4
"When a magazine has to go to such great lengths to explain their cover or explain their ideas, then perhaps their message wasn't as clear or powerful as they thought it would be. Whether it's one of their readers or a casual browser, the cover seems to paint a picture of Obama being a lonely man. In addition, the fact that The Economist they didn't consult Reuters before using the photo seems to be the first red flag that their cover wasn't going to work."
—The Weekly World News upbraids The Economist for improper use of Photoshop on the cover of its June 19 issue. Because this is where we are now.
Bat Boy would be a pretty great ombudsman. People love him!
Leaving Ed Anger madder than a dilettante out of Grey Poupon who can't flag down a Rolls-Royce.
Also, a story about photoshop ethics that does not show the original photo is incomplete.
I call bull shit on the Economist's explenation here. You can't tell me that as soon as you look at that picture you don't think "President Obama," "Alone," and "Looking down". Removing people from photographs is certainly dishonest in the first place, but perhaps this argument really obscures the fact that using photographs to represent some kind of truth is absurd to begin with.