I agree 100%. Photoshopping them out is completely manipulative, regardless of whether the caption states they were present or not. Censoring them is a completely different action with completely different connotations.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, they apologized for not following the copyright rules, not for the > actual removal of the people. > > By photoshopping the 2 women out of the picture, they changed the > context of the room, stating that there were no women in the room. > > Which, regardless of the reasons WHY is a bald-faced lie. > > A big blue dot over them would have been fine to follow their apparent > rules. Photoshopping them out so it appears that they were not there > is NOT acceptable from a news organization. > > Or so it seems to me. > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Michael Dinowitz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If you read the article you'll see that the paper is from a group that > does > > not print pictures of women. While editing the photo was not right it was > > not part of a sinister cover-up. And they owned up to it and apologized. > > Basically a slow news day non-story. > > > > This is, of course, besides the fact that the photo is far from iconic. > So > > Clinton gasped when the operation was going down. So Obama was leaning in > > watching. It's iconic because we're told it is, not because it actually > > caries any weight. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:337588 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
