Now here's the original picture:
Notice the eyes?
The USA Today version on the right was deliberately altered to make Condi Rice look more menacing. Notice how the whites of the eyes are highlighted to make her BLACK eyes look BLACKER and HATEFUL. The doctored photo is here on USA Today's site (they'll probably take it down with some heat).
Now why do you suppose USA Today would have edited Condi's eyes to make her look more menacing?
A screencapture of the doctored image on USA Today's website is below.
Update:
I just sent the following email to the editorial staff at USA Today:
I run a political internet blog. Recently it came to light that photo of Sec. Condoleezza Rice appearing in your online edition had been doctored to make her eyes appear bright and menacing.
That prompts a couple of questions:
1. Why was this done?
2. Who did it?
3. Is this sort of thing routine for your newspaper?
4. What accountability do you feel you have to your readers when you make changes like this? Do you feel you should let them know?
I appreciate any responses you can provide. You can find what I've posted on this issue so far here:
http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/10/26/usa-today-caught-doctoring-photos/
-Rob Port
We'll see what I get in return.
Update:
USA Today has taken down the photo of Sec. Rice. In its place is the original photo without the doctored eyes.
They've also left this editorial note:
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 The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy.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.
I have a hard time believing that the changes to Sec. Rice's eyes were the result of "sharpening the photo for clarity." Anybody familiar with digital photography can see that some special attention was paid to the eyes in that photo.
Somebody was playing games, and got caught. USA Today should 'fess up.
