Pravda strikes again!
Damm,did I tell Reggie to get me sprinkles on my snow cone!
Sheeesh, the cover story was about OBOZO so the photo was cropped to show only OBOZO. Seems tame enough for me...
That is why pictures are less trust worthy thanks to photoshop.
Actually, I have it on good authority the New York Times photoshopped those other people IN.
I’d consider this more ‘op-ed’ than fraud. They’re obviously trying to send a message on what they think is happening to Obama, and this fake photo is a great summation of it. Kind of like a political cartoon.
This tool can be used without Photoshopping a thing.
Just use a photograph of a public figure showing an inappropriate emotion (jubilation) with an obituary or a story about increased unemployment.
The Times is throwing stones!?
|
As a 20+year subscriber to the Economist, I can tell you that it is and has always been a leftish eurocentric publication. There’s value in reading the pieces but all has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go beyond the superficial Economist take on issues and you’ll find an underlying tendency to bash Americans for the “can do” attitude that many of us retain. This mag doesn’t elevate - it equalibrates according to the sensitivities of the writers. I’m sure Mr. Churchill or Lady Margarete would agree.
Does anybody have access to the Elian Gonzalez photoshopped picture? The mag referenced only shows celebrities. I’m looking for the picture that Reuters published that removed the federal officer’s finger from the trigger and changed the expression on Elian Gonzalez’s face.
The NYT is exactly right this time... Obama is not depressed and alone as a result of all these disasters he’s caused. In fact, he’s eating it up!
The list, ping?
Anything is an improvement over the halos.
I wonder what that poor lady did to be “purged” as Obama’s people would say.
Perhaps she’ll be “rehabilitated” by President Palin in a few years.
""As journalists we believe the guiding principle of our profession is accuracy; therefore, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public.
As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record. It is clear that the emerging electronic technologies provide new challenges to the integrity of photographic images ... in light of this, we the National Press Photographers Association, reaffirm the basis of our ethics: Accurate representation is the benchmark of our profession. We believe photojournalistic guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph. Altering the editorial content ... is a breach of the ethical standards recognized by the NPPA.""
Photoshopping, in this case, completely alters the message of the image in an attempt to deceive the public. In the original picture, he's leaning down to communicate with the woman, who happens to be shorter than he. There is no sign of depression, contemplation, or lonliness. In the photoshopped version, he is alone, perhaps saddened or in a contemplative posture. The background indicates the subject material of which he might be concerned.
The unethical alteration of the photo completely changes the meaning of the picture. It is now an editorial cartoon based on SOME of the content of a picture.
The original photographer should sue.
