Yeah, and plain paper doesn't usually have diffuse shadows of eyeglass frames on it. And rarely is part of the page crisp and the other rest blurry. No one uses courier any more. Etc. If the seal was the only thing you noticed, you have a particularly narrow form of tunnel vision.
It's a graphic. It's an illustration. The fact that it's labeled a "photo" indicates that something is dicey wth the way Reuters labels its images or the way Yahoo reads the labels. If you want to read some kind of conspiracy into that, knock yourself out.
"A copy of the so-called 'Downing Street Memo', produced in July 2002 for Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the invasion of Iraq. Photo by Stephen Hird/Reuters"
Go to the link - this is what is written next to the picture.
"Every party needs a Pooper, that's why we invited you!...Party Pooper...Party Pooper..."
I agree. This is a graphic and that is their out. Since Mr. Smith has admitted (if I have his latest story correct) that he made a copy of an original then made a copy of the copy and then destroyed the copy of the original (hello?) then why shouldn't reuters have an image made up for "dramatical purposes"?
In reality the caption is correct....mostly. The "...copy of the so-called 'Downing Street Memo' in 2002..." part is spot-on in as far as this is a copy of a copy of a destroyed copy of an original memo and an anonymously-leaked one to boot. As George Carlin once said, before the snarling metamorphosis, "If you break a crumb in half you don't have two-halves of a crumb, you've got two crumbs, man. Something for nothing."
I still have seen no proof that this is an "official original" or whether this a "forged original" on "official paper" or yada yada yada.
The Doctor has done good in as far as Reuters is again snagged in an act of manipulation and, once again and for the umpteenth time, highlights what side they are on.