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

Skip to comments.

Flashback: USA Today gives Condi 'demon eyes,' pulls photo
WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/26/2005

Posted on 08/08/2006 9:30:06 AM PDT by sionnsar

USA Today gives Condi
'demon eyes,' pulls photo

Paper admits it gave secretary of state

'unnatural appearance' in Web edition


Posted: October 26, 2005
5:10 p.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Manipulated Associated Press photo of Condoleezza Rice published online by USA Today

USA Today pulled a photograph of Condoleezza Rice from its website after a weblog revealed it was manipulated, giving the secretary of state a menacing, demon-eyesing stare.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Original AP photo

The remarkable changes were first noted by a weblog called The Pen, which cited an original version of the Associated Press photograph.

After a host of weblogs highlighted the photo, the nationwide newspaper removed it with this explanation:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

But prior to the announcement, a number of experienced graphic artists wrote to weblogs, insisting the distortion was no mistake.

"That photo of Condi was deliberately manipulated," said a reader of Michelle Malkin's site who has used Photoshop for 10 years.

Another Photoshop user had suggested the photo might have been prepared for print publishing, which sometimes requires that images be sharpened to accommodate a fuzzy format.

The reader believed USA Today used a filter from the program Photoshop called Unsharp Mask, which brings out detail in soft photos.

But the 10-year Photoshop user said he put the photo through the Unsharp Mask filter in Photoshop 5.5 and "could not duplicate what was done."

The reader argued any filter in Photoshop would apply to the whole image, concluding "the image was deliberately manipulated around the eyes."

Also, he said, "Notice how the pupils have been narrowed, like a cat's eyes. Sharpening would not alter the roundness of her pupils, only accentuate them. Another paint or erase tool is required to achieve that effect."


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: antiamericanism; condi; deceit; fabrication; fakephotos; liberalbigots; liberalmedia; mediabias; racism; usaptooey; usatoday

1 posted on 08/08/2006 9:30:07 AM PDT by sionnsar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

She looks a lot like a Muslim to me.


2 posted on 08/08/2006 9:32:13 AM PDT by Finop (Liberal wisdom defined... "It's not fair that you work harder than I do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Why am I not surprised by this?


3 posted on 08/08/2006 9:32:23 AM PDT by M1Tanker (Proven Daily: Modern "progressive" liberalism is just National Socialism without the "twisted cross")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Makes you wonder all the other "cooked" pictures and storys they had gotten away with over the years before the internet.


4 posted on 08/08/2006 9:33:08 AM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

So they said it was inadvertent? I would think that the majority of reasonable people would recognize this as a lie. So they turned one F-up into two.

5 posted on 08/08/2006 9:33:10 AM PDT by Sax (You Done Tore Out My Heart And Stomped That Sucker Flat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Move along, kids... no blatantly obvious evidence of leftist media bias here...


6 posted on 08/08/2006 9:33:38 AM PDT by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

For a brief history of 'doctored' photos, see the following link and page down to the section: Reuters: Don't DARE Question Their Veracity.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/2006_08.php

This blog also includes more information on this most recent Reuters fakery. Page down to the section: Another Fake Reuters Photo from Lebanon.


7 posted on 08/08/2006 9:33:41 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
It probably has happened and will continue to happen more than we will ever know......
8 posted on 08/08/2006 9:33:46 AM PDT by b4its2late (Liberals are as confused as a hungry baby in a topless bar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
Gannet is ot the evil conniving America haters.
9 posted on 08/08/2006 9:33:50 AM PDT by boomop1 (there you go again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
Makes you wonder all the other "cooked" pictures and storys they had gotten away with over the years before the internet.

It does, doesn't it?

10 posted on 08/08/2006 9:34:17 AM PDT by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi | Appeasement=Suicide | Hezbo rockets carry "peaceheads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Just another day at the msm.


11 posted on 08/08/2006 9:34:36 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

ot is of, I am blind today...


12 posted on 08/08/2006 9:34:57 AM PDT by boomop1 (there you go again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
Makes you wonder all the other "cooked" pictures and storys they had gotten away with over the years before the internet.

That's exactly right. The big boys have to circle the wagons and ignore the Reuters false imaging. This crap has gone on a long time. And if it weren't for the Internet, only a handful of people would know about it.
13 posted on 08/08/2006 9:36:48 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

That looks more like Zombie eyes to me.

These photo doctoring episodes seem to be a test to see how far the media can go and what excuses can be generated that the sheeple will swallow.


14 posted on 08/08/2006 9:36:50 AM PDT by subterfuge (Call me a Jingoist, I don't care...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
What's funny is, if you look at the two pictures side by side, you'll notice very little facial enhancement on the doctored photo (other than the glaring white eyes, of course.)

The explanation that her face was edited for clarity is utter nonsense.
15 posted on 08/08/2006 9:40:35 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Get off my lawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Ever watch Stargate? Obviously, she is a G'ould.


16 posted on 08/08/2006 9:40:43 AM PDT by MarkeyD (The patriotism of the New York Times = The humanity of an Islamic terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
The reader believed USA Today used a filter from the program Photoshop called Unsharp Mask, which brings out detail in soft photos.

Funny how the filter only brought out the "Demon Eyes!"

17 posted on 08/08/2006 9:41:14 AM PDT by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
"Makes you wonder all the other "cooked" pictures and storys they had gotten away with over the years before the internet."

Wasn't that long ago "they" were saying, "Yeah, but, they got that off the Internet!"

18 posted on 08/08/2006 9:45:33 AM PDT by BikerGold (Blogs Are Destroying Christian/Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
Ladies and gentlemen, my tribute to this...my cat, Beauregard, performing his impersonation of the Condi Rice Demonic Death Stare(tm).

Thank you. We'll be here all week.

}:-)4

19 posted on 08/08/2006 9:56:08 AM PDT by Moose4 (Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

I've modified photos of my kids before with photoshop trying to remove redeye and fix the eyes for various reasons. I've had the same sort of effect becasue I'm really bad at it. However, I was able to at least recognize how bad it looked and not keep the modifications, let alone print them for public consumption.
It was no mistake that this made it to print.


20 posted on 08/08/2006 10:02:37 AM PDT by FunkyZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: M1Tanker
They took Goebbels maxim about telling a lie long enough too close to heart. It works only if there is no one to expose it and since lately that's not the case.

But they like robots just keep piling up being sure that it's only a matter of "long enough".
21 posted on 08/08/2006 10:02:47 AM PDT by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Slip18

Ping! This was the one I was telling you about....


22 posted on 08/08/2006 10:03:51 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by fleeing the scene of an accident)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

"In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance"

Lies lies lies lies.....

This has nothing to do with brightening the face. The eyes were directly made like this.

I use Photoshop professionally for over 1o years.


23 posted on 08/08/2006 10:03:52 AM PDT by observer5 (It's not a War on Terror - it's a WAR ON STUPIDITY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkeyD
Jaffa CREE!
24 posted on 08/08/2006 10:03:53 AM PDT by gridlock (The 'Pubbies will pick up two (2) seats in the Senate and four (4) seats in the House in 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Wow, USA Today is still publishing? Haven't picked up that papers in probably 10 years. They always had a pretty good sports section...


25 posted on 08/08/2006 10:06:02 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

uh, ya......right.

26 posted on 08/08/2006 10:07:23 AM PDT by FourPeas (when it comes to binary, there are 10 kinds of people: those who get it and those who don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

Indeed.

This is much bigger than just a couple of inept photoshop attempts.


27 posted on 08/08/2006 10:08:28 AM PDT by absalom01 (Cynthia McKinney: One of the most intelligent Democrats in the country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
It's not just "chopped" pics, it's choosing photos that create certain subconscious psychological impressions. Like choosing unflattering photos of W where he is making an "o" sound, so his lips look like a monkey, or the way he quizzically lifts his eyebrows when he's listening to a question, which makes him look confused. Or that recent photo of Cheney where they got some crazy angle on the podium to make him look menacing. And like they always chose smiley or "thoughtful" pensive pics of the Toon.

Or even more subtle, like showing Republicans scowling and Dems smiling, flipping images so the gesture and movement is up and to the right (positive directions) for Dems, but down and to the left for Reps. Making a Dem larger than the Rep.

I work in Photoshop for my job, and habitually pay attention to images in news articles. It's absolutely astonishing what the news does. They "work it" just as much, if not more, than the advertising world does.

28 posted on 08/08/2006 10:10:38 AM PDT by Sisku Hanne (*Support DIANA IREY for US Congress!* Send "Cut-n-Run" Murtha packing: HIT THE ROAD, JACK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
"Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."

And if you buy this one, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. What an incredible line of bovine excrement!

29 posted on 08/08/2006 10:13:47 AM PDT by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finop

30 posted on 08/08/2006 10:31:10 AM PDT by mirkwood (Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Hate Crime Bump


31 posted on 08/08/2006 10:38:24 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (I gigged your peace frog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury

The only time I ever see a USA Today is when staying at a hotel that provides it free in the mornings. And even then, usually my wife's the one that reads it, not me.

}:-)4


32 posted on 08/08/2006 10:40:04 AM PDT by Moose4 (Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

The MSM is practicing for the next national election season photos.


33 posted on 08/08/2006 10:47:24 AM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas

Did USA Today ever idenity said EDITOR. I would like to know which editor actually did it and whether he/she is still working there (or even got promoted).


34 posted on 08/08/2006 10:49:25 AM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas
Did USA Today ever identify the said EDITOR. I would like to know which editor actually did it and whether he/she is still working there (or even got promoted).
35 posted on 08/08/2006 10:49:58 AM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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