I ask this because I don't know....

Has anyone come up with peope who ware not conservatove, whose picture is similarly handled?

What do you mean by a "questionable" picture? They are basically the same picture?!?!?!

gronsl,

The one on the left has a distinct green cast to it, the other does not.

In this case it doesn't seem to affect the appearance if individual, but does make the picture better. Is this bias either way, hard to tell.
Condi's picture was altered to the detriment of the subject, and could only be considered intentional or extreme incompetence.

Steve, You are a total fool. The original photo, published by the Times, was provided by the US Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, to the wire services. If there is any "malice or bias" involved it comes from his own employer.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19alito.htm

The one on the left has a distinct green cast to it, the other does not.

Green cast, hmm...Oh, I see! They are trying to make him appear as a tool for the Green Party! Yes, thanks for pointing it out. Those guys at the NY TImes are so clever in their devisiousness!

Wow! If this post isn't a total "stretch" - trying to create controversy where there clearly isn't any - then I don't know what is.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't see where one picture's better than the other. Green versus rouge is not much of a choice.

So he's a Republican Party Reptile. What's the big deal? Wasn't it Julia Roberts who said Repubican can be found in the dictionary between reptile and repugnant?

At least on my monitor, it's not clear one is "better" than the other. Both are poorly colored, one with too much green and the other with too much red.

were and are = ware. i like it!

Sorry Michael, I guess we can't all write posts like this. Sheesh.

Notice that his collar is the same color contrast etc. in both pictures which means that someone selected and discolored / desaturated his face, for a ghoulish look. Easily done-easily spotted! Thanks Adobe!

Hey Steve, don't get childish. It's unbecoming of someone like you who is generally very professional. I criticized your post because you are trying to stir a pot hoping to garner some attention for yourself a la Michelle Malkin/Condi Rice - which was totally legit. Deal with it. You are writing on a political blog, and you wrote a post, the subject mater about which most appear to be disagreeing with you.

Comes with the territory. No need to resort to insults. It doesn't make your point any more right than it is now.

So I burned a pizza and wrote about it. I never pretended the post's meaning was any deeper than that. So I don't know what you are even getting at with your snide remark.

First off, the Rice picture was clearly doctored and it looked pretty obvious what the intent was. It seems to me that the one picture is pretty darn green. Was it intentional? Given past incidents of photo manipulation I wouldn't be surprised. As for the Malkin thing, I don't see the relevance of that. I think that the NY Times pulled the picture indicates that at least somebody there thought the picture wasn't consistent with what the NY Times considers quality journalism.

Thanks for the trackback Michael, but he content of that post sure does cost you the high ground when it comes to childish.

Gee. Can't take criticism or a joke!! I'll endeavor to be more delicate with you in the future, Steve. I didn't realize you had such a thin skin. Amazing you have been able to survive blogging.

Thin skin? I'm begining think your the one in need of humor transplant. Sheesh.

Has anyone come up with peope who ware not conservatove, whose picture is similarly handled?

OJ Simpson on the cover of Time Magazine. Of course, I have no idea of the Juice's politics, so I'm going with the "he's certainly not a prominent conservative" assumption.