Posted on 04/25/2009 7:14:33 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
A few days ago Noel Sheppard brought to us the story of yet another example of how the star struck media is fawning over President Obama. But, when the story first broke of the photo of that lean, swimsuit wearing Obama gracing the cover of the next issue of Washingtonian Magazine, it wasn't immediately realized that the photo itself was a photoshoppped image of the president and not in its original form.
But not soon after the image of the cover was released folks began to realize what had happened. It turns out that Washingtonian Magazine made several photoshop alterations to the Obama image to enhance it to make it more pleasing to look upon. So, the main question centers on whether it's ethical to photoshop the image of the president for a news story?
I suppose, though, if you want your Obammessiah to look his best, why not use all the tools at your disposal... even if they are a tad unethical.
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
Didn't need to.
Considering most media outlets outright lie about facts in order to promote the messiah, I don't see the tactic of photoshopping a picture of him to be beyond reason.
Have at'em boys 'n girls!!!
Recall the extreme close-up of Sarah Palin (on Newsweek?) which they (eventually) conceded they did no touch-up work on whatsoever, an absolute first for the magazine. They gave a lot of double-speak about how she was such an “authentic, down-home” candidate that touching it up a little would be wrong — in her case.
How was the cover credited: as a photo or a graphic? Anyone know?
Translation: It's not unethical as long as we can convince ourselves that someone, somewhere, knows it's a lie.
When you have to use that kind of twisted reasoning to justify it, that alone pretty well answers the "Is it ethical" question with a huge "NO!"
Stalin was a short and pock marked little guy, but you’d never know it just from his photographs that were popularly published.
Photoshopping Obama is just a high tech response to the idea of making the media’s political heroes tall and imposing, which has been going on for a long time.
Cropping a photo for clarity is a lot different from using the many image-altering tools available in PhotoShop.
So, truth is a poison to these guys.
This is 0bama’s way of advertising that the oval orifice is accepting applicants to replace Lewinsky.
Doesn’t the whole world know that only democrat politicians are sexy?
So, truth is a poison to these guys
________________
I don’t think that’s it. Stalin wasn’t evil because he was short with a bad complexion.
Its that its all about image with these guys- image trumps substance- because the substance just ain’t there..
Substance = Truth
Image = Perception
“The original photo of Obama that Washingtonian Magazine altered for its cover shows Obama at the beach in Hawaii. Obama was wearing black swim trunks and his skin tones were decidedly different than what appears on the new cover image. Yet, as is obvious with a glance at the cover of Washington Magazine, Obama’s swimwear is suddenly red and his skin tones are exhibit a more pleasing golden sheen than exist in the original photo.”
Obama is a fraud so it follows that they would alter his image to be more pleasing. I can't say they succeeded.
So the photo is a fake - the prez is a fake - the administration is a fake - we’re living in a fake world. Too bad my tax bill isn’t fake...so if it was photo-shopped, why didn’t they deal with those man-boobs? Or is that hot in a certain culture - like DC and Barney Frank’s house?..
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.