Bill O'Reilly Takes On New York Times, Cries Foul

On Monday's "The O'Reilly Factor," Bill O'Reilly took on the New York Times and defended "Fox & Friends" for their Photoshopping of Times reporter Jacques Steinberg. O'Reilly claims the Times caricatured him in a 2007 book review and called this "the most hypocritical situation we have ever seen."

"Let me get this straight, New York Times-people" O'Reilly said. "We can't mock you, but you can mock us? Am I getting this? If the Times editor Bill Keller would wise up, perhaps their business might improve."

Monday's New York Times featured a much-talked about analysis of Fox News' Nixonian PR strategies (F&F Photoshopped Steinberg's photo in response to a negative story he wrote about the network), and also alleged that the Photoshopping of Steinberg's picture was anti-Semitic.

Watch:

The New York Times' alleged caricature of O'Reilly:

Comments

[Cherlesq]

As usual, Bill doesn't get it.

[conned]

Any intelligent person should be able to discern that the cartoon O'Reilly uses and the doctored photos are not the same thing. A cartoon is, initself, an admission of caricature, whereas a doctored photo - particularly when the "joke" or the supposed intention to "have a little fun" is not disclosed or mentioned to the viewers in that spirit as such - is dishonest. But we all know that the right wing tactic is to kill the messenger when they can't kill the message.

[Radarman]

Right below this article on the Huffy is a picture of Rush from the NY Times, It sure looks like its' been modified with a little bit of Photoshop work. Was that Ok or not? I mean making Rush look evil with a little touch up is fine just don't do it to anyone on the left.

[Tommygun264]

How has the photo of Rush been doctored? Which of his features have been altered? At most it looks like he was a little too close to the flash, but I don't see any digitally enlarged or elongated features and his teeth haven't been painted yellow. Limbaugh has a full, round face and full neck - he's what people used to politely call "moon-faced". You can't blame the NYT for the fact that he is fat.

[olgraydawg]

would the atmosphere in a room containing billo, karl and rush support life?

[findingavoice]

Golly, one hesitates to question someone's sanity, not being a mental-health professional, but this guy seems so obviously delusional - - what horns Mr. O'Reilly? - - has a serious anger-management problem, as well as issues distinguishing fact from fiction. Of course that last particular trait isn't much of a hindrance for a news' organization like Fox;O'Reilly just carries it to an extreme.

[Beowolf741]

These media wars with network against network or against news publications or talking head verses talking head were amusing at first but I can see it turning into one more thing that keeps real news from reaching the people.

Once the mass media was all about letting the average joe know what was going on in their government.

[noamjunior]

given that Murdoch owns papers in markets where his FOX news outlet targets rival papers- isn't that a direct violation of anti-trust laws?
I really don't know and am just asking.

[SILVANUS]

I think O'Reilly is inside and out possibly one of the ugliest beings on the planet: all noise and ego signifying absolutely nothing.

He reminds me of the alien in jack Shoulder's THE HIDDEN (1987) that crawled from body to body via any available orifice and only wanted to steal cars, rape and plunder, and whose total intelligence was revealed in the film's final chapter as a tirade of lame adolescent insults.

I don't think I've ever wished anyone would ever just drop dead before.

[Glowcy]

O'Really doesn't like pictures that cause him to look anything less than the handsome vision that he sees in the mirror: O'R thinks folks are just jealous 'cause he got it like that.


.

[heavencent]

HA!!!!!

[chriss0114]

If someone tells the truth about OReilly, isn't that the same as caricaturing him?

[Angelic11]

There is an obvious difference is doing a characture of someone and an egregious distorting of their features in photoshop!

Grow up Fox!

[eden4barack08]

OMG! He can't even distinguish between doctored photos thru photoshop, and cartoon drawings?

[TrevorAlan]

Except the Times did the O'Reilly picture as part of a book review which is assumed to be opinion rather than news, and was an obvious, if unflattering, cartoon artwork. The Daily Show also photoshops but again in an obvious parody style, in the context of a show on COMEDY Central. Fox did it in a way that made it seem like they were presenting news with an authentic photo. If you are really a news source, you need to note that you are altering your source. Even if they had just given a quick thanks to their graphics person, THAT may have at least been notification they aren't presenting an original.

If Fox wants to admit upfront they are a satire station rather than news then I guess there wouldn't be any reason to object in the future. FOX NEWS--We distort, you decide... to get your news elsewhere.

[Zogtastic]

"You see the horns?"

No, Bill... I see speech bubbles.

Ever heard of Andy Warhol??? http://www.cvm.qc.ca/mboudreault/Images%20Jpeg/Andy%20Warhol,%20%20Marilyn.jpg

I wouldn't call those caricatures... would you?

Man... it's seriously mind-numbing.

[land]

A transparent, honest piece of editorial art versus a furtive, sneaky, sloppy attempt at subliminal smear
"Am I getting this?"