• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, July 9, 2008

TV news networks can distort the truth. Fox News now says it distorts pictures because it's fun to do so. But did it get any residual benefit from that fun?

Fox News distorted pictures of two New York Times editorial staffers -- Steven Reddicliffe, an editor, and reporter Jacques Steinberg -- on the Fox show "Fox and Friends," because of a rating story Steinberg wrote about Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, which noted that CNN and MSNBC had made some ratings gains this election season.

The pictures illustrated what the show's hosts -- Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy -- called a "hit piece," making those responsible look like attack dogs. The photos made Reddicliffe look like he had a hangover with deeper than normal-set eyes, while Steinberg was given yellow-tinged teeth, floppy ears, and a slightly bigger nose.

Forget that the article Steinberg wrote took pains to note -- in a very even-handed way -- that Fox News is still the overall leader when it comes to cable news, even as CNN and MSNBC are growing this election season.

Tabloid journalism? Sure, this is standard stuff -- some would say the historical approach -- for a News Corp. news enterprise.

But if all this doesn't give the network some positive results -- say, more viewership for its shows -- then it didn't do its job well. Someone at Fox should be fired for failing to make any meaningful viewership gains, because they have wasted their time. If you're going to give me nasty, it better be worthwhile nasty.

Some might say other cable news shows poke fun. For instance, MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" does its "Worst Person in the World" segment. But that's just my point: that show's ratings have climbed.

Using controversy to generate buzz is just another form of guerrilla marketing. Fox believes this is now a standard journalism tactic. According to the New York Times, a Fox spokesman says altering photos for humorous effort is normal for cable news channels.

So Fox News did this for entertainment value? Fair enough.

But here's a question: Why just the New York Times? Let me point out, this reporter also did a similar story about Fox News losing some ratings steam in this election year, while CNN and MSNBC gained. I'm sure many other TV and advertising trades did likewise.

It'll probably be for others to judge -- but why wasn't my picture Photoshopped with a longer nose and grayer skin? Aren't there other less-photogenic reporters/editors to pick on? The reason is because Fox gains the most bang for its buck using the name New York Times in this story -- rather than going with smaller-profile publications.

Hey, Fox News. I'm available for mocking, scorn, and ridicule. Just spell my name and company correctly; I'll take care of the rest.

I may even tell the world you're the biggest cable news network out there -- but not much else .