Posted on 10/26/2005 10:36:55 AM PDT by Jalapeno
Anybody see the difference between the two photos below?
-- OJ Time Mage Mug Shot Pic Left Out For Blogger's Bandwith --
You guessed it. The Time Magazine version on the right was deliberately darkened to make OJ look more menacing, because as any liberal journalist knows, black is bad. The whole black community was up in arms about this scandal – as well they should have been. Under the heat of protest, Time issued an apology.
Now, Anybody see the difference between the two photos below?
You guessed it. The USA Today version on the right was deliberately altered to make Condi Rice look more menacing. Notice how the whites of the eyes are highlighted to make her BLACK eyes look BLACKER and HATEFUL. The doctored photo is here on USA Today's site (they'll probably take it down with some heat). You have to look overseas here to see an unbiased version. Under the heat of protest, will USA Today apologize? Or, don't they care about racism when directed at "house Niggas" like Condi? Rathergate, OJgate, now Condigate! What will the MSM think of next?
And if anybody would like to see why I think this is a scandal, take a look at an enlarged version of the photos that I put into photoshop and animated. This is scandalous stuff folks!
You think? I'm not sure, it looks real enough to me tho.. It her typical "eye of the eagle" look that she gets when she is "commencing to unload an @$$ whoppin' on someone who sorely needs one!"
I really like that lady, I think she is defiantly headed for higher things!
Regards,
GtG
PS I'm not a pro w/ photoshop and this looks even worse then some of my early attempts. It looks totally amateurish. They could have at least "smudged" up the pixels a bit to hide the obvious artifact!
Looks like "Night of the Living Dead".
Regards,
GtG
Unbelievable at the viciousness MSM displays just because the woman is a pubby.
The unedited photo is up on the USA link.
Yup. They took their Photoshopped version down and put up the "regular" pic.
I bet they'll claim some journalist was clowning around and they accidently put the "joke" picture up and that the journalist will be severely reprimanded.
Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.
Yeah, it's WAY too much to ask a newspaper to just print a freakin' picture, without doctoring it.
They didn't do this just because she's black!
Agreed, they did it because she's tied to the administration.
Excuse me?
An EDITOR did the distortion, which is not in keeping with your EDITORIAL standards?
The crap-wagon is making extra deliveries today.
The next thing the newspapers will be doing, is pre-installing the doggie-doo with their home deliveries.
I think they mean that the editor didn't abide the paper's policy. Somebody wasn't doing their job.
LOL! I guess I should have read it more closely.
Can you imagine the uproar if they had done this to, say, Oprah?
Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.
Above from the article page in your link.
I don't believe it!
USA TODAY has editorial standards?
I thought it was a Gannett newspaper.
It looks like they've put the original up in place of the doctored one.
So what does that mean? -- that it never happened, and their perfect record for fairness and integrity is still intact?
Amazing.
Hopefully someone captured their original web page. It might be on Google.
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.