Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.
So begins Janet Malcolm’s case study of journalistic betrayal, The Journalist and The Murderer. Fortunately, we are too full of ourselves to notice. Besides most “real” journalists would say that what we do isn’t morally indefensible in that sense anyway.
Malcolm never wrote about art editors, but in the age of photoshop there’s definitely material for an Adobe expose.
Like journalists, their job is complicated by their conflicting desires to sell magazines and be honest. Sure a Q&A will read better with heavy editing and Glamour might sell more covers with a thinner America Ferrera, but that doesn’t mean doing those things is right. And does the public deserve some of the blame for subconsciously wanting an Andy Roddick with bigger arms?
Well, these issues are too weighty for a Friday, but one thing is for sure: if you’re going to do touch ups, there’s no point in lying about which direction you’re going in.
Self art director Petra Kobayashi claims, “We retouch to make the models look bigger, healthier.”
Wow, their touchups are so subtle we barely noticed how fat the model above looks.
The art director of Glamour has us stumped.
We get that thin is in and everything, but why would you thin out America Ferrera? Her whole career, from Real Women Have Curves to Ugly Betty is based on her not being skinny. A major plot of point of The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants was the size of her ass. If the Men’s Fitness editor was called out for adding muscle to a professional athlete, don’t you think that people would be able to tell that pounds were digitally shaved off of America Ferrera?
It seems impossible, but this cover is not even worthy of a feature about 39 sexy things to do with hair.
• Ugly Betty gets a little bit prettier.
• Dan Abrams criticizes CNN as promoting "shameful advocacy masked as journalism." And this from the man who brought us Keith Olbermann!
• Brad Pitt feels bad about aging. Hopefully he can find some solace in the $20 million he made from Mr. and Ms. Smith.
They involve: Not making a man of the cloth's junk look too big; and getting rid of Pauly Shore's skid marks. [AdAge]
"Melt Off The Pounds!" proclaims Self magazine. "Shrink in 6 Days! Moves That Practically Do The Work For You."
Out of curiosity, does one of those so-called "moves" happen to be, oh, 4-5 hours of Photoshop?
No?
Well then, congratulations are in order, because—apparently—our glowing, rosie-cheeked perfectly toned Lumpty Lady has inadvertently stumbled upon the fountain of youth.
And we say, good for her!
After all, who could have ever predicted that the secret recipe for luminous skin and a tight, flat tummy would turn out to be copious amounts of alcohol, coupled with a strict crystal meth diet, an inexplicable aversion to panties and shitty song lyrics that make no sense?
After the whole embarrassing spectacle of Andy Roddick's giant man-arms (not to mention In Touch's anti-circlatory system stance on Angelina Jolie)) earlier this week, you'd think AMI would probably cut back on the Photoshopping for a little while.
You would, however, be wrong.
As Radar discovers, Star is already back to its usual tricks, starting with this week's cover story on actress Jennifer Aniston.
Seeing is believing, as Star magazine knows. That's why it illustrated its cover story about "Jen's $5 Million Tell-All!" with a shot of Jennifer Aniston carrying what is plainly the manuscript she's allegedly shopping around to publishers about her days with Brad Pitt.
But hang on—maybe Jen's not really writing a book? In which case, maybe Star's cover actually shows something else—say, Aniston attending an auction, holding an art catalog from Los Angeles Modern Auctions? And maybe Star simply airbrushed out the cover of the catalog, along with a pair of sunglasses she was holding, for good measure?
And while our first reaction is disappointment (we totally would have pre-ordered that book on Amazon!) our second reaction is more like feigned surprise.
Remember last week when TMZ* blew the lid off of Andy Roddick's (superimposed) tree-trunk arms? Well apparently, AMI prez David Pecker was less than thrilled about all the negative publicity. And so, he did what any of us would do: publicly insinuated Bonnie Fuller was to blame, and tattled about her super long lunches crappy interview skills and her inability to copy-edit. Like, at all.
Sources told Page Six that AMI chief David Pecker "went crazy" on editorial director Bonnie Fuller Friday morning. The rant came after Pecker read Keith J. Kelly's Media Ink column in The Post, in which the magazine admitted its cover subject's body had been altered. The issue was put together under the watch of Boulton, who has since been replaced by new editor-in-chief Roy Johnson.
"Pecker is livid. He really thinks this is something Bonnie should have caught," said one source. "He's crazy about wanting everything in his magazines to be accurate and basically told her she was responsible."
Normally, we'd make a joke here about AMI's "crazy" obsession with accuracy, but instead we'll content ourselves by smugly pointing out that Page Six could use a copy-editor of their own.
Remember yesterday when we told you about Andy Roddick's head being transplanted on Andre the Giant's body? Well today, In Touch is up in arms over accusations that the glossy 'retouched' a cover photo of Angelina Jolie.
Angelina Jolie has come in for some cover doctoring. The latest issue of In Touch features Jolie on the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival, showing her usually veiny arm looking silky smooth.
Unfortunately for In Touch, a nearly identical photo of Jolie appeared on page 58 of the current issue of People, which clearly showed the veins — in an unretouched photo.
Fortunately, In Touch's EIC was able to remain calm, cool and collected as he addressed the public outcry.
Richard Spencer, editor-in-chief of In Touch, was unapologetic. "You're right, we softened those veins. The arm was very, very veiny."
And if that's not repentant, we don't know what is!
Have you always dreamed about having giant man-arms? Not lean, wiry muscle, but the type of biceps that are practically made for ripping phone books in half, and never fail to elicit the steroid jokes in the vein of, 'My, what small testicles you have!'
Kinda like Andy Roddick's on this month's issue of Men's Fitness. Except, you know, real.
Thanks to the crack researching team over at Huffington Post, we've finally figured out what it is Neal Boulton does besides Jann Wenner make jokes about divorcing his wife and suffer from 7-day long stretches of food poisoning, namely, hire gorgeous athletes to grace the cover of his magazine and then Photoshop their body parts until they're damn near unrecognizable!
Roddick's reaction the gargantuan stunt-arms after the jump.
(Click for larger version in pop-up window.)
Bonnie Fuller has some more explaining to do. After last week's abysmal showing with the "blogazine" issue of Star, this week's edition will have the Matt Drudges of the world calling foul over a Photoshopped Maddox Jolie-Pitt gracing the cover of the magazine.
As you can see in the photo above (click for larger version, via), Star's cover has Maddox's eyes wide open as he sits on Brad Pitt's shoulders. But the original photo, appearing inside Us Weekly and here on Life & Style's cover, shows Maddox's eyes closed. We're awaiting Star to respond to our request for an explanation, but for now let's roll with this Marie Claire-esque line: ""We do not believe anyone seriously thought Maddox would sit on Brad's shoulders and keep his eyes open at the same time!"
Update: Star PR director Kate Ottenberg tells us the above photo was manipulated because Star is "not in the business of showing unflattering photos of people's children." Key word there, of course, is "children" — since they have entire sections of the magazine devoted to showing unflattering photos of adults. "There's nothing malicious here. They wanted the most flattering photo possible," Kate tells us. Scary, meanwhile, that somehow competitors like Life & Style and Us Weekly come out on top of this ethics charade.
Meredith Vieira's new gig at the Today show doesn't just require that she wake up at an hour Bijou Phillips only begins considering whether she's going out, it also beckons endless press opportunities. Among them: the cover of Traditional Home magazine. And what could've been a forgettable fluff piece about how Vieira is spending her fatter paycheck on redecorating will instead be known as "that crap ass Photoshop job with Meredith's dog Jasper that likely exists, but not at the time of the photoshoot."
(L to R: Madonna on the April issue of Out; the cover of Madonna's single "Sorry"; Madonna at Vanity Fair's Oscar party)
Now let's see: Which Madonna picture do you think received the most Photoshop attention?
Editorial Director
