Demonizing Condi (USA Today's shameful photoshop exploits)

Michelle Malkin ^ | October 26, 2005 | Michelle Malkin

[maggief]

[agere_contra]

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

[Brilliant]

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

[Brilliant]

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

[joe fonebone]

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.....

[prairiebreeze]

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.

[yoe]

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.

[Peach]

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.

[jmaroneps37]

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.

[AmericaUnite]

e-mail sent.

[madnsad]

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.

[Shalom Israel]

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

[BufordP]

Complaints won't get you anywhere? Well, shucks!

EVERBODY STOP COMPLAINING! JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE IT!

[smith288]

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.

[sauropod]

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

[ajolympian2004]

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

---

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

[gridlock]

JAFFA CREE!

[arasina]

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.

[Gumlegs]

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,

[Jhensy]

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.