From: Gregg N 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060007000000080102090707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 The photo has been replaced by a properly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


--------------060007000000080102090707
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




  


Mark wrote:

  Rather than horrible, I'd call it foolish
and childish. On the
bright side
(not talking eyes now <g>) 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." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com>">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com"><72322.1016{at}compuserve.com>
wrote in message
news:7893m1535c5541h9fqqktrnsuopb89bag9{at}4ax.com...
  
  
    That's really horrible.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:29:03 -0400, "Gary Wiltshire" <gaw{at}sover.net>">mailto:gaw{at}sover.net"><gaw{at}sover.net>

wrote in message <op.szbm6ploeipai0{at}news.bark">mailto:op.szbm6ploeipai0{at}news.barkto.com"><op.szbm6ploeipai0{at}news.bark
to.com>:

    
    
      Lest we have any doubts about the good
intentions of the
MSM:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/00378
0.htm">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




--------------060007000000080102090707--

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