With the help of Photoshop, USA Today has gotten Condi Rice all slicked up for Halloween.
It's long since the time that print media could pull this kind of nonsense and get away with it. For a newspaper to print a doctored AP photo is just stupid.
Do send USA Today's Graphics and Photos Managing Editor, Richard Curtis a note (rcurtis@usatoday.com); I sure did. I also wrote AP's photo division. I'll be interested in hearing from them.
(Via Michelle Malkin and From the Pen.)
UPDATE
The altered photo's been removed, and has been replaced, strangely enough, with the perfectly fine original. This editor's note's been added:
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 The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy.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.
Sorry we made Condi look like she was going to eat your soul, folks!
(Update via Michelle Malkin.)
UPDATE II
Callimachus, a newspaper copy editor, has been doing some digging and has more. Using his AP account, he finds that USA Today had 178 Condi Rice photos to choose from that day to accompany their story on her speaking to Congress. They chose one from four days before and a world away, when she was speaking to the Russians. Then they doctored a perfectly clear image and provided a new caption: "Rice aimed to reassure jittery lawmakers over the course of the war in Iraq." Swell.
Editor and Publisher also weighs in, sans either photo.
Rice aimed to reassure jittery lawmakers over the course of the war in Iraq.
UPDATE III
From a letter from Kinsey Wilson, VP & Editor-in-Chief of USA Today:
"In this case, a newly hired
USATODAY.com editor sharpened the photo and then brightened a portion of
Rice's face."
Oh, it was the new guy. The editor with no experience editing.
Posted by floridacracker at October 26, 2005 09:57 AMDidn't they do the same thing to Katherine Harris? It may have been Time's cover of her. Seems like the media has a penchance for 'altered reality' these days.
Posted by: Gmac at October 26, 2005 11:14 AMUnbelievable.
Posted by: Carl in Atlanta at October 26, 2005 01:11 PMComplete with triangular pupils! A neat trick!
Posted by: MaxedOutMama at October 26, 2005 01:16 PMWhat's so silly is that it's not even a unique photo taken by a USA Today photographer. It was taken from an AP pool with the original still floating out there. Like the cops say, "Good thing criminals are so stupid."
Posted by: Donnah at October 26, 2005 02:43 PMGood catch. I'm a newspaper copy editor; I work with AP photos every day. After reading your post, I did some digging on that, and it's even worse than it looks.
Not only was it an inexcusable alteration,
1. It was by far the most unpleasant Rice photo from among more than 100 that were available,
2. It has nothing to do with the story, as it was taken half a world away from it and four days before.
More here: http://vernondent.blogspot.com/2005/10/fried-rice.html
Posted by: Callimachus at October 26, 2005 05:48 PMThanks, Michelle, for posting this! Your name has just come up on a talk radio show here in the shoutheastern Wisconsin area hosted by Mark Belling. Had he not been talking about it, I would have never noticed your site.
Posted by: Duane Deisinger at October 27, 2005 05:55 PM