Via a tip from a reader...

Just when you though the media would have learned from USA Today's manipulating of photos of the Secretary of State, the New York Times run a photo in this article that gives conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito a sickly green pallor.

Is this an accident, incompetence on the part of the NY Times, or a deliberate act by a liberal news organization to taint a conservative Supreme Court nominee?

This photo clearly violates the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics and Articles I, IV, V, and VI of the American Society of Newspaper Editors Statement of Principles.

We can hope that the Times will correct this image and print an apology similar to that of USA Today's.

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.org.

Update: The photo has now been removed from the NY Times story, without a retraction.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:19 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

In response to this morning's post on photo ethics at USA Today, USA Today Vice President and Editor-in-Chief Kinsey Wilson dropped by this humble blog and left the following comment:

I'd like to explain how that happened. USATODAY.com, like other news organizations, often adjusts photos for sharpness and brightness to optimize their appearance when published online. In this case, a USATODAY.com editor sharpened the photo and then brightened a portion of Rice's face. Those changes had the effect of distorting the photo and failed to meet our editorial standards for accuracy and integrity. The photo has been replaced with a properly adjusted copy and an editor's note has been published here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-19-rice-congress_x.htm. The photo did not appear in the USA TODAY newspaper.

The editors of USATODAY.com will make every effort to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again.

Kinsey Wilson
VP/Editor-in-Chief
USATODAY.com

I am very thankful for Wilson's direct response. It is rare for a media officer to respond directly to a blogger, and rarer still to admit that mistakes, indeed, distortions, were made and published.

But I humbly suggest that the techniques cited by Mr. Wilson are not the most likely techniques used to develop the now infamous Rice manipulations. The actual techniques were probably both less sophisticated, and more intentional in design than USA Today would have us believe.

To borrow one of the more popular interpretations of principal of Occam's Razor, "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

In other words, the most direct route is often the most likely process, and the process USA Today's Wilson would have us believe created this photo is not the most direct, nor the most logical.

But let's start with what we know.

This is the photo that USA Today originally ran in this article.

It has since been replaced by this image.

The area of manipulation in this photo is on Rice's face, specifically her eyes. Look at the USA Today's manipulated version at 400% enlargement.

Notice that while the eyes and eyelids are heavily manipulated, other areas appear untouched, even if blurry from being blown up to this scale. Now let's take a look at how this photo could have been manipulated in the easiest possible manner.

In the various graphics applications that I've used over the years (Photoshop, Fireworks, Paint Shop Pro), there has always been a "paint bucket" fill tool. The paint bucket fill is just that, a tool that enables the user to "dump" a selected color in an area to fill it.

I created the following image using the replacement image now on the USA Today site.

Now compare:

The image on the left was created in less than 30 seconds using nothing more than the paint bucket fill tool in Fireworks to create something very similar to the "Zombie Rice" photo that was created in-house, and made its way past a photo editor (and perhaps others) and onto USATODAY.com.

When scaled back down, it is all but impossible to tell the difference between the 30 second paint bucket dump and resize, versus USA Today's claim of selecting a specific region of the photo, sharpening it, and then brightening it, to accidentally produce an unflattering photo.

Using Occam's razor, I'd suggest that it was unlikely that USA Today would spend a great deal of time to enhance such a small photo. I future suggest that the end result of USA Today's manipulated photo was quite possibly intentional, and accomplished by a "quick and dirty" technique similar to the one I used.

Now the most important question is how this intentionally manipulated image was created at USA Today, was placed into a story, made it past a photo editor, possibly a content editor, and into production. How did this photo manage to get past several layers of editorial review? Multiple instances of incompetence, or a wink and a nod?

Ethically, there is no excuse for this image making it online. Photographers and editors have a responsibility to the integrity of a photo and the personalities in those photos. Most news organizations take this responsibility very seriously, and photo editors have been dismissed for far less obvious offenses including this example from the Los Angeles Times.

This manipulated image specifically violates the National Press Photographers Association Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics, adopted in1991 by the NPPA Board of Directors:

As journalists we believe the guiding principle of our profession is accuracy; therefore, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public.

As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record. It is clear that the emerging electronic technologies provide new challenges to the integrity of photographic images ... in light of this, we the National Press Photographers Association, reaffirm the basis of our ethics: Accurate representation is the benchmark of our profession. We believe photojournalistic guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph. Altering the editorial content ... is a breach of the ethical standards recognized by the NPPA.

USA Today clearly violated these long established guidelines. It remains to be seen how much they actually value the ethics and editorial standards they claim to adhere to.

Notes
Much more from Michelle Malkin's follow up post, USA TODAY REMOVES DOCTORED PHOTO. Malkin's original post DEMONIZING CONDI. My response to Malkin's original post Photo Ethics Eludes USA Today.

Update: Classical Values conducted a similar Photoshopping experiment. California Conservative offers up a version every bit as credible as the original.

From the Pen seems to have beaten us all to the story, but I don't know if I agree with Dan Riehl's assessment of the origins.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:21 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 987 words, total size 7 kb.

Michelle Malkin busts the photo editor of USA Today for manipulating a photo of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in a way that makes Dr. Rice look just a wee bit possessed.

As she notes, Richard Curtis is USAT's Graphics and Photos Managing Editor, and while I don't know if he directly had a hand in deciding to run the doctored photo, he is ultimately responsible for a manipulation that would appear to be a violation of most people's concept of photo ethics (If you have a problem seeing this ethics violation, slap a pair of Linda Blair eyes on Hillary Clinton or Jesse Jackson and you should be able to suddenly see it clearly).

What are responsible photo ethics? When is it acceptable to manipulate photos, and to what extent? Fred Showker at 60 Second Window has a wonderful practical guide for photo ethics, which defines in part what acceptable photo ethics entail:

editing procedures are allowed to compensate for limitations and defects inherent in the digital photographic process. However, the editor must be diligent to protect the photo's true-to-life accuracy.

And isn't:

For the sake of representing honest and accurate information, the digital editor should avoid anything that will change the actual event or scene as it was captured by the camera. This includes adding, removing or moving objects in such a way that the context of the event is altered. The digital image editor must be careful to let the photos speak for themselves. So it's not permissible to alter any aspect of place or time -- like removing wrinkles or gray hair. Additionally they should never enhance or distract from the apparent quality or desirability of a subject, or the aesthetics of a place.

It is quite clear that USA Today violated these guidelines, creating an image that was a misleading, decidedly negative representation of an individual. The person or persons who directly manipulated this photo and the person who allowed it to run should be disciplined, and possibly terminated for a gross and deliberate abuse of journalistic integrity.

Now is when we will discover if USA Today is a responsible news organization, or a tabloid. The ball is in your court, Mr. Curtis.

(Cross-posted to NewsBusters.org)

Update: Horrible, pre-coffee grammer cleaned up.

Update #2: Welcome Matt Drudge/Michelle Malkin/Instapundit readers to my little corner of the web. Confederate Yankee usually writes about politics and media bias, and you caught us on one of those media bias stories. We're currently soliciting funds to replace an aging (circa 2001) computer, and if you have a few bucks to spare, it would be greatly appreciated.

If you want to know more about Confederate Yankee before you donate, please visit the main page for more articles.

Thanks!

Update #3: Horrible, post-coffee oversight of the incorrect spelling of grammar as "grammer" cleaned up.

Update #4: Please read the updated follow-up post "Slitting Their Wrists with Occam's Razor."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:56 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 7 kb.

1 You guys have got to be kidding. Photos are doctored everyday. This is hardly a gross misrepresentation of Ms. Rice. If it were not for you and Malkin making a stink of this no one would care.

Posted by: nonc0mpliant at October 26, 2005 01:16 PM (p3f92)

2 To paraphrase Yogi Bera, "Of course nobody cares. That's why everybody's reading it."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 26, 2005 01:24 PM (g5Nba)

3 Wow. There are actually people so morally bankrupt that they would defend this sort of photo doctoring. Leftists never cease to amaze me.

Posted by: The Warden at October 26, 2005 01:26 PM (cZGnO)

4 Confederate Yankee, how dare you expose this! Leave noncOmpliant and this fellow leftists to their propaganda. Your freedom of speech is violating their right to tell lies.

Posted by: The Warden at October 26, 2005 01:28 PM (cZGnO)

5 what else can we expect from the left when they will doctor entire movies to fit their agenda (fahrenheit 911) whats a photo after that? bunch of moonbats

Posted by: aflyonthewall at October 26, 2005 01:32 PM (8/NEx)

6 THIS IS WHY I HAVE GIVEN UP READING MOST PAPERS. WHEN I AM ON A TRIP AND THE HOTEL DROPS ME A COPY OF USA TODAY I AM HAPPY TO TRASH IT BECAUSE I HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT WHAT IT CONTAINS

Posted by: LOU at October 26, 2005 01:37 PM (AtlIZ)

7 Pre-emptive apology for the flame. Felt it was deserved. noncompliant-you're an idiot. YES photos ARE doctored everyday, but robberies and rapes are committed every day too. Does that make them OK too? However, professional, responsible photo-MANAGEMENT is necessary, due to the incompatibilities of the different media. Web presentation is very different from print, and newsprint is very different from other inking systems (such as raised print, toner-based systems, dye sub, etc). Image sources also vary, and introduce another wrinkle in the compatibilities. Traditional print is different from it's negatives, which is different than digital, which has it's own variations (resolution, screening, color depth, etc). So they all require "adjustment" to be legible in another medium. Bottom line is-this was DELIBERATE manipulation by a publisher to create an image that does not reflect reality in ANY WAY. If the articel intended for you to know the image was altered for effect it would be forgiveable. But to pass it off as real and to play on the subconscious of the unwitting is reprehensible. So, until you learn more about the print world I recommend you sit down and shut up.

Posted by: bob at October 26, 2005 01:39 PM (p7ZJ/)

8 noncOmpliant, I disagree. Images carry a powerful message, and the people who trade in them know it better than anyone. Doctoring a photograph in order to convey a particular impression is the same as passing opinion off as fact in a newspaper article. It is a dishonest attempt to move attitudes in the direction of choice. Propaganda is another name for it. Yes, photos are doctored everyday - that is why the process must be held to the strictest ethical guidelines. The ability exists to do great harm.

Posted by: TheRealSwede at October 26, 2005 01:43 PM (nax4E)

9 As a graphics designer. I have adjusted the level of white of an individuals eyes and teeth numerous times on numerous photos. This is an extreme example of course. However I very hardly doubt this to be a synical act.

Posted by: Daniel at October 26, 2005 01:45 PM (mdrXE)

10 Daniel There is a difference between altering promotional or advertising photography and news photos. News photos are to objectively portray facts. The USA Today alteration doesn't. I worked several summers at a major metro newspaper as a news photographer while in college. It was an absolute no-no to retouch any face in a news photo. You could alter contrast and focus in negative to print phase, but no airbrushing out facial lines, adding hair, eyebrows etc. There was no problem in enhancing ad photos. But in news photos it was forbidden. Clearly USAT crossed the line on this one.

Posted by: Corky Boyd at October 26, 2005 02:01 PM (0qK8F)

11 First, the Devil's Advocate. Maybe it was just a horrid mistake and not a calculated attempt to create a specific image. As was mentioned further up the blog, we are dealing with multiple formats and printing and inks etc.... Maybe the intial attempt at doctoring the photo was anticipated to make Madam Secretary's eyes look normal when the digital photo was transfered to newsprint. And the result was just completely unexpected, but it was too late to do anything about it. Now, for the reality check on it all. Whoever did the initial manipulation is probably going to use the above DA argument to cover his (or her) butt. But the odds are they knew exactly what they were doing, and what the final outcome would be. But being the clever little SOB (or DOB) they are, they built in a plausible excuse for why it was not intentional. Just a perfect example of the law of unattended consequences. Or I could be completely wrong all the way around, but the odds are really against that. I'm too good to be wrong.

Posted by: WildKarma at October 26, 2005 02:07 PM (uUEhl)

12 I fail to see how this SHOULDN'T be characterized as a gross misrepresentation when (a) the original photo was just fine the way it was and was in no need of enhancing, and (b) the effect of the "enhancment" clearly alters Ms. Rice's appearance and, therefore, her perceived personality. Why is it necessary to make any changes to a photo beyond color correction or gamma levels? What was wrong with using the original? The fact that the photo was doctored like that when the original was perfectly suitable for publication is evidence enough that it was intentional and clearly "synical" (sic). There is no excuse for this. No excuse at all.

Posted by: okc.engineer at October 26, 2005 02:08 PM (28WXk)

13 Hi all, Ok, I too believe that the MSM is skewed dramatically to the left and accept that this could be deliberate manipualtion with the intent of casting Ms Rice in less than flattering light. However, it could also be something less nefarious. If you notice, the whole image has been filtered and degraded in quality in the USAT example. This could be due to processing for print reproduction to enhance contrast. It doesn't explain how it made its way through the editorial/publication process to web publication, but I have no idea if images are segrigated for use for each media at the USAT of if this is common practice in the industry, even. Another possibility is that images intended for web use are often filtered to reduce their filesize sot that they load quicker and require less storeage space on the server. This filtering almost always results in noticable degredation of image quality. Perhaps that is what happened in this case. But again, it is all to easy to believe that this is an instance of deliberate misrepresentation with a built-in element of plausible deniability. Before anyone flames me, I'm not a DUmmie lurker or anything. I just think it is important to consider all posibilities and to be sure of oneself before making accusations. If accusations are poorly founded and end up being explainable for other reasons, this can discredit the attempt to demonstrate genuine instances of intentional misrepresentation.

Posted by: monkbarns at October 26, 2005 02:18 PM (tTkWQ)

14 Does anyone remember the stink that was made about Time magazine (I think) that darkened OJ SimpsonÂ’s face when it was on the cover to make him look more "ominous" or criminal-like? The fact is, it is unethical to alter a NEWS photo for any reason which changes the appearance of the individual who is the subject of the story. Clearly after seeing both the before and after photo side by side, it is obvious that the alteration had no real need. Her eyes looked fine and in color context with the rest of her face and other things in the shot. Making her eyes super white served no purpose in anything pertaining to the story or the representation of her in that photo. It only made her look odd. And anyone who knows anything about advertising or propaganda knows that psychology is 90% of getting your agenda across.

Posted by: kirch66 at October 26, 2005 02:23 PM (WPu2z)

15 The problem will be self-correcting. Obviously, the photo's manipulator would have been killed by Condi's patented 'Glare-of-Death'. Some crimes are self-punishing.

Posted by: Parker at October 26, 2005 02:31 PM (nsIga)

16 Um, now how about the post-coffee spelling of the word grammar?

Posted by: Bobbert at October 26, 2005 03:09 PM (azMcp)

17 Um, that last comment was meant as a joke. Actually, I really like your blog. It's one of my 'must-read' sites.

Posted by: Bobbert at October 26, 2005 03:15 PM (azMcp)

18 It is pretty much a gross misreprensentation when it is meant to be portrayed as the actual photo. There is a huge difference between putting Hillary's head on Jamie Presley's body (yup, that was me) which was taken as pure humor, and manipulating the eyes to make Condi look either demonic or crazy. But, then, the Left feeds off of this tripe, since they have no plans, no agenda, no ideas, other they hate Bush, Hate Republicans, hate the military, hate Amerika (their spelling, of course). All hate and negativity.

Posted by: William Teach at October 26, 2005 03:27 PM (cuTsc)

19 You're right; you don't see that kind of gross misrepresentation when it involves Hillary or Jesse Jackson. I've seen spoofs but this was under the guise of professional journalism. If they altered the photo, what else in the body of the story was "enhanced?"

Posted by: Deanage at October 26, 2005 04:07 PM (e42ck)

20 IÂ’d like to explain how that happened. USATODAY.com, like other news organizations, often adjusts photos for sharpness and brightness to optimize their appearance when published online. In this case, a USATODAY.com editor sharpened the photo and then brightened a portion of Rice's face. Those changes had the effect of distorting the photo and failed to meet our editorial standards for accuracy and integrity. The photo has been replaced with a properly adjusted copy and an editor's note has been published here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-19-rice-congress_x.htm. The photo did not appear in the USA TODAY newspaper. The editors of USATODAY.com will make every effort to ensure that something like this doesnÂ’t happen again. Kinsey Wilson VP/Editor-in-Chief USATODAY.com

Posted by: Kinsey Wilson at October 26, 2005 04:32 PM (dAZlH)

21 yeah. right.

Posted by: okc.engineer at October 26, 2005 04:38 PM (28WXk)

22 The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers..... Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

Posted by: Wade at October 26, 2005 05:14 PM (ZEF/T)

23 The USA Today editor's response is incredible (not to mention laughable): 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. This editor, whoever he or she is, ought to be fired, along with the incompetent who doctored the photo, the bozo that posted the pic on the website, and anyone else involved in this farce. (like THAT'S going to happen)

Posted by: Mr Write at October 26, 2005 05:16 PM (cnNTP)

24 There is a racist element here as well. How often, in years past, did caricatures of African-Americans show them bug-eyed, with the whites of their eyes (and often teeth) exaggerated? This sort of reality manipulation results from the same kind of low-brow stereotyping. The only African-Americans liberals "respect" are those they can keep slavishly dependent on them, both financially and politically.

Posted by: wordworker at October 26, 2005 05:51 PM (VTeY2)

25 This is all really quite silly. You'd think someone had been framed for murder. I am also a designer -- who used to work in newpapers -- and there's no such thing of a photo NOT being manipulated (burning and dodging in the old days, photoshop sharpening and enhancement now). That's reality of running a business, journalism or otherwise. NO... zits and blemishes are never removed, nor is the content of the photo ever doctored. But I did get a chuckle from all the neocons on this thread thinking it's some 'grand conspiracy' to make Rice look like a loon; thing is, she doesn't need anyone's help with that.

Posted by: SilverSveltcat at October 26, 2005 05:57 PM (Gi7V2)

26 "Now is when we will discover if USA Today is a responsible news organization or a tabloid." Discovery is complete, USA Today is a leftist tabloid!!

Posted by: docdave at October 26, 2005 06:02 PM (dD3SB)

27 What's even more outrageous -- we have the missing "third photo"

Posted by: California Conservative at October 26, 2005 06:11 PM (f2ERQ)

28 SilverSveltcat: You may claim to be a designer, but you sure aren't a professional one! Even a nitwit can see that doctoring a pic to create a negative impression is a FAR CRY from adjusting a pic to improve its quality. What you are trying to do is justify the unjustifiable, and it's only making you look stupid.

Posted by: Mr Write at October 26, 2005 06:45 PM (cnNTP)

29 Wow. I did not realize that so many people would take my very short comment so personally. Those of you who attack me with names and labels can shove it. Those of you who have logical and well thought responses, I thank you. Lastly, my simple point is this: I do not know how this photo manipulation harms Ms. Rice's character. It is not like she has horns growing out of her head or orbs of glowing death in her eyes. I just think that people's time and energy might be better spent talking about things that matter. There are and should be ethics when dealing with these issues, but to complain so fervently about this confuses me. Thanks for letting me be part of the debate, Confederate Yankee.

Posted by: nonc0mpliant at October 26, 2005 07:33 PM (nRSp/)

30 Racism? Have a conservative news organization put those eyes on another black, liberal face and get out the riot gear in whatever blue city you care to name. But since Dr Rice is a Republican the usual race baiters will greet this little sophomoric bit of pictorial slander with a yawn. Get used to it.

Posted by: MadJayhawk at October 26, 2005 07:50 PM (T4l/Y)

31 Check out this animated comparison of the photos: Condi Comparison Who ever did this at USA Today should get fired. This is the kind of photo you expect to see at The Onion. No matter how much I think Condi Rice is Evil, this kind of activity is completely unacceptable for a mainstream media outlet.

Posted by: Fletch at October 26, 2005 07:53 PM (4oTpc)

32 noncompliant- The issue with your comment was your disregard of the offense, to relegate the utter disregard for professional ethics on the part of the magazine to a mere pittance. To overlook such improprieties is to begin slipping down the slippery slope of permitting ANY kind of unethical activity on the premise that "someone else is already doing this, so I might as well too". Don't dare to say "get over it" and NOT expect someone to take exception with your acceptance of such unethical, offensive, and irresponsible "reporting". The bottom line is they got caught, and should be severely disciplined for their behavior, REGARDLESS of the party involved. I don't care whether it was Condi or Hillary, or Trump or Tyson. If they are attempting to be a legitimate (sp?) NEWS source, then integrity is paramount. If they had altered her words in the same manner it would be considered slanderous. How would it feel if it were YOU being misrepresented on the cover?

Posted by: bob at October 27, 2005 12:24 AM (Zvdcf)

33 There is an interesting analysis of the photoshopping at my site that you might be interested in.

Posted by: Sam at October 27, 2005 04:39 AM (/HV50)

34 The level of vitriol never ceases to amaze me when it comes to people seeing bias in the press. I've worked at major media outlets for 15+ years and been directly in charge of online photography on and off for the last eight. This is clearly, without question, a simple case of a junior producer being put in charge of photoshop work with no idea what he or she is doing. It's incompetence, not agenda. What the editor of USAT won't say is that this type of midday story, which didn't make the print edition, is left to the most junior people to maintain the steady flow of new content online. There was nobody with more than two years in the news biz watching as this completely AP-provided story went online until it blew up in their faces. The dirty little secret here is that notoriously-cheap Gannett is letting the babies run the nursery, not any vast liberal conspiracy.

Posted by: Rick at October 27, 2005 11:06 AM (2k4uh)

35 Rick, Your opinion maybe would hold more weight if the mainstream media hadn't been caught countless times doing exactly what this thread suggest.

Posted by: blamin at October 27, 2005 11:38 AM (gF/W/)

36 Rick BTW, call it vitriol if you like, but the "incompetence as a defense/excuse” has also been used countless times.

Posted by: blamin at October 27, 2005 11:41 AM (gF/W/)

37 Condi the snake woman versus Condi the regular woman....hmmmm, I don't think the voodoo of MS Paint worked very well. Manipulation should only be used for good, not evil. Everyone with a differing opinion please die and go to hell. Respect Mah Authoritah!

Posted by: Hoo dooVooDoo at October 27, 2005 03:31 PM (XCi/N)

38 It looks like they took a Photoshop "pixel" tool and simply brightened up the whites of her eyes. They did not change much of the other tones of the picture. I duplicated the effect in one minute on my computer. An elementary school student could have done this, it's that simple. A "sharpen mask" filter was not needed as someone else had pointed out. Regardless, it's a low-life thing to do to someone. USA Today should hang their head in shame for this.

Posted by: Dennis at October 27, 2005 04:33 PM (8/rBd)

39 It may not be a murder frame, but the fear of every neo-dem is that Hillary will not be the first woman in the White House...and that Condi will be. That scares the bejabbers out of neo-dems. When that happens, the "Give me(the welfare state) and I will give you the nigger vote for a hundred years!" hundred years will be O_V_E_R. If a Republican woman, a black republican woman, wins in 2008, the neo-dem party of perverts, liars, and baby-killers may as wellbag it and shag it. In the effort to prevent this, the neo-lib ruled mass-media will stop at no dirty trick, no matter how small, or subtle to "re-color" what is, in fact, black and white. The USATOADY official Wilson, master of propagandaspeak, is false false false. A quick search of his by-line and writting shows his manifestering destiny is neo-lib spawn. About vitriol, that is so far from the mark. The day when the media stops "telling us what to think" and gets back to telling us what is fact, we will give media different respect. But today, because the media has done what it does, it gets the respect it deserves. That isn't vitriol. It is justice. Neo-lib Media deserves no respect, and gets none. We have brains. Even if they are small ones. Give us the facts; we can decide. Dennis, it was a highly manipulated photo, no matter how fast it was done. Speed means nothing. In closing, we don't want neo-dem's shame. We have enough of that already. That is the only surplus Clinton left behind. Liberals and Democrats have given America so much shame, these groups are now...shameless! We want them to take responsibility for what they have done. Is that asking too much? From neo-dems, aparently so.

Posted by: unreal at October 28, 2005 03:38 AM (GVUg2)

40 I used to work for Gannett, who owns and runs USA Today, as well as 120 other papers in the US, UK, and Guam. I worked as an imaging technician, the person that performs the everyday manipulations on images (color, contrast, etc.) mentioned many times in these posts. I can guarantee you that short of someone playing a prank (photo editors do not see those photos before they go out...the photos are passed from copy editor to imaging technician, who tones them and sends them along to the press), this photo's placement online might actually be the problem. An image looks drastically different online than it does on newsprint, and the images are therefore different files. Sometimes an online editor might grab a toned photo rather than the original file to post online, causing it to look saturated and contrasty. The person you should call about this is the Press Manager, who gets the last look at the paper before it goes out, or the Online Editor, who likely posted the wrong file. And a side note: I'm not sticking up for this gross mistake made my underlings at a giant newspaper. I'm also concerned that you folks think USA Today is liberal.

Posted by: sbrown at October 30, 2005 03:47 PM (VjwaS)

41 I don't see why they even bothered to alter the picture. The original isn't any more flattering. She looks like a broody teen that isn't getting her way.

Posted by: Faldage at October 30, 2005 08:28 PM (Bm3cP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

After reading this post at Michelle Malkin's site, I felt a bit embarrassed that a story like this happened on my turf, and I completely missed it. I shouldn't have felt bad, because our local North Carolina media was doing all it could to ignore the story of a former North Carolina State visiting professor who called for nothing less than the genocide of every last white person on the planet.

Dr. Kamau Kambon

The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, collectively known as the Triangle, has a handful of major regional media. Those I frequent are:

• WRAL-TV (Raleigh)
• WTVD-TV (Durham)
• The News and Observer newspaper
• WPTF talk radio

As expected, the area also has a slew of smaller media including alternative and college newspapers, the local NPR affiliate, and even a rumored Air America outlet, though I don't know of anyone that has actually heard it. Collectively, they have little overall community impact.

Of the regional media I monitor --The News and Observer, WRAL-TV, WTVD-TV, and WPTF, only the Bill Lumay show on WPTF talk radio discussed the story before Malkin's Friday column, with a segment on Thursday afternoon.

Using Malkin's post as a template (but not using her as a direct source to keep from offending tender liberal sensitivities), I alerted the N&O, WRAL, WTVD, and WPTF radio of the story via email.

I'd missed WPTF talk radio earlier in the week, but the host himself, Bill Lumay sent back an email confirming they'd discussed the issue on Thursday afternoon.

The News & Observer, ran a story today, and actually credited bloggers with fanning the flames.

To date neither of the regional television news stations, WPTF-TV (Durham) or WRAL-TV (Raleigh), have deemed to give this story any notice at all.

Nationally, on the Washington Times has given this story mention in an editorial today.

In North Carolina, the only other mention of Kamau Kambon was in passing in the Wilmington Journal, "Part of the BlackPressUSA Network," which was happy to mention that:

Dr. Kamau Kambon, co-director of the Bennu Cultural Center and Blacknificent Books and More in Raleigh, spoke at a pre-Millions More Movement conference at Howard University on developing new black media for effective activism, that was carried by C-SPAN last Friday.

Dr. Kambon said the black community must develop new systems of ensuring not only bits [sic] survival, but liberation, as it faces the challenges ahead.

Apparently the reporter, Cash Michaels, didn't think that the "exterminate white people" portion of Kamon's C-SPAN commentary was worth mentioning, unless that is what he meant with his comment about how the black community could ensure it's survival.

Apparently in this day and age, it is fine to be a genocidal racist psychopath, just as long as you happen to have the right skin color and ideology.

Note: Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom interviewed Kamon yesterday.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:45 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 4 kb.

Sometimes, journalists simply flub a key fact, as did San Francisco Chronicle Washington correspondent Edward Epstein in this article about Saturday's constitutional referendum in Iraq:

Analysts do not see an end to Iraq's nonstop jockeying among competing ethnic and religious groups or to an insurgency that is averaging 570 attacks a day, despite voters' apparent approval of a new constitution on Saturday.

Epstein claimed that terrorists in Iraq were averaging 570 attacks each day in Iraq. When I emailed him asking for the source of this staggering figure, he quickly responded:

From latest CSIS report:

"The Bush administration's Oct. 2005 report to Congress does not show any decline in the number of attacks before the referendum. They totaled some 570 a week during 29 Aug. to October 2005. This compares with about 470 during 12 Feb-28 Aug.'"

When I pointed out that the report was claiming 570 attacks a week, not a day, (a difference of 3,420 attacks a week), Epstein quipped:

Where were you yesterday, so you could have caught that mistake?

Thanks, we'll run a correction tomorrow.

Professionals and amateurs alike, we all make mistakes from time to time in the stories we write. A certain columnist at the NY Times could learn a lot from Mr. Epstein on how to handle those mistakes.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org. more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Associated Press writer Darlene Superville, who first gained critical acclaim for her whimsical Plasterer's Digest expose, "Cheney: A Study in Stucco," and turned heads with the tawdry American Builder Weekly home foundations article, "What's in Condi's Crawlspace?" has now turned out her finest work yet in the riveting, "Rove: A KingBuilders Garage:"

He is "the architect" who steered George W. Bush to victory four times, twice as Texas governor and twice as president.

But can Karl Rove organize his own garage? Can the master of Bush's political planning figure out where to put the ladders, paint cans and cardboard boxes?

Engrossing, isn't it? Just the kind of stellar reporting you've come to expect from the Associated Press. But that's not all the sordid detail Superville has to offer:

There was no car in the garage. And the stuff left behind turned out not to be much different from what gathers dust inside most American garages.

The inventory, seen from outside:

_Some cardboard file boxes stacked one on top of the other, labeled "Box 6," "Box 4" and what appears to be "Box 7." No sign of boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Could it be possible? Are these the same "boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5" that a secret operative of "G.W" removed just last week, claiming that the only contained jeans and assorted ties? Was there in fact a spotted blue dress? Has Patrick Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Patrick been notified?

What appear to be paint cans stacked alongside a folded, folding chair.

Are these really paint cans, or are they the WMDs planted in Uncle Saddam's Happy Fun Palace, used to justify an illegal and immoral war to force democracy upon unwilling Iraqi torturers, and then smuggled back to Rove's lair for later use against Syria or Finland?

A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up.

Could she verify that this crate contained the stolen and almost mythical Daily Kos Plan For Taking Over The Democratic Leadership Council?

On top of the crate, two coolers.

Uday? Qusay? Oh, Bartleby! Oh, humanity!

A tall aluminum ladder.

Because the ice caps are melting and sea level is rising! Proof of global warming!

A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.

Because the ice sheets are returning and glaciers are coming! Proof of global cooling!

Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.

Is it really "indiscernible stuff," or Ohio ballots carefully hidden from Keith Olbermann among the Longaberger?

In one corner, the rear wheel of a bicycle sticks out, along with what appears to be a helmet.

Just a reminder of who's really in charge, eh George?

Another ladder, this one green, leaning sideways.

Leaning right, you devious shill.

I can hardly wait for Somerville's next article, "Scooter Libby's Private Privy."

Update: Don Surber has similar thoughts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 4 kb.

Judith Miller: The New York Times "Blair" Witch

via Editor & Publisher:

Saturday's Times article, [my link] without calling for Miller's dismissal, or Keller's apology, made the case for both actions in this pithy, frank, and brutal assessment: "The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions."

It followed that paragraph with Keller's view: "It's too early to judge."

Like Keller says, make of it what you will. My view: Miller did far more damage to her newspaper than did Jayson Blair, and that's not even counting her WMD reporting, which hurt and embarrassed the paper in other ways.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

If you a member of the media and you intend to snipe at a critic over the quality of localized newspaper reporting, you might want to start by not mischaracterizing what he says.

Jay Rosen of PressThink takes News and Observer Executive Editor Melanie Sill to task on her blog for getting it wrong.

John in Carolina has more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

The same story that rendered this little gem from Cindy Sheehan also has one heck of a finish.

Via the Tucson Citizen:

Sheehan is a Californian whose soldier son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

Along with winning supporters, she has provoked vitriolic reactions as Americans disagree over the war. Sheehan clarified an oft-quoted remark that has brought intense criticism.

When she said, "This country isn't worth dying for," she was referring to Iraq, she said.

"I believe America is worth dying for."

Sadly, that isn't the truth. It isn't even close.

From Lee Kaplan's article "SFSU Hosts a Terrorist" we draw the full quote, in context:

Cindy Sheehan followed this act. Wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice, Sheehan was interviewed outside just before the meeting by an ABC-TV news reporter. Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick naïve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain's assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, certainly a moving story – one she exploits to promote venomous anti-Americanism. “George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,” she said tearing up a bit. “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” [italics mine]

She was obviously talking about America not being worth dying for. Iraq was never part of the conversation.

What is even more interesting about this Tucson Citizen article is that it appears to have been created by lifting selected pieces of this Arizona Republic article using what your elementary school teacher would have considered plagiarism, but journalists call precis. The Citizen staff apparently didn't think the Republic article was biased enough, and so they slanted it even further left by picking an choosing which parts of the Republic article to quote.

Cindy Sheehan blatantly lied to try to cover up her anti-Americanism. The Arizona Republic and Tucson Citizen must have known the Kaplan article was the source of the original claim, and yet refused to challenge Mrs. Sheehan's historical revisionism.

They seem to be operating on the unwritten rule, "You lie, and I'll swear to it."

No wonder newspaper readerships are in decline.

Cross-posted to NewsBusters.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

More than a few people think that this story is just the latest example of political cowardice in the face of encroaching Islamic cultural aggression in Great Britain:

NOVELTY pig calendars and toys have been banned from a council office — in case they offend Muslim staff.

Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.

That said, the advertising staff at The Sun seems to have found a subtle way to make their feelings about the situation known. Look closely:

Accompanying the article is an advertisement for the movie Kingdom of Heaven, a film about the Crusades.

Ahem.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:34 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.