From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:41:34 -0400, Gregg N  wrote:

> Mark wrote:
>
>> Rather than horrible, I'd call it foolish and childish. On the bright
>> side
>> (not talking eyes now ) they're already teetering on the
edge of the
>> cliff of irrelevance and these kind of antics help push them either
>> over the
>> edge permanently, or (and this would be my preferred result, but I
>> wouldn't
>> bet on it) wakes them up and gets them tuned back into reporting, rather
>> than manipulating the news.
>>
>> "Ellen K."  wrote in message
>> news:7893m1535c5541h9fqqktrnsuopb89bag9{at}4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>> That's really horrible.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:29:03 -0400, "Gary Wiltshire"

>>> wrote in message :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lest we have any doubts about the good intentions of the MSM:
>>>>
>>>> http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> I think you (and Michelle) may be overreacting. Do you really think this
> was done maliciously, or was it just sloppy image processing done for
> legitimate reasons? Here is the editor's note on the USA Today page. I
> am specifically aware of the "adjusted for brightness and sharpness"
> part, because my father routinely does this via photoshop on pictures he
> takes with his digital camera to compensate for bad lighting or other
> problems.
>
> /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 The photo has been replaced by a properly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.
>
> /Gregg
>

Overreacting, hell!  Several bloggers have already done close comparisons
at the pixel level between the original and the "adjusted"
photos.  Only the eyes changed.  It was done by HAND and just to the eyes
to make the woman look demonic.  Their (the Editor's)
"explanation" is just as unimpressive as CBS's continued use of
the term "disputed documents" as opposed to
"forgeries."

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5