Skip to comments.BUSTED: The Economist Photoshops Obama To Make Him Look More Depressed And Alone
Posted on 07/05/2010 4:19:51 AM PDT by blam
BUSTED: The Economist Photoshops Obama To Make Him Look More Depressed And Alone
Jul. 5, 2010, 7:03 AM
It's just not quite the same for a president to be glancing down at the water while chatting with others on the beach as it is for the president to be solemn and depressed and alone while contemplating oil-soaked sand.
But the Economist didn't have a picture of the latter. So they made one:
Et tu, Economist?
Image: New York Times
The fraud was discovered by Jeremy Peters of the New York Times
And don't miss the 10 biggest Photoshop frauds of all time
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Pravda strikes again!
Damm,did I tell Reggie to get me sprinkles on my snow cone!
Sheeesh, the cover story was about OBOZO so the photo was cropped to show only OBOZO. Seems tame enough for me...
That is why pictures are less trust worthy thanks to photoshop.
It wasn’t just cropped, it was a simple photoshop job of replacing an indistinct background where the woman was standing.
I don’t have an issue with “fixing” photos this way for aesthetic reasons but its bad form for any kind of news magazine to do so.
Speaking of pravda, time to go check the news.
Actually, I have it on good authority the New York Times photoshopped those other people IN.
I’d consider this more ‘op-ed’ than fraud. They’re obviously trying to send a message on what they think is happening to Obama, and this fake photo is a great summation of it. Kind of like a political cartoon.
This tool can be used without Photoshopping a thing.
Just use a photograph of a public figure showing an inappropriate emotion (jubilation) with an obituary or a story about increased unemployment.
Parties, travel and a little blow; unemployment might have doubled since I took office, but I still got game, what the heck it W's fault anyway, might as well enjoy myself!
The Times is throwing stones!?
As a 20+year subscriber to the Economist, I can tell you that it is and has always been a leftish eurocentric publication. There’s value in reading the pieces but all has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go beyond the superficial Economist take on issues and you’ll find an underlying tendency to bash Americans for the “can do” attitude that many of us retain. This mag doesn’t elevate - it equalibrates according to the sensitivities of the writers. I’m sure Mr. Churchill or Lady Margarete would agree.
Does anybody have access to the Elian Gonzalez photoshopped picture? The mag referenced only shows celebrities. I’m looking for the picture that Reuters published that removed the federal officer’s finger from the trigger and changed the expression on Elian Gonzalez’s face.
“Sheeesh, the cover story was about OBOZO so the photo was cropped to show only OBOZO. Seems tame enough for me...”
It’s not that they photocropped the photo. Innocent enough. But they photocropped the photo and changed the context. That’s unethical.
The NYT is exactly right this time... Obama is not depressed and alone as a result of all these disasters he’s caused. In fact, he’s eating it up!
There was some deception involved, not just changing the aesthetics of the photo. In the real photo he was tilting his head down to better hear the shorter woman. The magazine cover gives the impression he is alone and sadly gazing at the water while deep in thought. That is a pretty dramatic emotional shift.
“Actually, I have it on good authority the New York Times photoshopped those other people IN.”
Thanks! I had a good laugh.
The list, ping?
Would you have been as tolerant if this was McCain (if he had won)...or if this was Bush looking over Katrina?
Let's not be hypocrites.
Reuters caught cropping incriminating flotilla photos
“You may remember during the second Lebanese war Reuters was caught making news pictures look worse than they were with a little touch of Photo Shop.”
I remember when I had satellite, I used to surf around and sometimes watch news stations play their little games. One time, a feed was a replay of Clinton talking about, “heheh” trying to rein in his baser instincts or something like that. Again and again, they replayed that snippet, each time washing out the damnable laugh more and more. It was creepy as sin.
ROFL! Good one!
Obama: “We Will Not Rest ...” [golf club in hand]
Obama Plays Eighth Round of Golf Since Oil Spill—Media Fails to Report
May 26, 2010 ... (Fox News) - President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he will not rest until the oil leaking from a ruptured oil well in the Gulf of [snip]
Obama: ‘Will Not Rest’ Until Oil Spill is Stopped [”Just words.”]
The Economy Too ...
“Addressing reporters after a White House Cabinet meeting, President Obama says, ‘I will not rest until business are
investing again, and businesses are hiring again.’”
I think 4buttons decoded this one quite nicely [Post 14]
Er ... post 15. [I believe codes can be unbreakable, especially when I’m the one trying to decode them.]
It wasn’t cropped. Look at it again. The woman is photoshopped out completely.
Anything is an improvement over the halos.
Your comment lacked insight - was hopelessly superficial or was just an outright fabrication.
LOL...you know why his head was in a certain position?
It’s not just benign, it’s a notch below that.
Wrong. The photo was changed to visually underscore the Obama vs. BP headline.
Lots of mind-readers on here today.
The woman’s presence in the photo was a visual distraction, and the ‘meaning’ of the photo in the context of the magazine’s cover is no different with OR without her.
Yes, the stalin media does lie & deceive in their news propaganda.
My point was the core story was OBOZO vs. BP - which the cropped photo showed. The other people were irrelvant although the image of OBOZO "contemplating alone" was inaccurate.
This is minscule compared to what MSNBC did to the black, Tea Party American carrying a gun at a TP rally, cropping out his skin and then reported the TP members are racists.
Exactly, and even the header of this thread is an attempt to divine the intent of whoever edited the photo.
If anything, Obama looks contemplative and thoughtful—not depressed or alone.
Grow a pair, people.
OK - here’s an apology gift:
Thanks - I accept your apology for the false accusation.
Give it up....if they don't have it from birth..they never will...it's part of your neurological makeup to be able to “read” visually or not.
WOW! What a great cartoon. I am an artist and I can draw but a political cartoon (or any cartoon) is not about drawing, it is about an idea. I just don’t ever get ‘the idea’ for a political cartoon and I so admire those who do!
Also he may have been looking at the stuff laying on the beach. The photo-shopped cover is meant to make it look as if he is pondering the gravity of the disaster. Which he isn’t. They manipulated the photo to manipulate the public.
A political cartoon is really a comentary put to drawing form. That is why it has to be done right or the message is lost.
Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that she was coaching Obama on his bow, training him for his next meeting with one of America's enemies.
I never see a political cartoon that I don’t get the message. I might not agree with the message but I always get it.
I wonder what that poor lady did to be “purged” as Obama’s people would say.
Perhaps she’ll be “rehabilitated” by President Palin in a few years.
""As journalists we believe the guiding principle of our profession is accuracy; therefore, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public.
As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record. It is clear that the emerging electronic technologies provide new challenges to the integrity of photographic images ... in light of this, we the National Press Photographers Association, reaffirm the basis of our ethics: Accurate representation is the benchmark of our profession. We believe photojournalistic guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph. Altering the editorial content ... is a breach of the ethical standards recognized by the NPPA.""
Photoshopping, in this case, completely alters the message of the image in an attempt to deceive the public. In the original picture, he's leaning down to communicate with the woman, who happens to be shorter than he. There is no sign of depression, contemplation, or lonliness. In the photoshopped version, he is alone, perhaps saddened or in a contemplative posture. The background indicates the subject material of which he might be concerned.
The unethical alteration of the photo completely changes the meaning of the picture. It is now an editorial cartoon based on SOME of the content of a picture.
The original photographer should sue.