Photoshoped?

Part one.
I've been reading a kind of a lot about news photography/photo journalism/faked photos lately, mostly in regards to good/cool/editorial Photoshop chops, and then today I came across this photo and I thought, "No way is this real..." But I haven't read anything that purports it as a fake. It which case, it's quite the picture. Or wait, does that matter?Part two.
Does it matter if a photo is "real" or not? Do we still believe by seeing? And isn't the term "Photoshop Fake" redundant? :)

In terms of judging imagery for its visual appeal, I don't think that these things matter all that much really. I like to look at pretty things, and most of the time I just don't care how the image came to be. Other times I'm excited by images that show the mastery that a person can have over their images, equipment and software. It's when these images are purported as News that things can get confusing.

How about this: What's the difference between a photographer dodging and burning his photograph and increasing the contrast to bring out the smoke of a burning building (all very old-school) and a (new school) photographer using Photoshop tools and brushes to make that same smoke look more menacing?

Or what if the above photo is chopped/faked, but based on factual information? (The gator was seen holding the zookeeper's arm in its jaws, knuckles curled and severed 3/4ths of the way between the wrist and the elbow - with 3" of tattered bloody flesh trailing out the severed end...) Gruesome, right? But why not make that picture to get people's attention? I think some gory headline would be just as sensational as a "fake" photo.

Thoughts?

(...all of that just so I can show a crazy picture that I saw today...)

Re: Huckabee

Hey [friends],

Some of you have... expressed your concerns, shall we say, over my casual support of Republican Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee in my last post. And although I might not be entirely coherent, educated, or logical in my theories on Presidential politics, I thought I might be able to clear up my stance a little bit - at least for this upcoming election.

For one, I don't actually think that I'd vote for Huckabee if it turned out to be him verses, say Clinton... especially not based on one ad. (Now if Chuck Norris was standing next to the ballot booths while I was voting, that'd be another story!) :)

It is interesting though, that because of the "political climate" in America, I find myself caring less about what a candidate claims that s/he stands for, and rather more about the impression that said candidate makes on me [or doesn't] as a loyal, trustworthy citizen. And Huckabee seems to be a solid, stand up guy. I agree with you that on most [if not all] accounts, Huckabee takes a different stance than I might on the issues, and so technically I shouldn't even consider him. But I find myself trusting him more than, well... most of the viable candidates.

Some of these candidates I see as bearing a cross, or caring an agenda that's outside of doing the best for the country. (Power? Pride? Fame?) And I hate watching these debates where candidates squirm their way around answers and try to distract us from the severity of the issues with snappy comebacks and winning smiles... So I'm cynical about the process and the people in it, and I feel that regardless of where a candidate stands these days, I want them to be genuine. Because the reality is, if we have a genuine leader in the top position in this country (and not a no-brained, power-hungry-war-monger), the power will stay with the people - and it will be the people making unified decisions on the big issues with the President as their voice.
An ideal President doesn't have to agree with me on everything. They just have to be sensible enough to understand the many sides of the issues at hand, and selfless enough to act in the best interest of the country. All of the candidates say that they could do that. For the Rebulicans, Huckabee seems the most capable.

Maybe he's just the best actor. Yeesh.

Like I said, I probably wouldn't vote for him over the Dems top pick next fall. On paper, he stands just too far to the right. There's just that part of his character that I think is missing, for the most part, in politics today. Obama is the other candidate that I find some of that same quality in. I think that he would still be carrying quite a bit as the first black Pres., but the man's genuineness is apparent. Huckabee and Obama talk like they believe what they're saying - whereas Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, Edwards, McCain... I suspect them of having their fingers crossed half the time they're talking...

Sorry. There's a big mix of patriotic idealism and cynicism going on in this post, and honestly I'm still pretty lost. If anything though, this race is interesting, and likely, the results will be historical. And I hope that the following 4-8 years follow suit. [Well, historical in a good way... not like the past 8 years!]

Huckabee/Norris '08

Well, that's pretty much un-toppable. I'd have to say that my choices for President now go: 1. Barack Obama, 2. Mike Huckabee.

I think I'm serious. Along with sounding like the most reasonable Republican candiate since I've been alive (...and boy is that Mitt Romney a douche bag... ), Huckabee now comes out with the best campaign platform ever. BECAUSE CHUCK NORRIS SAID SO.

Although you can't help but think of the new Chuck Norris jokes that this will spur...
"Chuck Norris endorsed Mike Huckabee for President, but Huckabee still didn't win... because everyone wrote in CHUCK NORRIS! on their ballots instead. And Chuck Norris wouldn't accept the Presidency [as usual] because he didn't want to downgrade to President, from his current status of Chuck Norris".