Isn't it more that they picked up a pic that was already photoshopped (presumably for humoristic reasons) and used it, rather than that they photoshopped it themselves? It's not like they have an agenda to make Rice look evil, or summit (she can handle that on her own )...would be interesting to know what the article related to the pic was about.

If they picked up someone else's pic, they should have given credit.

And regardless, it's their responsibility to report news accurately. That includes pictures. Otherwise they could make up whatever stories they wanted to.

Basically, this isn't necessarily illegal, but it certainly brings their credibility into question.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ress_x.htm

USA today corrects the photo and adds a editoial note. They did edit the photo themselves claim it was to "brighten" her face.

So theyre racists? lol just kidding.

'Brighten her face' Yeh, sure thats a fucking lie if ever i saw one:

If they wanted to brighten her face they would have used Photoshop to area-brighten a part of her face.

What they did, was try to make her more attractive. Why did it fail: Becuase theyre Photoshop n00bz.

Why did they want to make her more attractive? To wrongfully hide her humanity and give her an aura of charisma.

Why? Because the media have political interest.

candoleeza is both ugly and stupid.

ok...I call her stupid because I watched her on cnet getting owned by congress. Maybe she's smart and she was just acting stupid. She is, however, not a very impressive secretary of state.