Reason #645820 why you shouldn’t get your news from Fox February 3, 2011 Jill Yeah. I guess it’s convenient to have one country that we can just re-name every time shit goes down? It’ll be cool when next week, Yemen shares a border with Iran and Syria.
It’s not just Iraq; they’ve bungled Pakistan and Afghanistan as well before. When the whole region is a crapshoot, it doesn’t matter where the countries are, especially when Israel’s security is at stake.
Just to note, this is old. It’s real, but not from their coverage of the current crisis. It’s been circulating on Twitter, and s’one pointed out that LiveDesk is no longer on air, the graphics are out of date and the aspect ratio indicates a date in or before 2009.
Alice: It’s been circulating on Twitter, and s’one pointed out that LiveDesk is no longer on air, the graphics are out of date and the aspect ratio indicates a date in or before 2009. Alice Yes, but pre-2010 Egypt was still situated slightly to the left. (Hint, hint, Fox News – it’s the one with the big RIVER.)
It sorta just looks like they deliberately enlarged a few countries to illustrate a particular point that was not described anywhere in the FAILblog or elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere. …I mean, I hate to defend Faux News, but it looks like it was merely a graphic design fail, rather than a geography fail.
To be clear, Alice is right. This is beyond old. There are hundreds of reasons to get your news from ANYWHERE besides Fox. Take your pick from CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Agence France, Reuters, AP, The Guardian, BBC, or many others. But we on the left seem (sometimes) to go out of the way to make fun of them to make our point. Like digging up something like this that’s at least a year old by now.
Burnsbabe: To be clear, Alice is right. This is beyond old. There are hundreds of reasons to get your news from ANYWHERE besides Fox. Take your pick from CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Agence France, Reuters, AP, The Guardian, BBC, or many others. But we on the left seem (sometimes) to go out of the way to make fun of them to make our point. Like digging up something like this that’s at least a year old by now. Every time someone mentions this photo, I see someone else get all knotted up about IT’S OLD WE SHOULDN’T BE LAUGHING. To which I say, so? So what? Does it make it less funny? Or fail-y that it happened in the first place? (And how is 2009 “beyond old” – does that everyone who’s not a toddler geriatric?) Of course there are lots of reasons not to watch FOX (I mean, at least 645,820 by Jill’s highly reliable count), what’s wrong with enjoying the hilarity of this one? Is it ruining activism forever that we should, gasp, laugh at somebody’s silly mistake? On the internet?? This photo is a couple of years old (nobody said it wasn’t, for the record). I’m sure it’s been floating around on the ‘net since it first happened, and, after Egypt came up in the news in a big way because of the protests, went viral. Jill saw it and reposted it here for a laugh, in and amongst other posts. This is a problem how? Why oh why do some people seem to have a burning need to jump in with an irrelevant “correction” (to something that wasn’t wrong in the first place) every time this gets posted?