O’Reilly Uses Doctored Photo Of NBC President
O’Reilly Uses Doctored Photo Of NBC President
Last July, Fox and Friends aired doctored photos of New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe while attacking them for writing stories critical of Fox News. As Media Matters noted, “the journalists’ teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe’s hair moved further back on his head.” Some saw the photos as anti-Semitic.
At the time, Bill O’Reilly laughed off the photo alterations: “Fox & Friends poked a little fun at Steinberg for misreporting the situation, as he does all the time, and they used an unflattering caricature of him.” He said Fox News had simply “made fun” of Steinberg — despite the fact that the Fox and Friends hosts did not explain that the photos were doctored when they aired them.
Now O’Reilly has added his own doctored image to the Fox repetoire, in a segment attacking NBC President Jeffery Zucker — apparently just for being the president of O’Reilly’s greatest rival:
The image is stretched to make Zucker look unflattering. Compare O’Reilly’s photo to the original:
O’Reilly’s doctoring is less egregious — and offensive — than that done last summer by Fox & Friends. Still, a doctored photo seems hardly worthy of the label “No Spin Zone.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
How utterly sophomoric…
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pmVery Homeresque.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pmUmmm… if this was malicious, why did they tan the pale dude up? I’ll file this one under incompetence and criminally poor photoshop skills.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pmI’ve actually seen quite a bit of the “squeezed face” phenomenon all throughout media. It may have as much to do with the layout of the overall graphics, combined with sloppy editing.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmBilldo is pissed because Olbermann & Maddow are eating his lunch.
He’s already lost his radio show; TV may be next.
Maybe he can get a job in a call center, asking for phone sex.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pmO’Reilly’s producers must be airing doctored images of him every night because BillO always looks like a caricature, and an unflattering one at that.
PEACE
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pmHave all the problems in the country been fixed since November 4th that this is what this site posts? The worst crime is that O’Reilly’s staff can not use photoshop and need to strecth the picture to fit? What a way to make this site look completely petty. C’mon lets keep the standards higher here.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmHaving just re-watched Albert Brooks’ movie Defending Your Life, maybe “small brain” Bill O’Reilly is jealous of Mr. Zucker’s big organ!
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmFor some reason I just can’t find it within myself to be overly outraged about this.
Pretty childish if you ask me, but, whatever. Kids will be kids.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pmI realize Billo runs the “No Spine Zone,” but really, what is the purpose of doing something so childish?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pmNevar Says:
I’ve actually seen quite a bit of the “squeezed face” phenomenon all throughout media. It may have as much to do with the layout of the overall graphics, combined with sloppy editing.
That was my reaction: crappy graphics. Now if they’d added some foreskin and a little hole in his head . . .
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pmI suspect this was just a resizing error made by somebody who forgot that you have to hold down the SHIFT key to maintain the aspect ratio.
Sloppy, sloppy work. But I really think this is more ineptness than maliciousness. If it was the latter, more work would have been done on the photo.
It looks like Fox really needs a graphic artist who has some actual skill. I’d apply, but the downside of the job is that I’d be working for Fox…
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pmThe image is stretched to make Zucker look unflattering
– - This is nothing more than a 16:9 image in a 4:3 format. It’s a technical gaffe.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:51 pm“Now if they’d added some foreskin and a little hole in his head . . .”
…and a latex halo…
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pmThis is nothing more than a 16:9 image in a 4:3 format. It’s a technical gaffe.
Exactly, you’d be surprised how many movies I’ve been forced to watch at peoples houses that display this same stretching because people have incorrectly set the aspect ratio on their DVD players.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pmI agree, wasted space. Could you replace this thread with a whole page of stretched photos, you know, all our favorites… O’Rielly, Palin, G.Dufous, Uncle Dick.. whadda ya say, huh?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:00 pmWhy do you ask? Is this the only issue the site has presented in the past month?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pmThis is what happens when you outsource your graphics to a sweatshop in China.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pmdargumedo Says:
Is this the only issue of many that you felt worthy of your input? Comon….keep your standards high.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pmdargumunedo may be on to something. When it comes to nonissues nothing can top the imaginary war on christmas. I love that. Let’s have more posts on that nonissue.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pmMy God, what is there about this idiot that makes quoting him or following anything he does worth the ink?
This man gets paid millions for being an idiot. And he has idiots for an audience. The very nearly daily repetition of his stupidity and grossness states the bleeding obvious. With all that goes on in this country and the world, why bother with this lame brain?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pmdargumedo Says:
Did you REALLY just try to make the argument that nobody should hold dishonest journalists to account until ALL THE PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN SOLVED? I am sure wingnuts would LOVE that. Just let the lies roll out from the O’falafels and Oxymorons and Wienerdogs until we have no more wars, no one is hungry, racism has been eliminated. I think that is not just dishonest but frankly stupid
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pmThe image is stretched to make Zucker look unflattering. Compare O’Reilly’s photo to the original:
Okay. The original did the job fine.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pmFor all you saying it is just a formatting issue then why doesnt it ALWAYS happen? If Fox hadnt done something like this before I would give them the benifit of the doubt. They have. I dont.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmI’m more interested in the fact that O’Reilly just claimed yesterday that there is no evidence of any torture taking place at Guantanamo. Well, sure, if you don’t count our own FBI report comparing Guantanamo tactics to that of the Nazis. Ignore that and there is very little evidence.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pmWhen is somebody going to finally knock Bill-Oink’s block off? Keith Olbermann? Or better yet, Rachel Maddow. I hear she’s an expert in Krav Maga…
====
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pmOn his best day and in his best undoctored photo, O’Lielly still looks like a clown.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmDoctored to look bad Zucker still looks more human than O’Reilly.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pmTruly a slow news day.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:56 pmGotta love Billo.
Er, ah ….not.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pmI would LOVE to see O’Loofahman in the unemployment line
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pmBillo needs to alter photos because he permanently alters his life with every utterance that comes out of his mouth.
At this point, I doubt even a corrupt eastern European royal family would sell their ugliest daughter to him. I’d give up two years worth of paychecks to go over a months worth of Billo’s credit card receipts.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:23 pmO’Really’s ability to get along well with others stopped in 4th grade. He is such a petty, sophomoric weasel–who cares what he says, does or thinks? The man is an ignoramous.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:07 pmEven Murdoch and Ailes hate billo, but so far, he is still making them money, although at a lesser pace than before.
Maybe we should compare pictures of billo before and after his weekly head-explosions.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pmThat just looks like crappy photo-editing. They squeezed it into a space without retaining the aspect ratio.
But as the Bush years have taught us, there is really no discernible difference between egregious incompetence and malicious intent, and they should be treated the same.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 amWell, I don’t know. I think Zucker’s photo is unflattering, stretched or not.
But I can see your point.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 am