Skip to comments.Demonizing Condi (USA Today's shameful photoshop exploits)
Posted on 10/26/2005 4:43:26 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
· October 26, 2005 06:41 AM
Check out the photo of Condoleezza Rice that was published by USA Today last week:
Notice anything peculiar about her eyes?
(Click on the Extended Entry for an explanation.)
No, Condi isn't possessed; the photo was manipulated.
This news comes courtesy of From The Pen, which found a pre-doctored version of the Associated Press photo on Yahoo! España:
Ask USA Today's Graphics and Photos Managing Editor, Richard Curtis (firstname.lastname@example.org), what the ^$%#@+! is going on.
Katherine Harris vs. the Photo Doctors
Time's photo distortions
USA Today would like her if she would follow their instructions.
So much for being an organization that respects individuals.
Just an odd thought. Can you imagine the difference in the coverage of Ms. Rice if Billy Jeff had appointed her? Cannonized would be the only way to describe it. Man I have no respect for the LSM.
It appears that this should be as big a story as the Jason Blair fraud.
Reminds me of this.
Better pictures of Condi:
post # 84 - Condi at the grand piano!
post# 89 - Walking in front of the troops.
Someone here, last month, did a wonderful presentation of how Time or one of the news mags cropped a picture to misrepresent it. Excellent read if anyone can remember the link.
Racism from the Racists who cry, "Racist!"
Surprised they didn't add horns to her head!
The arrogance of the MSMers knows no bounds.
Please contact your congresscritters to register your objection to the proposed "Dan Rather Protection Act" a/k/a the Federal Shield Law, intended to place the MSM completely beyond the reach of legal accountability for lies based on "anonymous sources."
Send questions/complaints to email@example.com
It would help, but she would have to renounce her right as a United States Citizen to dissent from the DNC.
"Someone here, last month, did a wonderful presentation of how Time or one of the news mags cropped a picture to misrepresent it."
Not sure if this is the incident you're talking about, but I remember that Time Magazine artificially darkened their cover photo of OJ Simpson that ran when he was first accused (charged? dont' remember) of murdering Nicole Simpson and that poor other fellow whose name I am too lazy to google for.
Now, OJ Simpson was a stinking murderer however, it was and is still hard to see it as anything other than the entrenched racism of the MSM, which of course they can never admit to, as the liberals can never admit to any of their flaws because they are so completely blind that they are completely self-blind as well.
They did get busted for it, so that was something.
Email address from Michelle's posting above.
How old is this guy> ... because he sure needs to grow the hell up
media photoshopping shenanigans ping
USA Today is right up there with the NY Times in terms of twisted ideology. They never miss a chance to demonize Republicans and their coverage during the election bordered on the shameful with the slant of their articles. I notice they no longer allow us to post from their newspaper on Free Republic. It must have upset them that the "dumb" public picked up on a pattern in their reporting.
Even demonized, Condi looks kinder, gentler and more Presidential than Hillary at her air brushed best.
Please run, Condi, plesae, please, please.
Leave Uma Alone! She's HOT!!!!!...........
I don't expect accuracy from USA Today.
I JUST saw that photograph and must not have been around when the story was published; we subscribe to USA Today and I either didn't notice it or the story came out while we were traveling. Outrageous!
I refer you to the picture of Condoleezza Rice shown on the USAtoday page http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-19-rice-congress_x.htm
You will notice obvious photographic manipulation intended to give Ms Rice a "sempaku" look: a form of post-production formally only used in Hollywood movies to denote the presence of an alien telepath or of demonic possession.
I would like to know why quality control failed to weed out this obvious piece of visual polemic perpetrated - I have to believe - by one of your junior staffers.
Someone should get fired, but I bet they got a promotion.
I put money on it that USA Today will try to blame it on a freelancer.
Questions and complaints will get you nowhere fast..................just stop buying their papers, and put them out of business...it is slowly happening right now.....
You do realize don't you, that USA Today boosts it's circulation numbers by giving copies of the publication free to hotels and motels. In order to support it's advertising rates I suspect, because circulation is otherwise low.
Believe I'd re-think my subscription after this little episode. I let the Graphics and Photos Managing Editor, Richard Curtis know what I thought about this.
The anti-war protest in San Francisco picture has been going around via e-mail as well as one of Cindy Sheehan kneeling with a bank of photographers surrounding her. Photographs have been manipulated since the first dark room - a picture is no longer worth a thousand words - if it can be manipulated it may be worth a thousand bucks. Ansel Adams was famous for his dramatic black and white photographs, some of which I dare say were manipulated in his dark room for greater effect.
We've noticed that USA Today is given away free at hotels and I've just written a note to contact them regarding their outrageous photoshopping of Condi's photo.
I'd scrap the paper in a heartbeat and Mr. Peach occasionally agrees, but our local paper is a little light on actual world news so he ultimately decides to keep it.
Deep inside the ratmedia knows all the fuss is bull shiite and nothing happening today will actually help the Whigs retake control. This is an example of the fear they feel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.