Expect a lot more of this. Mother Jones just published a story about it (here). Fox News is simply supporting Trump's new disinformation-based re-election campaign. From MoJo:
Expect a lot more of this. Mother Jones just published a story about it (here). Fox News is simply supporting Trump's new disinformation-based re-election campaign.
From MoJo:
Trump can no longer politically exploit the economy. He cannot tout (convincingly) his inept response to the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 110,000 Americans. He can only cook up a fictitious threat, incite terror, stir panic—and posture as the strong man who can beat back an imaginary calamity. He is a scared president trying to whip up phantom threats he can then boast of defeating.
I can't believe that Fox News had the fall to "apologize" for this. You can't apologize for lying to the public. This wasn't some misleading graph, it was clearly and unmistakenly designed as a...
I can't believe that Fox News had the fall to "apologize" for this.
You can't apologize for lying to the public. This wasn't some misleading graph, it was clearly and unmistakenly designed as a fabrication. You can't apologize for things you did intentionally.
Wait wasn't it a photo illustration? Sure it was politically motivated, but its clearly ment as an illustration not documentation? Or am I missing something?
Wait wasn't it a photo illustration? Sure it was politically motivated, but its clearly ment as an illustration not documentation? Or am I missing something?
I have a lot of problems with Fox News, but yeah this isn't really one I fault them for. One of the people is translucent. It's clearly a montage. Edit: Okay just saw the second photo at the end...
I have a lot of problems with Fox News, but yeah this isn't really one I fault them for. One of the people is translucent. It's clearly a montage.
Edit: Okay just saw the second photo at the end of the article. That one's pretty bad.
Now, I don't know if Fox News' photographers are members of NPPA; if not I suppose they are free to ignore the code. I also haven't read the original Fox News article, so for all I know it's...
Akili Ramsess, executive director of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), said ethical standards clearly prohibit alteration of photos in news accounts.
“For a news photo that is supposed to be of the moment, it is completely egregious to manipulate this the way they have done,” Ramsess said.
While photo illustrations that meld images can be OK in certain contexts, such as for features or opinion pieces, they need to be properly labeled, she said, adding that misleading mashups have no place in straight news coverage. The NPPA ethics code expressly forbids use of altered photos in news stories.
Now, I don't know if Fox News' photographers are members of NPPA; if not I suppose they are free to ignore the code. I also haven't read the original Fox News article, so for all I know it's possible it falls within a feature or opinion piece.
This is not a new "thing" with them. They've been doing it for years. Way back when Jon Stewart was still hosting The Daily Show, they routinely did stories busting Fox for fake pics (among many...
This is not a new "thing" with them. They've been doing it for years. Way back when Jon Stewart was still hosting The Daily Show, they routinely did stories busting Fox for fake pics (among many other things).
English is not my first language. What does "delineated" mean in this context?
In an emailed statement, a Fox News spokeswoman said: “We have replaced our photo illustration with the clearly delineated images of a gunman and a shattered storefront, both of which were taken this week in Seattle’s autonomous zone.”
English is not my first language. What does "delineated" mean in this context?
In this context it would mean "to indicate the difference or separation between". Specifically, they have "... replaced our photo illustration with two images that are clearly separate from each...
In this context it would mean "to indicate the difference or separation between". Specifically, they have "... replaced our photo illustration with two images that are clearly separate from each other, one of a gunman and one of a shattered storefront ..."
Expect a lot more of this. Mother Jones just published a story about it (here). Fox News is simply supporting Trump's new disinformation-based re-election campaign.
From MoJo:
I can't believe that Fox News had the fall to "apologize" for this.
You can't apologize for lying to the public. This wasn't some misleading graph, it was clearly and unmistakenly designed as a fabrication. You can't apologize for things you did intentionally.
Sorry for getting caught.
Wait wasn't it a photo illustration? Sure it was politically motivated, but its clearly ment as an illustration not documentation? Or am I missing something?
I seems it wasn’t clearly demarcated as a montage.
I have a lot of problems with Fox News, but yeah this isn't really one I fault them for. One of the people is translucent. It's clearly a montage.
Edit: Okay just saw the second photo at the end of the article. That one's pretty bad.
Now, I don't know if Fox News' photographers are members of NPPA; if not I suppose they are free to ignore the code. I also haven't read the original Fox News article, so for all I know it's possible it falls within a feature or opinion piece.
This is not a new "thing" with them. They've been doing it for years. Way back when Jon Stewart was still hosting The Daily Show, they routinely did stories busting Fox for fake pics (among many other things).
Damn, I miss him.
Haven't ABC, CNN and the likes done similar things?
English is not my first language. What does "delineated" mean in this context?
In this context it would mean "to indicate the difference or separation between". Specifically, they have "... replaced our photo illustration with two images that are clearly separate from each other, one of a gunman and one of a shattered storefront ..."
Something along the lines of 'made clear', although it could mean that they just had 2 separate images rather than a weird collage of 3.