Hyperbole like this annoys the fuck out of me.
Quote:
|
But when newspapers, magazines and book publishers use photos, readers have reason to believe they are seeing a genuine record, not one changed for the publisher's convenience.
|
The issue here is the editing of a photograph of the illistrator of a childrens book.
The book was not edited. The illustrations in the book were not edited. The appearance of the illustrator was not changed - nobody added devil horns or a goatee, changed his features, or anything like that.
They took a fucking cigarette out of his fucking hand.
So the fuck what? No harm, no foul.
Hardly seems worthy of discussion, let alone rhetoric "likening the revisions to Stalinist-era photo doctoring in the old Soviet Union."
Getting your panties in a knot over this one should qualify people for aid from the "Get A Clue Foundation."