Posted on 10/26/2005 10:36:55 AM PDT by Jalapeno
Anybody see the difference between the two photos below?
-- OJ Time Mage Mug Shot Pic Left Out For Blogger's Bandwith --
You guessed it. The Time Magazine version on the right was deliberately darkened to make OJ look more menacing, because as any liberal journalist knows, black is bad. The whole black community was up in arms about this scandal as well they should have been. Under the heat of protest, Time issued an apology.
Now, Anybody see the difference between the two photos below?


You guessed it. The USA Today version on the right was deliberately altered to make Condi Rice look more menacing. Notice how the whites of the eyes are highlighted to make her BLACK eyes look BLACKER and HATEFUL. The doctored photo is here on USA Today's site (they'll probably take it down with some heat). You have to look overseas here to see an unbiased version. Under the heat of protest, will USA Today apologize? Or, don't they care about racism when directed at "house Niggas" like Condi? Rathergate, OJgate, now Condigate! What will the MSM think of next?
And if anybody would like to see why I think this is a scandal, take a look at an enlarged version of the photos that I put into photoshop and animated. This is scandalous stuff folks!
It's hard to believe they thought they could get away with that.
I think it's more than the eyes. They switched women on us.
Even the "original" looks Photoshopped.
They'll probably claim the same defense as the Reuters photog that brightened up the famous "bathroom break" note.
Oh crap! It must be a case of the body snatchers!
That is just unbelievable. Whoever did that and whoever allowed it should be fired.
I think the eyes in particular are meant to make her look like some sort of Blair Witch, or maybe someone possessed by an Evil Alien.
Condi's a G'oauld!? Who knew?
What ever happened to pottygate? What did the President go and when did he go [it]? Did anyone get the Poo-litzer prize? The Washington Compost?
> Condi's a G'oauld!? Who knew?
Obviously, they are trying to subliminally influence the
vote among Stargate SG-1 fans.
Terrible alteration. Now, on another peeve, wish folks would stop appending 'gate' to every scandal!
> What ever happened to pottygate?
Indeed, and just what DOES a rogue press outlet have to
do in order to get their WH press pass cancelled?
Amanda Tapping for President!
How tacky
I wish she could make herself look like. So when some idiot like, Senator Barbara Boxer, asks her when are we getting out of Iraq. She could could flash those eyes and tell the traitor to STFU. I think little ole Barbara would keel over and die.
They people they intended to influence will never know what they did.
They DID get away with it.
The lips are different, too. If you enlarge the pic, you'll see the pixilated box around her mouth that has been tampered with............
FYI, incorrect date in your title.
AHHHAHHAHAHAAHHAHHAa...that's an awesome retort.
Tell the blogger, not me. ;>
Nope, go to the source.
They are nothing but street trash. Pure, unadulterated street trash. No photoshopping there...their street trash mentality is out there for all the world to see. Someone should get on this that has power and the know how to make a big stink over it. What a cowardly nasty, vicious group of street trash they are.
Oops. Please accept my apology.
Exactly

My first thought, too.
It is interesting though, the USA Today story is dated Oct 19th. The blogger picked it up yesterday, and it spread pretty fast after that.
What, the MSM is out to get Condi?! (/sarcasm off)
...it politics and it comes with the territory?
it's a she-devil!
You guys sound like a bunch of liberals. What probably happened is somehow the eyes weren't showing up well in print, so some dumb intern tried to help out by Photoshopping it, making it look ridiculous. They didn't do this just because she's black! Sheesh.
When that Georgia "runaway bride" story was in the news, someone had posted a photo of her in which her eyes were enlarged and moving. They darted around, made her look pretty scary. This photograph reminded me of that one! It looks like Dr. Rice's face is wider in the doctored photo too, doesn't it?
This is a really sad hack job.
Could somebody find out when this occured? Was it yesterday, 2003, or Oct. 19th? Was the picture from 2003, but the photoshopping yesterday? What is it?
This treatment has been given to Pat Buchannan, Newt Gingrich, Ralph Reed - all Rebublicans.
Now Condi gets the EVIL, MEAN SPIRITED REPUBLICAN treatment!
Looking at the bright side, looks like she has arrived!
Holy crap! The levels the MSM will stoop too. Disgusting. Anyone got the phone number over there at USA Today?
I have done some darkroom work and PhotoShop, too, but I am no expert. I think the overall tone of the photo was made harsher in addition to the eyes being made demonic. Notice that every little detail is just a little harder on the doctored photo.
It's safe to say that many photos are doctored, but this one is really butchered.
Thanks for another laff from the MSM. I await the apology.
This crappy photo looks touched up....the devil in the details.
I agree. The picture on the left was much more menacing looking to me.
Let's face it. She DOES look menacing when she's pi$$ed or annoyed.

Wow ...and look what they did to Karl Rove's photo
The idea that they did it to "make it look better in print" is absurd when that clearly violates ethics and standards of journalism, not to mention that the first picture if fine and there were likely dozens more pool photos available.
T'eelk?

Time is wholly run by Dims..in other words: Socialists, racists, drug addicts, drunks, child abusers,
child molestors, roofies rapists, militant homosexuals,
fascist lesbians, Castro lovers, america haters,
spawn of filthy hippie pig baby genociders of the 60's...
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.