USA Today Caught Photoshopping Condi Rice ...

[Pabster]

I'm shocked. Wait, no, I'm not. Although I always thought USA Today was a more centrist paper.

You can see the altered photo USA Today used Here.

And Here is the "updated" article (no copy of original altered photo, notice) with admission the altered photo "didn't meet editorial standards".

Frankly, I'm disgusted with the media. The ridiculous left-wing liberal bias is undeniable; But once you start altering photos... remember the Reuters' "potty note" photoshopping incident?

 

[HombrePequeno]

It was probably a joke that got just never got fixed...oh wait they did fix it. I'm not seeing how this is "liberal bias" considering they changed the photo back. You're grasping at straws.

 

[DealMonkey]

OMG! OMG! I'm outraged by the lack of outrage! Oh wait, no I'm not.

 

[bamacre]

Leave comedy to comedians, I would prefer my news be news.

 

[raildogg]

USA Today is not liberal according to my reading of their recent news articles. Are news articles ever biased?

New York Times biased? Yes. LA Times biased? Yes. Washington Times biased? Yes. New York Post biased? Yes.

But I do not believe USA Today is. They good a decent job.

But I still think the New York Times is the best newspaper even with their slant, alongside the Wall Street Journal in America

 

[RightIsWrong]

So let me see if I understand your position correctly......

USA Today puts a picture of Condi on their website WITHOUT changing anything other than the clarity and it is undeniable proof of liberal bias?

Lay off the caffiene.

Edit: Although kinda hot, Michelle Malkin is anythign but the bastian of truth. YOu really want the truth.....CONDI LOOKED BETTER IN THE RETOUCHED PHOTO!!! SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE COMPLAINED!!!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
It was probably a joke that got just never got fixed...oh wait they did fix it. I'm not seeing how this is "liberal bias" considering they changed the photo back. You're grasping at straws.

These type of antics are the reason the MSM is held in such low reguard. They had their hand caught in the cookie jar and had no choice but to fix the error(reguardess of reason it was done).

It seems that alot of journalist have the intergrity of used cars sales people.

 

[kogase]

It seems like a (sort of funny) joke to me.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: charrison
These type of antics are the reason the MSM is held in such low reguard. They had their hand caught in the cookie jar and had no choice but to fix the error(reguardess of reason it was done).

It seems that alot of journalist have the intergrity of used cars sales people.

Thankfully, with the advent of bloggers, these blatant media "errors" are usually corrected pretty quickly. But one has to ask, why do they keep happening?

 

[OrByte]

LOL@!@@@!!!

in the chopped photo she looks posessed

in the actual photo she looks stoned

THE OUTRAGE heads should roll!!!!

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
These type of antics are the reason the MSM is held in such low reguard. They had their hand caught in the cookie jar and had no choice but to fix the error(reguardess of reason it was done).

It seems that alot of journalist have the intergrity of used cars sales people.

Thankfully, with the advent of bloggers, these blatant media "errors" are usually corrected pretty quickly. But one has to ask, why do they keep happening?

Because the media likes to ridicule any current administration!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
These type of antics are the reason the MSM is held in such low reguard. They had their hand caught in the cookie jar and had no choice but to fix the error(reguardess of reason it was done).

It seems that alot of journalist have the intergrity of used cars sales people.

Thankfully, with the advent of bloggers, these blatant media "errors" are usually corrected pretty quickly. But one has to ask, why do they keep happening?

Why don't you ask Drudge? I'm sure he can tell you why he has photocropped pics of Kerry on his site. That bad, bad liberal that he is.

 

[Train]

I can see if they made it look like she had devils horns in her hair or a forked tounge coming out of her mouth, but all they did was whiten the whites of her eyes? What's so bad about that?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why don't you ask Drudge? I'm sure he can tell you why he has photocropped pics of Kerry on his site. That bad, bad liberal that he is.

Links? Evidence? Proof?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Train
I can see if they made it look like she had devils horns in her hair or a forked tounge coming out of her mouth, but all they did was whiten the whites of her eyes? What's so bad about that?

The apologists are pretty easy to spot here.

You don't see a problem with the media altering photos?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Train
I can see if they made it look like she had devils horns in her hair or a forked tounge coming out of her mouth, but all they did was whiten the whites of her eyes? What's so bad about that?

she looked possessed. it's really weird. just look at it.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'm shocked. Wait, no, I'm not. Although I always thought USA Today was a more centrist paper.

You can see the altered photo USA Today used Here.

Quick call SG-1!

 

[Todd33]

I can't believe I wasted my time on this thread and I got sent to that bitches blog.

 

[nageov3t]

whew. well, good thing they didn't start a war based on fabricated documents

jk.

I don't really see the bias, though. They simple retouched a slightly blurry photo to make it more crisp. It's not like they photoshopped her eating a baby or kicking a puppy or something.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I can't believe I wasted my time on this thread and I got sent to that bitches blog.

Well, if USA Today were honest and hadn't removed the photo, I never would have linked there. Otherwise there'd be a bunch of replies "what photo are we talking about???"

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I can't believe I wasted my time on this thread and I got sent to that bitches blog.

So you dont think the media should be accurate in its reporting?

 

[raildogg]

The same leftists who are excusing this will be crying a river if they photochopped, lets say, Al Frankenstein or Al Goreleoni!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Train
I can see if they made it look like she had devils horns in her hair or a forked tounge coming out of her mouth, but all they did was whiten the whites of her eyes? What's so bad about that?

The apologists are pretty easy to spot here.

You don't see a problem with the media altering photos?

You need to update your scorecard. Train is no apologist for the media and is a Bush supporter.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: raildogg
The same leftists who are excusing this will be crying a river if they photochopped, lets say, Al Frankenstein or Al Goreleoni!

I was about to say the same thing.

You can imagine the outrage had this been a photo of, say, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why don't you ask Drudge? I'm sure he can tell you why he has photocropped pics of Kerry on his site. That bad, bad liberal that he is.

Links? Evidence? Proof?

Here with a Clinton photo

Kerry/Fonda Fake

Enough proof that you side is actually doctoring photos to do damage to a person's character and not just trying to enhance the lighting?