[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Joe"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?
> >
> > I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
> > checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
> > is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:
> >
> > "...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
> > network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running.
> > But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
> > also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
> > -year-history.
> >
> > "FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1
> > million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target
> > demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
> > demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
> > the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
> > the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
> > 14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
> > (Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.
> >
> > "FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs.
> > Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers
> > (2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special
> > Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total
> > viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The
> > O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3
> > million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its
> > tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program.">>
> 
> How do they kmow how many people are watching it?

See above, end of the second paragraph, "according
to Nielsen"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> > The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> > percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> > most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> > channels, but it's still not all that significant
> > overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> > and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> > than it really is.
>
>
> In our household Fox news is on periodically.  On the rare occasions
> when I watch, or have the remote, I will see what is on CNN, and
> typically I'm not too impressed.  There is something about Wolf
Blitzer
> I cannot stomach. I really don't know any of the other CNN
> personalities. On rarer occassions I may catch Rachael Maddow, or
Keith
> Oberman, but  I don't find too much of interest there either.   But it
> is the conservatives shows that are winning the ratings on both radio
> and TV, but I guess, as you say, put in perspective, it is not as
> significant as it might seem to be.>

They are not winning the ratings on TV.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, BBC, etc. -- which Fox pundits call 'left wing
media' -- combined, get FAR bigger ratings than the lone far-right Fox
News.  Its just that there are more choices among the center and left
wing TV News.
Combined they far outweigh the lone neocon Fox News.

I don't know about Radio. In Fall 2008, NPR programming reached a record
27.5 million people weekly, according to Arbitron ratings figures. NPR
stations reach 32.7 million listeners overall. In a Harris poll
conducted in 2005, NPR was voted the most trusted news source in the
U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio


As of of 2006, The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of
13.5 million listeners

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Joe"  wrote:
> >
> > Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?
>
> I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
> checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
> is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:
>
> "...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
> network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running.
> But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
> also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
> -year-history.
>
> "FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1
> million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target
> demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
> demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
> the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
> the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
> 14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
> (Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.
>
> "FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs.
> Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers
> (2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special
> Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total
> viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The
> O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3
> million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its
> tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program.">>

How do they kmow how many people are watching it?

OffWorld

>
>
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440766-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_N\
ews_Has_Highest_Rated_Year_In_Network_History.php

>
> http://tinyurl.com/ye93h5y 
>
> > I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)
>
> I was surprised too. I knew it wasn't huge, but I didn't
> realize it was that low. It certainly seems to make noise
> way out of proportion to the size of its audience. It
> seems almost silly for Obama & Co. to have gone to the
> trouble to publicly denounce it a few months back.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Joe]

Agreed. That's a mighty small pooch to have managed such a loud bark.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> >
> > Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?
> 
> I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
> checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
> is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:
> 
> "...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
> network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running. 
> But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
> also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
> -year-history.
> 
> "FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1 
> million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target 
> demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
> demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
> the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
> the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
> 14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
> (Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.
> 
> "FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs. 
> Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers 
> (2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special 
> Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total 
> viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The 
> O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3 
> million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its 
> tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program."
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440766-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Has_Highest_Rated_Year_In_Network_History.php
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ye93h5y
> 
> > I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)
> 
> I was surprised too. I knew it wasn't huge, but I didn't
> realize it was that low. It certainly seems to make noise
> way out of proportion to the size of its audience. It
> seems almost silly for Obama & Co. to have gone to the
> trouble to publicly denounce it a few months back.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?

I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:

"...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running. 
But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
-year-history.

"FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1 
million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target 
demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
(Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.

"FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs. 
Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers 
(2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special 
Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total 
viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The 
O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3 
million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its 
tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440766-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Has_Highest_Rated_Year_In_Network_History.php

http://tinyurl.com/ye93h5y

> I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)

I was surprised too. I knew it wasn't huge, but I didn't
realize it was that low. It certainly seems to make noise
way out of proportion to the size of its audience. It
seems almost silly for Obama & Co. to have gone to the
trouble to publicly denounce it a few months back.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> > percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> > most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> > channels, but it's still not all that significant
> > overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> > and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> > than it really is.
> 
> In our household Fox news is on periodically.  On the rare
> occasions when I watch, or have the remote, I will see what
> is on CNN, and typically I'm not too impressed.  There is
> something about Wolf Blitzer I cannot stomach.

You are not alone! Blitzer is intolerable, IMHO.

CNN's a lot better than Fox in terms of not pushing an
agenda, but it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of
reporting. And like most of the rest of the media, it's
terrified of the accusation of liberal bias, so it tends
to be awfully timid in its political reporting.

 I really don't know any of the other CNN
> personalities. On rarer occassions I may catch Rachael Maddow,
> or Keith Oberman, but  I don't find too much of interest
> there either.

Olbermann has become a caricature. Maddow's not as bad,
but she has her own problems.

   But it
> is the conservatives shows that are winning the ratings on
> both radio and TV, but I guess, as you say, put in
> perspective, it is not as significant as it might seem to be.

Talk radio is a whole 'nother story; the right-wing shows
have a *huge* audience because they dominate the market
something like 75-25 percent. Also, unlike with television,
commuters can listen in their cars, so they're a big built-
in audience.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> channels, but it's still not all that significant
> overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> than it really is.


In our household Fox news is on periodically.  On the rare occasions
when I watch, or have the remote, I will see what is on CNN, and
typically I'm not too impressed.  There is something about Wolf Blitzer
I cannot stomach. I really don't know any of the other CNN
personalities. On rarer occassions I may catch Rachael Maddow, or Keith
Oberman, but  I don't find too much of interest there either.   But it
is the conservatives shows that are winning the ratings on both radio
and TV, but I guess, as you say, put in perspective, it is not as
significant as it might seem to be.

> What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
> news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
> much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
> way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
> being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
> direction. And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Joe]

Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?

I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  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.
> 
> The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> channels, but it's still not all that significant
> overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> than it really is.
> 
> What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
> news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
> much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
> way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
> being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
> direction. And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  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.
> 
> The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> channels, but it's still not all that significant
> overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> than it really is.
> 
> What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
> news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
> much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
> way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
> being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
> direction.

> And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!

I am not sure any corporate media -- with all of its vested interests (e.g., GE 
-- until recently owning NBC -- what a joke for journalism), dependent on large 
corporate advertisers, and dependent on viewer ratings from an entertainment 
junkie public, will ever provides with what we need to know. 

Fortunately with the internet, and all, there are far wider sources available 
to most to enable tracking down the truth (since, "its out there"). 

A similar argument could be made against education -- that they will not teach 
us what we, or our kids, really need to know. That Texas textbook example is 
chilling. But other examples are all over the place.And higher education is 
increasingly highly dependent on research grants  -- and endowments -- which 
grow by contributors that have a high vested interest the status quo.  

I tend to think that we are all responsible for seeking out what is really 
happening -- and not dependent on the news media. As we are responsible, as all 
students are, for our own education. 


>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  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.

The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
channels, but it's still not all that significant
overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
than it really is.

What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
direction. And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  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.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
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. 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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon 
wrote:
>
> Corection: Ralph Reed on the cover of Time MAgazine, May 15th 1995.
>
>
>
> 
> From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 4:28:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama
>
>
> You mean like the photo of Ralph Reid that appeared on News Week?>>

Time Magazine is a mostly right-wing rag,  but their use of traditional
photography in 1995 on a corrupt christian fundie politician in the pics
below, was nothing like the Fox News photoshopped smear of professional
working journalists.



Here are pics of Fox News alterations of regular working journalists:

""Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and
his ears made to protrude further. ""



""Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News
and the original photo
<http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.innovationsinnewspapers.\
com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F12%2F27reddi.jpg>  suggests
that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been
added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. ""



http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
<http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002>

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Mike Dixon]

Corection: Ralph Reed on the cover of Time MAgazine, May 15th 1995.




From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 4:28:29 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama


You mean like the photo of Ralph Reid that appeared on News Week?





From: off_world_beings 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 4:50:54 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

  
 
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore2000200 0 wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the 
> > > > experience, and would like to know.
> > > 
> > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > but do you really get your news off the 
> > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > disillusioned.
> > > 
> > > Sal
> > >
> > 
> > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for years.
> > 
> > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover:  http://screencast. 
> > com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> > 
> > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days 
> > ago:http://screenca st.com/t/ MTMwZWI3Z
> 
> The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> for that crap.
> 
> Sal
>
Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and Friends:
http://screencast. com/t/NDYxZGM5Zj Yt
...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast. com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like any 
author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their way to make 
him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do that.
OffWorld




  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Mike Dixon]

You mean like the photo of Ralph Reid that appeared on News Week?





From: off_world_beings 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 4:50:54 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

  
 
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore2000200 0 wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the 
> > > > experience, and would like to know.
> > > 
> > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > but do you really get your news off the 
> > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > disillusioned.
> > > 
> > > Sal
> > >
> > 
> > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for years.
> > 
> > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover:  http://screencast. 
> > com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> > 
> > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days 
> > ago:http://screenca st.com/t/ MTMwZWI3Z
> 
> The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> for that crap.
> 
> Sal
>
Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and Friends:
http://screencast. com/t/NDYxZGM5Zj Yt
...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast. com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like any 
author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their way to make 
him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do that.
OffWorld



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

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.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "lurkernomore20002000"
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> > > > Friends:
> > > > http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> 
> > > >   >
> > > >
> > > > ...compared to the actual cover -- 
> http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> > > >   >
> > > >
> > > That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant
> > > misrepresentation.
> >
> > Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
> > deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
> > *during an interview with Ventura about the book*.
> >
> > It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
> > mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
> > materials from the publisher (which is very small)
> > before the book came out, and that in the interim the
> > cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
> > production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
> > were sent was the final cover. They just used what
> > they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.
> 
> Of course, your explanation occurred to me immediatley I saw the
> interview and backed it up to look to have a double-take at the book
> cover, but I doubt that cover ever existed as it stands there.
> 
> Fox manipulates every image they show:
> 
> ""Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and
> his ears made to protrude further. ""
> 
> 
> 
> ""Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News
> and the original photo
>  com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F12%2F27reddi.jpg>  suggests
> that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been
> added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. ""
> 
> 
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
> 
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
> deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
> *during an interview with Ventura about the book*.

Right.  It would seem unlikely to me.
>
> It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
> mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
> materials from the publisher (which is very small)
> before the book came out, and that in the interim the
> cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
> production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
> were sent was the final cover. They just used what
> they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.
>
> The Fox woman interviewer, BTW, was holding a copy of
> the actual book with the actual cover during the
> interview:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adftynBiZ18
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
> >
> > > Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> > > Friends:
> > > http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt

> > >  >
> > >
> > > ...compared to the actual cover -- 
http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> > >  >
> > >
> > That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant
> > misrepresentation.
>
> Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
> deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
> *during an interview with Ventura about the book*.
>
> It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
> mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
> materials from the publisher (which is very small)
> before the book came out, and that in the interim the
> cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
> production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
> were sent was the final cover. They just used what
> they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.

Of course, your explanation occurred to me immediatley I saw the
interview and backed it up to look to have a double-take at the book
cover, but I doubt that cover ever existed as it stands there.

Fox manipulates every image they show:

""Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and
his ears made to protrude further. ""



""Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News
and the original photo
  suggests
that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been
added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. ""



http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>  
> > Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> > Friends:
> > http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> > 
> > 
> > ...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> > 
> > 
> That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant 
> misrepresentation.

Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
*during an interview with Ventura about the book*.

It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
materials from the publisher (which is very small)
before the book came out, and that in the interim the
cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
were sent was the final cover. They just used what
they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.

The Fox woman interviewer, BTW, was holding a copy of
the actual book with the actual cover during the
interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adftynBiZ18

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

 
> Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> Friends:
> http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> 
> 
> ...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> 
> 
That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant misrepresentation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have
> the experience, and would like to know.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > > but do you really get your news off the
> > > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > > disillusioned.
> > > >
> > > > Sal
> > > >
> > >
> > > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for
> years.
> > >
> > > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover: 
> http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> > >
> > > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3
> days ago:http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z
> >
> > The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> > It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> > for that crap.
> >
> > Sal
> >
> 
> Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> Friends:
> http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> 
> 
> ...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> 
> 
> I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like> any 
> author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their> way to 
> make him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do> that.
> 
> OffWorld
>

FOX is a news organization?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have
the experience, and would like to know.
> > >
> > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > but do you really get your news off the
> > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > disillusioned.
> > >
> > > Sal
> > >
> >
> > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for
years.
> >
> > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover: 
http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> >
> > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3
days ago:http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z
>
> The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> for that crap.
>
> Sal
>

Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
Friends:
http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt


...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW


I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like
any author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their
way to make him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do
that.

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > 
> > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the 
> > > experience, and would like to know.
> > 
> > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > but do you really get your news off the 
> > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > disillusioned.
> > 
> > Sal
> >
> 
> Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for years.
> 
> Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover:  
> http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> 
> Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days 
> ago:http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z

The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
for that crap.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> >
> > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the
experience, and would like to know.
>
> I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> but do you really get your news off the
> Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> disillusioned.
>
> Sal
>

Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for
years.

Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover: 
http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 

Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days
ago: http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z


...in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIczKqAewRo


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > 
> > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the 
> > experience, and would like to know.
> 
> I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> but do you really get your news off the 
> Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> disillusioned.
> 
> Sal
Well, it's one of about five sites I check out including Yahoo News, Google 
News, my local paper, Daily Beast, and a few other internet sources.  I get 
home delivery of The New York Times, and Wall Street Journal. And I generally 
listen to NPR.  So, that is where I gather my news.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> 
> Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the experience, 
> and would like to know.

I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
but do you really get your news off the 
Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
disillusioned.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the experience, 
and would like to know.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "lurkernomore20002000"
>  wrote:
> >
> > When I first saw this headline pic, I couldn't tell who it was.  Those
> two mics, looked kind of like the trademark Farakohn necktie
> >
> > http://www.drudgereport.com/ 
> >
> 
> You also don't have the experience to see that that photo has been
> photoshopped to make the worst of it. Typical republican smear campaign.
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
>
> When I first saw this headline pic, I couldn't tell who it was.  Those
two mics, looked kind of like the trademark Farakohn necktie
>
> http://www.drudgereport.com/ 
>

You also don't have the experience to see that that photo has been
photoshopped to make the worst of it. Typical republican smear campaign.

OffWorld