Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Demonizing Condi (USA Today's shameful photoshop exploits)
Michelle Malkin ^ | October 26, 2005 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 10/26/2005 4:43:26 AM PDT by ajolympian2004

DEMONIZING CONDI

By

Michelle Malkin

  ·   October 26, 2005 06:41 AM

Check out the photo of Condoleezza Rice that was published by USA Today last week:

Beelzebub Condi

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:

Beautiful Condi

Ask USA Today's Graphics and Photos Managing Editor, Richard Curtis (rcurtis@usatoday.com), what the ^$%#@+! is going on.

***

Related:

Katherine Harris vs. the Photo Doctors
Time's photo distortions


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: condi2008; condirice; foxnews; foxnewscontributor; hillary; lamestreammedia; leftistbias; leftistdeceit; leftistlies; liberalmedia; lyingliars; malkin; mediabias; medialies; michellemalkin; msm; msmbastards; rice2008; secretaryofstate; usatoday
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 next last
To: ajolympian2004

41 posted on 10/26/2005 5:22:36 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004
What I sent to R Curtis

Sir,

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.

regards

42 posted on 10/26/2005 5:22:49 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Someone should get fired, but I bet they got a promotion.


43 posted on 10/26/2005 5:22:58 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: onevoter

I put money on it that USA Today will try to blame it on a freelancer.


44 posted on 10/26/2005 5:26:58 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

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.....


45 posted on 10/26/2005 5:29:22 AM PDT by joe fonebone (The light you see at the end of the tunnel is actually a train heading towards you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Peach

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.


46 posted on 10/26/2005 5:30:04 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (Take the high road. You'll never have to meet a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004

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.


47 posted on 10/26/2005 5:30:14 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

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.


48 posted on 10/26/2005 5:32:13 AM PDT by Peach (I believe Congressman Weldon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004

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.


49 posted on 10/26/2005 5:32:28 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Everything points to it so why not call them the Whigs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004

e-mail sent.


50 posted on 10/26/2005 5:35:04 AM PDT by AmericaUnite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004

It is silly to claim the eyes were changed the whole photo was brightened slightly it is just that it is more obvious on the lightest part (eye whites). Yes is makes the eyes more pronounced but it brightens her face and hair which is to her benifit. Remember it is not a professional studio portrait where lighting can be controlled.


51 posted on 10/26/2005 5:36:14 AM PDT by madnsad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004
Now I understand everything! The secret plots, the nomination of Miers--everything! Our leaders have been taken as hosts by the goauld!


52 posted on 10/26/2005 5:38:56 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Complaints won't get you anywhere? Well, shucks!

EVERBODY STOP COMPLAINING! JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE IT!

53 posted on 10/26/2005 5:40:09 AM PDT by BufordP (Excluding the WOT, I haven't trusted W since he coined the term "compassionate conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004
Check out CNN's rendition of the photo...Cant say im shocked...


Sec. of State, Condi Rice puts on her best face -CNN


They are so transparent.
54 posted on 10/26/2005 5:41:37 AM PDT by smith288 (Peace at all cost makes for tyranny free of charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004; hellinahandcart

Oh yeah. I'm just feelin' da LOVE!


55 posted on 10/26/2005 5:43:50 AM PDT by sauropod ("Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important." - T.S. Eliot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From "The Pen" http://fromthepen.com/condi_usatoday_scandal.html


---

That looks intentional to me, not just like an adjustment in brightness / contrast.

56 posted on 10/26/2005 5:44:53 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004
JAFFA CREE!
57 posted on 10/26/2005 5:45:44 AM PDT by gridlock (Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing... Monty Burns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307; mtbopfuyn
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.

I believe this is the one that was doctored. Funny...the headline 'An American Tragedy' is actually much more appropriate for the magazine itself than it is for O.J. Simpson.

58 posted on 10/26/2005 5:51:14 AM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004
Just sent to USA Today:

Interesting retouching work on the photo that your paper published on October 26th of Secretary of State Rice.

Why ever did you omit the horns and tail?

It's good to know that grotesque caricatures of the news are no longer confined to Mad Magazine or The Onion.

Sincerely,

59 posted on 10/26/2005 6:03:51 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madnsad
No. I do this stuff for a living; they deliberately went in and selectively boosted the whites of the eyes. It's so ham-handed and obvious it's laughable.

All newspaper photos are color adjusted for reproduction, but it's taboo to alter the "reality" of the shot in a selective manner... say, deliberately highlighting a facial mole, or wrinkles... or erasing an annoying telephone wire in the background, etc.

Eyes are whitened routinely in all fashion or showbiz magazines, but it's forbidden for new photos. A fire-able offense, for sure, if not for premeditation then for sheer incompetence.
60 posted on 10/26/2005 6:04:48 AM PDT by Jhensy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson