I wasn’t aware of this before, even though it happened about a year ago, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

Apparently, Fox News was feeling unhappy with its treatment at the hands of the New York Times, particularly criticism from reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe.  And so, Fox and Friends hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade proclaimed Steinberg and Reddicliffe “attack dogs.”  They aired photos of the two to accompany the story.

However, they weren’t just any photos.  Fox News had doctored both pictures to make the Times’ men look horrifying.  Their teeth were yellowed, their noses were enlarged.

It isn’t especially surprising, considering Fox News’ apparent belief that the right way to fight the “liberal media” is to be doubly biased in the other direction.  However, how can a network that alters photos outright claim to accurately report the news?

I studied journalism in college.  We learned that even reversing a photo (or publishing a mirror image) is essentially an unethical alteration, or a failure to report the facts.  Compare that to Fox’s use of Photoshop and come to your own conclusions.

Lately, it’s seemed as if Facebook becomes even more nefarious as each day passes.

It started reasonably harmless.  A simpler, less abrasive version of Internet’s favorite social cesspool, Myspace, Facebook was aimed first at Harvard students and then the college population at large.  It allowed you to connect with friends, meet your future roommates and publish silly photos.

In a few years, allegations surfaced that Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg had stolen the Facebook concept from fellow Harvard students.  We didn’t care who made Facebook.  We just liked to use it.

Something happened in the courts.  Some annoying chain Facebook groups circulated, claiming Facebook was closing.  Nothing happened, we forgot about it.

Then, Zuckerberg opened his site up to everyone.  People with no college connections were free to seep into Facebook, opening up opportunities for employers to spy on prospective employees, for cops to gather evidence, for Internet voyeurs to creep around.

We upped our privacy settings and grew a little more wary.

Successive redesigns brought some feeble complaints from Facebook users.  Ads started appearing where they didn’t belong.  Third-party applications started cheapening the Facebook experience, turning it into the Myspace no one wanted it to be.

Finally, Facebook tried to slip a few policy changes past users that would’ve made any content stored on the site property of Zuckerberg. 

Though that attempt mostly backfired, it hasn’t stopped him from continuing to meddle.

Marshall Kirkpatrick writes for the New York Times that the newest Facebook “innovation” will be the most infuriating yet.

Facebook/Zuckerberg’s most recent evil plan is to force Facebook users to make their status messages public.  Likewise for their photos and videos.

It’s obvious people aren’t going to like this.  It’s hard to understand who it benefits, or why this idea ever surfaced.  Even so, it’s happening, and we have to deal with it.

Kirkpatrick writes of the positive aspects of this change.  Google will be able to access Facebook profiles.  Facebook could be a valuable tool for gauging public sentiment about important issues, based on status messages.

Also, supposedly, the option to return your profile to privacy will be available.  It sure seems like that option will be well hidden, considering it appears Facebook wants to make everything public.

Perhaps now is the time to move on from Facebook.  Zuckerberg already sleeps on a mountain of C notes.  Why does he keep fiddling with a winning formula?

Fight back.  Close your Facebook account, boycott it.  Write angry e-mails and status messages.  At the very least, make sure you make your profile private again the second the Man tries to open it to the world.

Take to the streets and riot.  The Great Facebook Riot of 2009 has a ring to it, no? 

Mahalo.