3 Comments

1. Ken  •  Jul 3, 2008 @1:13 pm
   

   The thing is that it's a shitty photoshop job. So it's both sleazy and amateur. That's Fox, all right.

2. Gravitationist  •  Jul 3, 2008 @5:05 pm
   

   Not that I have high expectations for Fox, but I had honestly thought stuff like this was below them.

   That's what I get for giving the benefit of the doubt.

3. Shkspr  •  Jul 4, 2008 @9:07 pm
   

   Look, this entire photo-doctoring thing is so overblown, and it illuminates handily the treasonous bigotry that categorizes America's liberal fraternity.

   * Yes, Steinberg's nose appeared to be a little larger than normal. And perhaps a little more Jewish. Why is that so offensive to liberals? Why are liberals so anti-Semitic that appearing more Jewish is considered to be a bad thing?

   * Yes, Steinberg's ears, chin and hairline were altered somewhat to make him look as though perhaps he was mentally challenged. Why is this seen as a negative? The special needs community needs role models to challenge students with intellectual disabilities, and Jacques Steinberg can be that man. Unless the liberals continue to keep those with developmental disabilities in cages.

   * Yes, both Steinberg and Reddicliffe were depicted with yellowed teeth, suggesting that both are smokers. Smoking is still legal in this country, though the liberals are fighting that, and still a vibrant part of our economic strength. By objecting to this minor change, aren't liberals really advocating the collapse of American agribusiness?

   * Yes, Mr. Reddicliffe's eyes appear to be bloodshot with dark circles under the eyes. It is obvious that this was done to highlight Mr. Reddicliffe's hard driving work ethic. Why are liberals so afraid of hard work?

   * Yes, it appears as though Mr. Reddicliffe's forehead has been enlarged and his hairline adjusted to a higher spot on his head. In America, we associate advancing baldness as a sign of wisdom and maturity, and larger cranial capacity clearly indicates advanced reasoning skills. Only in the liberal "one size fits all" America would exceptional wisdom and intelligence be singled out as negatives.

   * Yes, the natural ruddiness of Reddicliffe's face is brought out a little more, which some might view as a reference to a possible drinking problem. First, drinking is still a legal activity, so nobody should take offense if Reddicliffe does happen to drink to excess. There's nothing illegal about a glass or two of wine. Even at 11 AM. Also, if he is in fact a fall-down drunkard, I'm sure he goes to AA meetings. But I suppose if he isn't relying on new-age crystal power to curb his rampant alcoholism, liberals see that as a negative portrayal.

   * Finally, yes, the appearance of both men has been adjusted to make them seem more feral, with subsequent photos even making them look like dogs. Well, puppies, really. And who doesn't like puppies? A liberal, that's who.

   So what drives liberals to object to cosmetic changes used merely to add context to a human interest story? Perhaps the same reason they hate hard work, intelligence, wisdom, American farmers, ingenuity, the disabled, puppies, and the Jews. Because each and every person who has ever looked at a photo of Barack Obama and not vomited is, in fact, a terrorist.

   It's the only fair judgment one can make from looking at the facts.