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
Henry Blodget
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
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
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.
That is why, as a person who knows of photoshop and has used it, that those in the communications industry besides what you have posted, should have some reasonable guidlines about that software program and any other software that works on pictures, do’s and don’ts about its uses.
Canon sells, for their professional level cameras, an “original data security kit” which, among other things, protects the original data of the image from theft and shows when the original file has been altered in any way.
That was absolutely beautiful.
Maybe. If the White House made this happen.
Yes it was!
It's amazing that 5 young girls can sing the National Anthem so accurately well, with great harmony, while many of the "professional" singers of today absolutely slaughter the song.
Good to know that the tech is working to stay on top of stuff like that.
Canon's had that option out for a few years now. Not sure about Nikon, but they probably do as well. The downside is that it isn't available for their mid-priced camera bodies and that is where a lot of news organizations choose to spend their money.
Still, there is embedded data in every image file that shows when, where, and sometimes by whom the photo was taken. Although some photo editing software (not Photoshop AFAIK) can remove that data, a good photographer always keeps copies of the originals for these kinds of situations.
Thanks!
Pictures are less trustworthy thanks to photography.
 Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, Yezhov |
 Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, |
I guarantee you, it wasn't Photoshop that disappeared Yezhov.
Probably just a telephoto lens.
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.