--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> > Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with
> > this, without being castagated across the board, but maybe
> > I'm just that naive about it.
>
> They *did* get castigated for the Steinberg and
> Reddcliffe photo alterations, at least across the lefty
> blogosphere, as well as politically neutral blogs like
> Editor and Publisher (and PhotoShop News!); and it was
> reported by UPI. I think I do remeber it now. I guess they play us,
fellow Americans, as such fools, that they can foist almost anything on
us, and we will accept it. And maybe we do to a certain extent. I am
sure you read the piece in the NYT about a month ago about Roger Ailes.
No one appears to be his peer in putting forth a product to promote a
certain agenda like he does. Drudge reported it too. Don't know if
> the NY Times ever deigned to dignify it by commenting in
> the paper (the two were Times reporters who had done a
> negative story on Fox), but the Times did comment to UPI.
>
> I thought I remembered that Fox eventually apologized,
> but I can't find any reference to this on Google.
>
> I don't think the Ventura photo even comes close to
> what Fox did in this case. So far, I haven't seen the
> Ventura thing picked up anywhere on the blogs, nor have
> I seen any comment from Ventura. So I'm dubious that it
> was intentional; I think, as I said, that they used a
> preliminary mockup of the cover, not realizing the final
> cover was different.
>
