Sheeesh, the cover story was about OBOZO so the photo was cropped to show only OBOZO. Seems tame enough for me...
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.
“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.
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.
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.
It wasn’t cropped. Look at it again. The woman is photoshopped out completely.
Your comment lacked insight - was hopelessly superficial or was just an outright fabrication.
It’s falsefying pictures to make it match the story you want to tell.
IT IS MANIPULATING THE TRUTH!
Journalism’s first rule must be “TELL THE TRUTH”.
Manipulating photos to make up a story line is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.