Please follow the link and study the photo the L.A. Times published as a cover photo.

They got caught this time passing off a fake... but how many times has this been done? When you look at an image these days... NEVER assume that it's real. Photoshop can of course be used to alter video tape as well.

The Times photo was not a bad Photoshop job... but for the expert eye there are several give aways. Nevertheless, the untrained eye will accept a Photoshop altered picture as authentic... and it seems the millions of readers of the LA CRIMES did just that.

Funny thing about the altered photo:

If the LA Times had taken that same doctored photo, never published it, and had sold it to one person as an authentic pic, for a sum over $400.00, the powers that be at the Times could be charged with a felony criminal violation.

However, take the City of LA, around 4million in size, and think about how many people paid 50-cents for a copy of that altered photo? Bet it's way over $400.00.

So........the morale of the story is: FUCK THE PUBLIC AND YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

Tell me that doctored photo was not used to make the LA Times money and tell me if there just ain't something very wrong with this!!!!

...anything the "Mainstream Presstitutes" have to say without question is a born sucker.

There was an old saying in my Grand Father's day. It was a term of derision used on anyone who credulously accepted B.S. story of any kind:

"Do ya believe everything you read in the Newspaper?"

Press lying is not new. Just new technology to make the lies more convincing.

"Do ya believe everything you read in the Newspaper?"

""Do ya believe everything you read in the Newspaper?""

Just like Fisk in the Independant. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Thanks for being one of our most loyal viewers, fresca. We count on our redneck demographic to bring in the cash. Just keep your television tuned to Fox. We distort, you comply.

Thanks for the opportunity of being one of your most loyal viewers, Bill. We count on your informed demographic to bring make the difference. We'll keep our televisions tuned to Fox. We report, you decide.

It makes good liner for my buddy Beaker's, cage
Paper for the fire and something to throw at my cat
when he's using the coutch to sharpen his claws.

you = Sucker X infinity

Particularly any post from Bush Admirer, fresca, Skinner
Simple Simon, WACKAPROTESTER and yourself.

What's interesting to me about this thread is that no one is mentioning the act itself (photoshopping a pair of pictures) why it was done, and what the impact was.

The photographer snapped two pictures. But he decides to combine them and does so to present a point of view that doesn't exist. The British soldier is made larger in the foreground, and he appears to be menacing a father clutching a child.

This is shameless anti-Western propoganda worthy of Al Jazeera or the Iraqi news agency.

Fortunately, the worm who did the editing has been fired.

Unfortunately, he will no doubt soon have employment elsewhere. I understand the Mirror is hiring.

What a dope you are. The picture was done to make the Brit soldier look like he and his rifle were farther away from the Iraqi citizens instead of closer to them. By making him bigger and keeping the background the same size he appears further away.

Man....you are so lame....even when you look at a picture which was obviously done for this purpose, you slant it the other way. The LA Times is a not exactly a supporter of the peace movement. And....you think they altered the photo to make the troops look bad.

S-P-I-N, TWINKIE SIMON!!!

...your a fuckin' clown, Fido....

Probably it was done because he wanted both the soldier and the iraqi with the kid to appear clearer.. basically he wanted to make it a better picture more likely to get a position on the front of a newspaper and made him look like a more skillful photographer
Of course that is TERRIBLE journalism. But I expect there was not specific political motivation behind it.
In reality these actions are probably slightly anti war because they are designed to amplify the significance or danger of certain events which is basically what the left aims to do while the conservatives would prefer to emphasise the long term aspects such as democracy safety etc etc

Mr. Bush Admirer.
We always take your word on everything because you are just
so believable. And your icon, Ann, also.
You were so right about the Iraqi troops surrendering to news men too.
Waiting for more comments from you. I never read anybody but your posts because you are always correct.

The composite picture doesn’t become more anti war
than the originals. In fact it appears that the soldier is less threatening to the Iraqi civilians than the second photo. The soldier is just being very cautious as he should because of past events.

If the Photographer wished to villainies the soldier all he would have needed to do was use the second photo alone.