I almost never watch FOX NEWS, very few TVs have survived when I do. But tonight I was channell surfing arround, and noticed NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer doing an Interview on Niel Cavuto's show. Spitzer answered slanted questions and one "some people say" question with skill, but I couldn't take my eyes off the little box at the bottom of the screen. I noticed that when I looked at the box I didn't really know exactly what Spitzer said, while I did when I wasn't looking at the box.
I tried my best to multi-task, and listen to Spitzer and read the box at the same time. I began to notice a trend, paraphrasing. What Spitzer said was never to my recognition misrepresented in a strict definition of the term, but what they did do was that no matter how Spitzer answered the question they would reframe his statement for thier own purposes. At one point when Spitzer gave a 1 1/2 minute long question to avoid being tricked by Fox's slanted questions, they paraphrased him into a 1 sentence paraphrase that walks right into thier trick. Spitzer tactifully dodged Fox's rhetorical games, but FOX just paraphrased it to fit thier purposes.
When Spitzer avoided the use of a negative and used positive language to answer a negative question they once again paraphrased, using the negative paraphrase answere that they wanted him to give them so that in people's mind's the word making it a negative is lost and the positive stands, which is the opposite of what was actually said.
I haven't seen "OutFoxed," and don't know if this is addressed in there, but I thought it was an interesting tactic that I had never noticed before.