Say Anything Blog

Now why do you suppose USA Today would have edited Condi’s eyes to make her look more menacing?

They were trying desperately to make her look like more than just President Bush’s puppet?

They thought it added more flair to a bland photo?

Just a random error?

Oh wait, I forgot. USA Today is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to dominate the media. They must have done it because they hate Sec. Rice and the entire Bush administration. How foolish of me.

I used to work in photo retouching and can tell you two things about this photo:

1) Widening and brightening the eyes is standard procedure for photo that will appear ON NEWSPRINT. (It may surprise you, but some people haven’t shoved their heads up the blogosphere’s ass and will purchase and read newspapers that are actually printed on cheap, pulpy, crappy paper). Trust me, ON NEWSPRINT, the photo isn’t nearly as jarring.

2) It’s not a very good job. My guess is that the retoucher either had too much coffee or is new at the job.

NOTE TO DAVE: Trust me, dude---no amount of overwhelming evidence will convince these folks that the corporate-owned media isn’t really a anarcho-socialist cabal dedicated to stealing their guns and making Republicans look bad. It’s like trying to convince a Catholic that the host isn’t the Body of Christ---it’s a matter of faith, not brains.

Hannity says it, they believe it, and that ends it for these folks.

Don is correct, virtually all photo’s for print are edited. A normal photo is set at 72 DPI which is acceptable for the web but must be bumped to exceed 200 DPI at the minimum (most do 300) for print.

He is also correct about the skill set of the graphics person, they could have done a better job.

[...] USA Today Caught Doctoring Photos By Rob on October 26, 2005 at 9:33 am [...]

that the corporate-owned media isn’t really a anarcho-socialist cabal

Why do people on the Left always use the word “cabal”? Do you guys have some kind of Leftist pocket dictionary they hand out at moonbat parties?

If a person does not believe the MSM is biasd, that person is a moron. Media bias is pointed out day after day, and yet people still deny it. Amazing, absolutely amazing....

Don’t worry, folks.  She’s a member of the Tok’ra.

Bruce:

1) I happen to like the word “cabal.” It has a faintly Old World ring to it, and seems more descriptive than “faction” or “gang.”

2) This very post is a good example of how morons (your word, not mine) define “media bias"---namely, anything that suggests in even the most tepid of terms that Our Glorious Divine Boy-King and His Christian Regime aren’t All-Knowing and Annointed by God.

Frankly, only a moron believes that multibillion dollar media corporations are biased against corporate welfare and unregulated capitalism!

Hannity says it, they believe it, and that ends it for these folks.

You assume too much about us.

I happen to think Sean Insanity is an idiot.

BTW, Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in addition to USAToday. They also publish the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.

Still think Gannett has a liberal bias?

BTW, Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in addition to USAToday. They also publish the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.

Still think Gannett has a liberal bias?

Sounds like a gay pacifist Muslim Communist to me.

’Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in addition to USAToday. They also publish the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.

Still think Gannett has a liberal bias? ‘

It’s must be beyond someone’s level of comprehension that the company would have different divisions and hire different editorial staffs for the different publications.

It was some special Halloween effects

Gee, I seem to remember cries of “RACISM!” when O.J. Simpson’s (he’s still searching, by the way...) doctored mugshot appeared on the cover of one of the big weekly newsmags.

Where are those hypocrites people today?

[...] CONDI’S POSSESSED BY A GOA’ULD!!!  See? Proof!  Okay, just kidding.  But it’s funny because USA deliberately doctored this photo of Condi to make her eyes more menacing. The first photo is the doctored one, and the following one is the original. Read more here:  http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/10/26/usa-today-caught-doctoring-photos_________________I am the tides of Time, the dealer of fortunes, the messenger of Death, the bringer of Life, the winds of the Sky, the waves of the Sea. I see all, I know all, and I am God’s servant.  Episode III, ‘Psychotic Techno Babble’, is now 60% complete.  Fate would stare at the cookie and wonder how he can use it to torture Mara, destroy her country, and get her mad at him. After which he would get frustrated at the tactics Invictus used to debate milk-chocolate cookie use and yell a bit, leaving all parties looking a bit sheepish. Then he would compose a parody making fun of all parties involved, the entire time not eating the Cookie. [...]

ICall:

It is obviously beyond your comprehension that the owners of a multi-billion dollar media company---y’know, the cats who sign the paychecks---have editorial control over their products.

And the products would all be the same? That’s pretty clueless even for you.

I’ll try to be civil -

There is a difference between the product and the ownership.

Maybe you think the ownership which you describe as ‘ a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military’ whatever that nonsense means

‘cannot control it’s employees enough to control editorial content.’

They probably could but since it’s a business they would distribute different products and it would be unlikely that they would use the same editorial viewpoint for each product or what would be the point of offering different products. Since they have different products intended to generate revenue from different client markets they undoubtedly have differnt divisions with different editorial staff and different operations.

Whatever your indication of their ‘ties to the Bush regime and the military’ I’m assuming they had those same publications prior to 2001 and will have them after 2009 and the products that cater to the military market will undoubtedly publish one POV and USAToday and the many small regionals which I believe are the bulk of Gannetts chain will publish another POV. Whatever your view of Bush or corporate media corporate ownership doesn’t imply generic product content or else there’d be only 1 product to choose from and obviously there’s not.

Are you PRETENDING not to understand what I’m talkin’ ‘bout, ICall, or are you really like that?

Tell ya what---let’s turn the question around.

Explain to me how a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military, cannot control it’s employees enough to control editorial content.

Explain to me how a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military, is actually a liberal/socialist consortium dedicated to making Bush look bad.

BTW, I’ve seen some editorials in the Army Times that have dared to offend the dark overlords at Gannett by actually criticizing the President for such issues as troop pay and benefits.

BTW, I admire your moxie ICall.

It’s not easy to argue with an idiot.

You catch them again and again and the left still denies media bias. 

I have a number of thoughts.

1.  In the old movies the black stereotype was of a black with big eyes and white teeth.  When Secretary Rice was nominated for her job a number of lefty outlet’s ran editorial cartoons picking on her being black.  Doonesbury also stepped over the line.

2.  The comment that this picture was touched up for print sounds good, but I frankly fail to see how a person puts this picture up without noticing.  You change it and it’s right there on your screen.  I think it’d be easier to change something so it looked good on your screen but didn’t in the paper.  Perhaps the wrong picture got posted to the website?  But they didn’t put that explanation in their retraction.

3.  I would think the media would be very careful and limited about touching up a picture.  What do they have to sell besided credibility?

[...] USA Today has taken down the photo of Sec. Rice I posted about earlier today. In its place is the original photo without the doctored eyes. [...]

ICall:

I’m sorry, but did you have a point? Because if there is one buried beneath your 7th grade business class essay, I can’t find it.

Unless you’re claiming that “different editorial viewpoints” means evil socialist bias…

Like I said I’ll try to keep it civil and ignore your childish insults - print media is a consumer product. Ownership and content are two different things. Companies target different consumer markets and provide different products. Some liberal, some conservative, some trade, some special interest. Whatever worldview anyone ascribes to, this is how business works.

[...] But after this I had you goin’ there for a minute, didn’t I? [...]

Don Myers tries hard and fails, This very post is a good example of how morons (your word, not mine) define “media bias”—namely, anything that suggests in even the most tepid of terms that Our Glorious Divine Boy-King and His Christian Regime aren’t All-Knowing and Annointed by God.

What blog are you reading? It can’t be this one.

Frankly, only a moron believes that multibillion dollar media corporations are biased against corporate welfare and unregulated capitalism!

Corporate welfare and unregulated capitalism are at direct odds with each other. They can’t coexist. The definition of welfare cancels out “unregulated capitalism”.

Explain to me how a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military, cannot control it’s employees enough to control editorial content.

Hmmm...explain to me how Clear Channel controls the editorial content of Air America. As far as I can see, Air America is fairly anti-business and as “liberal” as one can get.

Good luck Don. Now bring on the insults while you tell us how dumb we are and how smart you are.

It’s all about marketing, supply and demand.  The reason talk radio and blogs are so big is that the MSM isn’t supplying the huge demand for conservative coverage.  Likewise, Air America is almost OOB for the same reason.  We have already supplied the demand for leftist rant. Nothing mysterious here.  Remember the Edsel.