China Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Apparently, the USA today posted a picture of Condoleeza Rice that had been altered to make her eyes look slightly demonic (or cat like). Here's the picture they orginally posted: Here's their retraction and the unaltered pic. Retraction 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 The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy.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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Apparently, the USA today posted a picture of Condoleeza Rice that had been altered to make her eyes look slightly demonic (or cat like). Here's the picture they orginally posted: Here's their retraction and the unaltered pic. Retraction LOL - that's funny.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoeRedskins Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 He forgot to put the fangs on her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Where is Chrome?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Right wing media my a$$hole..... :doh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Because it's her eyes that make her fugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Where is Chrome?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!Right wing media my a$$hole..... :doh: :laugh: Well, I'm hoping that you won't deny this sort of crap happens throughout our "media", Liberal or Right.. As i posted yesterday in the "criminalization of the media" thread this kind of junk is only going to stop when we all start to demand truth from our news sources, no matter which side they're on. Pushing any agenda in the form of news is wrong, and that it happens everywhere should be pretty obvious. It doesn't matter if you agree with their slant or not, it should plain be unacceptable. Condoning one form of propaganda over another just condones all of it. For myself, I am tired of being manipulated by our so called media. Lies from one side, insinuation from the other, false journalism, altered photos,, it's simply disgusting, and we should not buy into ANY of it. How long until we ALL realize, right and left, that we have been reduced to pawns and sheep, being pushed and pulled at the whim of these so called news sources? The media should be above the fray. They are supposed to be trusted with the truth. Instead they have become tools of the two parties, and WE are the ones who ultimately pay the price for it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Never too early to start wasting a potential Republican candidate:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I think she looks better in the first picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Also, I'm curious - did USA Today catch the error itself, or were they forced to make this change? Does anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 They should have given her big boobs while they were making changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I am going to defend USA Today on this one. I know multiple folks that work there for years, some in particular dealing with photo media/prints of ads and photos/page layouts. Over time, they have described having to play around with alot of media documents to get them to print correctly ... and occasionally having some things that did not work out so well due to mistakes and the like. I will pass this along and see if I can get any inside info ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Well, I'm hoping that you won't deny this sort of crap happens throughout our "media", Liberal or Right..As i posted yesterday in the "criminalization of the media" thread this kind of junk is only going to stop when we all start to demand truth from our news sources, no matter which side they're on. Pushing any agenda in the form of news is wrong, and that it happens everywhere should be pretty obvious. It doesn't matter if you agree with their slant or not, it should plain be unacceptable. Condoning one form of propaganda over another just condones all of it. For myself, I am tired of being manipulated by our so called media. Lies from one side, insinuation from the other, false journalism, altered photos,, it's simply disgusting, and we should not buy into ANY of it. How long until we ALL realize, right and left, that we have been reduced to pawns and sheep, being pushed and pulled at the whim of these so called news sources? The media should be above the fray. They are supposed to be trusted with the truth. Instead they have become tools of the two parties, and WE are the ones who ultimately pay the price for it. ~Bang I am in total agreement with you on the subject of media bias. But when there was only the liberal media hitting us with propaganda and false journalism in the eighties I do not remember many up in arms about it. How many years did Dan Rather get away with attacks on conservatives without rebuttal? The real question at this point is would it be possible to live our lives WITHOUT journalism period. My test on the subject is that I have not watched TV news since the presidential election. (Unless i was looking for hurricane coverage and non political news.) I am happy to report that I am still alive and well. And still capable of carrying opinions and debate about whatever subject is on the plate. At this point I would say that the media is responsible for creating more news that ever would exist otherwise. Think O.J. Simpson. SO when you say we need to demand truth, that is not enough. We need to demand that news be covered not created. I would say that our media today is investigative journalism run amok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I am in total agreement with you on the subject of media bias. But when there was only the liberal media hitting us with propaganda and false journalism in the eighties I do not remember many up in arms about it. How many years did Dan Rather get away with attacks on conservatives without rebuttal?The real question at this point is would it be possible to live our lives WITHOUT journalism period. My test on the subject is that I have not watched TV news since the presidential election. (Unless i was looking for hurricane coverage and non political news.) I am happy to report that I am still alive and well. And still capable of carrying opinions and debate about whatever subject is on the plate. At this point I would say that the media is responsible for creating more news that ever would exist otherwise. Think O.J. Simpson. SO when you say we need to demand truth, that is not enough. We need to demand that news be covered not created. I would say that our media today is investigative journalism run amok. I agree. I don't know that we could necessarily live without news, I think it's important to have watchdogs out there, or the miscreants would run roughshod. But I totally agree with you, they should report ONLY, not create. I think it is important to be able to keep an open mind when receiving news, and in today's world, to realize going in that it will be slanted to one side or another. We're capable of forming our own opinions based on the facts, and the occasional editorial comments. I try to stay informed, and i try to view things from both ends of the spectrum, mostly I find myself (as usual) comfortably in the middle, leaning conservatively. I get tired of the heavy brow-beating of agenda's being forced on us by people pretending to give us the truth. I get tired of the mocking tone of Fox news when it comes to liberals, and I get tired of the holier than thou stance of the far left. I think one reason in the 80s you saw a lack of public hollering is we didn't have this excellent voice we all now have to express ourselves to large numbers of people. You and your friends had discussions, but it generally stayed there. But nowadays, I post this knowing that hundreds, possibly thousands of people will read it. I realize that what Chom said is true, nothing will ever be without some sort of slant one way or another, but I'd like to see thse media outlets practice a LOT more responsibility to the sacred ideal they should espouse. for example, I'd have a LOT more respect for Fox news if they'd drop that whole "Fair and Balanced" charade and just come out and say they support the conservative agenda. It's the cloaks of deceit that really get my gall, and in this case it's USA Today taking the fall for their abuse of the trust. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLadyRaven Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Never too early to start wasting a potential Republican candidate:rolleyes: I dont think the photo change made any difference IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I think that's funny - Rice does have a way of looking pretty mean in some of her pics. She looks like a Goaul'd, from Stargate, in the first picture. The pic would go well with the Bush "horns and tail" picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 The title of the thread is a little misleading... Did someone "catch" USA Today? Or did their editors find it themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 The title of the thread is a little misleading... Did someone "catch" USA Today? Or did their editors find it themselves? Yeah, that is what I was asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 This is pretty much beneath most of us, isn't it? I mean, the woman looks pretty nasty in both photos. But who cares? I can't imagine making any kind of judgement based on her personal appearance. And for the right wing whiners, if this is an example of the bias you're complaining about no wonder you are so fixated, you must find it EVERYWHERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 i'm glad she's changed her hair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Also, I'm curious - did USA Today catch the error itself, or were they forced to make this change? Does anyone know? The title of the thread is a little misleading... Did someone "catch" USA Today? Or did their editors find it themselves? It was caught before they changed it. The unaltered photo was originally on Yahoo Espana at the same time as the USA Today ran the doctored photo. It was caught here before they pulled it and replaced it with the undoctored version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 If the person that did that was trying to make her look bad then that person sucks. All they did was add white to her eyes. Maybe McPaper can use this image next time...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 And people thought it was just OJ that the media did this type of stuff too! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.