article about the Fox News Channel's ratings--specifically how CNN and MSNBC have been able to make gains on Fox's leadership position.

Pointing out that Times editor Steve Reddicliffe might be bitter about not getting paid $750,000 to edit News Corp.-owned TV Guide anymore, Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy said, "[Steinberg] is essentially [Reddicliffe's] attack dog, his poodle if you will," complete with graphic demonstrating how that might work.

Then Media Matters detected some possible additional Photoshopping of Steinberg's and Reddicliffe's photos, finding, "the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head."

Of course, Fox News nemesis Keith Olbermann uses Photoshopped images liberally in his show--Bill O'Reilly doesn't really have such a tiny body.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on July 2, 2008 2:52 PM

Comments [rss]

ianmac47

They should sue for defamation of character.

dignam

I say we run with this "attack dog" designation. The New York Times would stand to inherit an awful lot of cash from Leona Helmsley's estate.

S.D.

Steve Doocy is a tool.

He regularly gives The Daily Show plenty of material to run with...

Spirit of 76

Pointing out that Times editor Steve Reddicliffe might be bitter about not getting paid $750,000 to edit News Corp.-owned TV Guide anymore,

Who'd even want the job? TV Guide is a shadow of its former self. I haven't bought it in about ten years and don't even notice it at the checkout line anymore. I heard they made some godawful changes when they went to regular magazine size some years back. And even before that, they haven't done any decent, insightful articles about television and society since the 1970s or early 1980s. It was all fluff in the '90s, along with the gimmicky multiple covers of smiling celebrities instead of the creative, interesting covers of previous decades.