USA Today Caught Photoshopping Condi Rice ...

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: 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.

I really can't see anyone caring -- except maybe some far leftists (you know who I'm talking about 😛). it's really just not that big of a deal. I don't know why you're reading so much into it as if there was some vast leftist conspiracy to make Condi Rice look better.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: 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.

You can imagine all your want. Seem to do a fair bit of that recently. Nope, it would seem that only you care about this photochop enough to post it. Had they photochopped a dick onto Nancy Pelosi's forehead, not one poster comes to mind that would bother to post an OP about it from the left. As a matter of fact, I might just photochop that now, the thought of it is making me laugh.

 

[umbrella39]

While I am busy chopping, here is the first one I found while google searching:

LMAO

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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?

I dont think either of those were picked up picked up by the MSM. But if they were I would expect a full retraction. Also I beleive those started on the internet, not in the pressroom...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Here with a Clinton photo

LOL! I had a feeling you'd try that. Debunked, And Truth

Kerry/Fonda Fake

Same link as above?

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?

You're going to have to do better than that.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: 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?

I wasn't aware of any reporting. Even if there was proof that this was posted, not just on a blog. It was some lackey web dork who probably got his a$$ kicked. It was not some grand conspiracy by the "liberal" media. I'd like some accurate reporting, but that would piss off thge right even more. Instead we have a frightened media that is so afraid of real journalism after years of lunitics screaming liberal media they now lean to the right to compensate.

Remember Ann Coulter said "We own the media"? That slip of truth was great.

 

[tommywishbone]

I'm shocked someone actually reads USA Today. It's a collection of pie charts and LaToya Jackson photos marketed to 3 year olds.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: 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?

I wasn't aware of any reporting. Even if there was proof that this was posted, not just on a blog. It was some lackey web dork who probably got his a$$ kicked. It was not some grand conspiracy by the "liberal" media. I'd like some accurate reporting, but that would piss off thge right even more. Instead we have a frightened media that is so afraid of real journalism after years of lunitics screaming liberal media they now lean to the right to compensate.

Remember Ann Coulter said "We own the media"? That slip of truth was great.

No I just get pissed off when the media does stupid crap like this, let the news be news. THings are usually interesting enough without having to invent news...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I'm shocked someone actually reads USA Today. It's a collection of pie charts and LaToya Jackson photos marketed to 3 year olds.

Naturally, the obfuscation has begun. Are you now to claim USA Today is some "extreme" publication with a small base?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: 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?

I wasn't aware of any reporting. Even if there was proof that this was posted, not just on a blog. It was some lackey web dork who probably got his a$$ kicked. It was not some grand conspiracy by the "liberal" media. I'd like some accurate reporting, but that would piss off thge right even more. Instead we have a frightened media that is so afraid of real journalism after years of lunitics screaming liberal media they now lean to the right to compensate.

Remember Ann Coulter said "We own the media"? That slip of truth was great.

No I just get pissed off when the media does stupid crap like this, let the news be news. THings are usually interesting enough without having to invent news...

I suppose you are equally outraged at people like Judy Miller working with the White House to spread lies about WMDs to help sell the war?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I suppose you are equally outraged at people like Judy Miller working with the White House to spread lies about WMDs to help sell the war?

I'm outraged the NY Times is trying to kill her off, after she didn't get the dirt on the Republicans like they hoped. They were looking for a gold nugget and got a box of straws instead, and now they're trying to get her out of there.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: 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?

I wasn't aware of any reporting. Even if there was proof that this was posted, not just on a blog. It was some lackey web dork who probably got his a$$ kicked. It was not some grand conspiracy by the "liberal" media. I'd like some accurate reporting, but that would piss off thge right even more. Instead we have a frightened media that is so afraid of real journalism after years of lunitics screaming liberal media they now lean to the right to compensate.

Remember Ann Coulter said "We own the media"? That slip of truth was great.

No I just get pissed off when the media does stupid crap like this, let the news be news. THings are usually interesting enough without having to invent news...

I suppose you are equally outraged at people like Judy Miller working with the White House to spread lies about WMDs to help sell the war?

This is something I am not aware of. What lies did she spread and when?

But yes my original position still remains...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Here with a Clinton photo

LOL! I had a feeling you'd try that. Debunked, And Truth

Kerry/Fonda Fake

Same link as above?

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?

You're going to have to do better than that.

I keep asking this same question expecting a different answer than what I believe but never getting it because you keep doing the saem stupid sh*t again and again.....

ARE YOU FREAKING RETARDED?!?!?

From the link that you provide that "debunks" the Clinton photo...

An advance copy of the image appeared on the Drudge Report, under the banner headline BOOK CLAIM: HILLARY HUMILIATED AS BILL HAS NEW AFFAIRS.

Doesn't that say that the picture was on Drudge as I claimed? What did you debunk? So you are claiming that the Kerry photo didn't appear on Drudge? Please share your "debunking" link for that one to.

I need to apologize to all of the reatrds out there. I never meant to insult them by insinuating that you were smart enough to be one of them.

 

[Rainsford]

A true sign of people who don't know what the hell they are talking about is when they refer to a huge group of people as one entity. Whether their target is one particular newspaper, mainstream media, the government, religion, or whatever, they seem to have this idea that anything done by any individual in one of those organizations represents the view of the entire organization. Yes, the photochopping was unprofessional and not something I would expect from a reasonable news source like USA Today. But like any other organization, USA Today is made up of individuals, and I'm not sure we can guage the views of the entire paper based off of the actions of what seems like one or a few individuals. Especially when the paper corrected the error, making it clear they did not approve of the actions taken. Does it make sense that a major paper would do something so childish, even if they WERE biased? What's their motivation?

 

[aka1nas]

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? 😕

I am pretty sure that ALL photos placed in a modern newspaper have been taken by a digital SLR camera, processed, cropped, and color corrected by Photoshop before being used. I think you are ascribing malicious intent to something that was probably mere ineptitude on the part of the photo editor.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
ARE YOU FREAKING RETARDED?!?!?

From the link that you provide that "debunks" the Clinton photo...

An advance copy of the image appeared on the Drudge Report, under the banner headline BOOK CLAIM: HILLARY HUMILIATED AS BILL HAS NEW AFFAIRS.

You might be the "retarded" one.

Read a little more than two sentences, you might learn something.

Quote:

"What?s more, the photo is in fact one of several taken by Clendenin?which New York has obtained?showing a sequence in which a female supporter approaches Bill amid an adoring throng and leans in for what appears to be a kiss on the cheek. Klein?s book reprinted the closest shot of the kiss?the only one that could conceivably be construed as ?mouth-kissing.?

Get it yet? The photos are AUTHENTIC. They were REAL photos, taken by the photographer. There's no claim to the contrary, and that book was published with the photo. If the photos were altered or "fake", Clinton would have a lawsuit on the publisher's desk before the book even made it to B&N.

Doesn't that say that the picture was on Drudge as I claimed? What did you debunk? So you are claiming that the Kerry photo didn't appear on Drudge? Please share your "debunking" link for that one to.

You can't comprehend what you read. It says THE SAME PHOTO WAS USED ON DRUDGE IN ADVANCE OF THE BOOK'S RELEASE. Once you read a bit more, you find out THE PHOTO IS REAL. Sheesh, are you that "retarded"?

I need to apologize to all of the reatrds out there. I never meant to insult them by insinuating that you were smart enough to be one of them.

You still haven't provided the link to the other "faked" photo you claim, BTW.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: charrison
This is something I am not aware of. What lies did she spread and when?

Wow. I suggest you do a bit of reading, it is all pre-Plamegate (but releated). Cheney, Chalabi, Miller and WMDs...

Miller has come under heavy criticism for her reporting on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On September 7, 2002, Miller and Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of metal tubes bound for Iraq. Her front page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that in recent months, Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."[3]

Miller added that "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war." Although Miller conceded that some intelligence experts found the information on Iraq's weapons programs "spotty," she did not report specific and detailed objections, including a report filed with the US government more than a year before Miller's article appeared by retired Oak Ridge National Laboratory physicist, Houston G. Wood III, who concluded that the tubes were not meant for centrifuges.

Shortly after Miller's article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller's story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.

Miller would later claim, based only on second-hand statements from the military unit she was embedded with, that WMDs had been found in Iraq. (NYT, 4/21/03) This again was widely repeated in the press. "Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun," Miller said on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. "What they've found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them, firsthand, and who has led MET Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions." This story also turned out to be false. [4]

On May 26, 2004, a week after the U.S. government apparently severed ties with Ahmed Chalabi, a Times editorial acknowledged that some of that newspaper's coverage in the run-up to the war had relied too heavily on Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles bent on regime change. It also regretted that "information that was controversial [was] allowed to stand unchallenged." While the editorial rejected "blame on individual reporters," others noted that ten of the twelve flawed stories discussed had been written or co-written by Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)

They fed her stories, she printed them without any verification, they quoted here on TV to sell the war. It's called manufacturing a war.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

You're really stretching on this one.

Inept photo editor? Probably

Liberal media? Doubtful

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I'm shocked someone actually reads USA Today. It's a collection of pie charts and LaToya Jackson photos marketed to 3 year olds.

Naturally, the obfuscation has begun. Are you now to claim USA Today is some "extreme" publication with a small base?

No sir. I just think it's a really lame daily directed at the common niccompoop.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
You're really stretching on this one.

Inept photo editor? Probably

Liberal media? Doubtful

Damn liberal sharpen filter!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
No sir. I just think it's a really lame daily directed at the common niccompoop.

Heh, I'm not surprised. What is your "good" daily?

FWIW, Here are circulation statistics for several large dailies. USA Today has a daily readership over 7 million, are you calling them all "niccompoops"? (I'd give that title to the NY Times, where you have to read the very last paragraph of every article to read what should have been at the beginning.)

 

[OrByte]

This is all a vast liberal media conspiracy!?

quick! I need LINKS? PROOF? PIE CHARTS? PHONOGRAPHS? SATELLITE IMAGERY?

puullease. tired rhetoric.

 

[Polish3d]

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!

Really, even worse is saying

"At least they didnt start a war for oil."


Typically (but severe) irrationality ... a percieved (and unproven) belief of something bad done by one individual they disfavor excuses any wrongdoing by someone they do favor... amazing in its absurdity and duplicity.

(Watch someone respond to this by saying "Talk about duplicitous, look at Karl Rove blah blah..." LOL)

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: charrison
This is something I am not aware of. What lies did she spread and when?

Wow. I suggest you do a bit of reading, it is all pre-Plamegate (but releated). Cheney, Chalabi, Miller and WMDs...

Miller has come under heavy criticism for her reporting on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On September 7, 2002, Miller and Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of metal tubes bound for Iraq. Her front page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that in recent months, Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."[3]

Miller added that "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war." Although Miller conceded that some intelligence experts found the information on Iraq's weapons programs "spotty," she did not report specific and detailed objections, including a report filed with the US government more than a year before Miller's article appeared by retired Oak Ridge National Laboratory physicist, Houston G. Wood III, who concluded that the tubes were not meant for centrifuges.

Shortly after Miller's article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller's story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.

Miller would later claim, based only on second-hand statements from the military unit she was embedded with, that WMDs had been found in Iraq. (NYT, 4/21/03) This again was widely repeated in the press. "Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun," Miller said on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. "What they've found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them, firsthand, and who has led MET Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions." This story also turned out to be false. [4]

On May 26, 2004, a week after the U.S. government apparently severed ties with Ahmed Chalabi, a Times editorial acknowledged that some of that newspaper's coverage in the run-up to the war had relied too heavily on Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles bent on regime change. It also regretted that "information that was controversial [was] allowed to stand unchallenged." While the editorial rejected "blame on individual reporters," others noted that ten of the twelve flawed stories discussed had been written or co-written by Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)

They fed her stories, she printed them without any verification, they quoted here on TV to sell the war. It's called manufacturing a war.

I agree that this is very likely the truth, extremely unacceptable.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't think this is necessarily an instance of overt liberal media bias, as there are plenty of media outlets that are nothing more then propoganda machines for both ideologies.

This little "joke" does demonstrate the increasing amount of unprofessional journalism in America.