Yeah, but they don't airbrush out astronauts.
I wonder if the Soviet version of Photoshop would have had a "purge" plug-in?
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 06/13/2018 4:02:12 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 06/13/2018 1:34:17 PM PDT by NYAmerican
Disney selling ABC News’ longtime headquarters as trouble looms for embattled TV stars, journalists
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
NASA and other agencies release photocomposites every day.
Nothing new here. They’ve been reusing propaganda photos for years to make us look bad. Full on photoshop isn’t that huge of a stretch.
clearly photo-shopped
Definitely ‘shopped - but I don’t see this particular case as a problem. This is just to iconify the story - not a shot of a crime scene/war scene or “actual event”
Now if they had shopped in some non-descript typed pages insinuating a sales contract that’d be a problem.
Peter Jennings is probably rolling in his grave of what has become of ABC.
Yeah, but they don't airbrush out astronauts.
I wonder if the Soviet version of Photoshop would have had a "purge" plug-in?
...”un-person app” is good, too.
The media is “faking” the news so what’s a few “photoshopped” propaganda pieces gonna stop them from stepping up to get their Pulitzer?
So do your own Photoshop. Make it a U-Haul. Fake news is the new norm.
The only time I’ve watched anything on ABC in several years was the local ABC affiliate news station covered an event near me. That pretty goes for anything below channel 12.
Faux News trying to live up to its nickname.
Please don’t make up you own headlines. Someone else just posted this story after you did. Maybe they would not have wasted their time if you had posted the correct headline.
FWIW, it’s photos, not photo’s.
Your title doesn’t match the title at the link.
.
.
It’s photoshopped, but I would call it a “photo illustration” of the story rather than a “news photo.” That seems acceptable to me.
I think your concern has merit, but you need to find a better example of what you are concerned about — deliberate distortion of fact.
Sorry if this violated a rule. The point of my story had nothing to do with the title of the Article, I thought that titling my post as such would only mislead. My apologies for any violation of policy.
“FWIW, it’s photos, not photo’s.”
Sorry, my English ain’t so good no more.
It is obviously an opinion piece with a photo illustration. I think that you are correct that both should be clearly labelled as such.
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.