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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.)
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!)
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.)
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.)
To: sionnsar
31
posted on
08/08/2006 10:38:24 AM PDT
by
Niteranger68
(I gigged your peace frog.)
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.)
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
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
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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson