Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Of course there are many "spoofed" Time covers but they weren't
done by Time. Here's one to add to you collection. I am sure
you will appreciate it:

https://coverjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1481150242.jpg

......

Of course, there’ll be plenty around who will believe it.


Right wing trash will believe anything.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:52:25 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Of course there are many "spoofed" Time covers but they weren't
done by Time. Here's one to add to you collection. I am sure
you will appreciate it:

https://coverjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1481150242.jpg

......

Of course, there’ll be plenty around who will believe it.


Right wing trash will believe anything.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

Huh?

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture
featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these
organizations:

National Press Photographers Code of Ethics

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.�

Associated Press.

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate
the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph
must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element
should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The
faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop
or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning
tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments
in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast,
color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original
scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred
or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.


Reuters:

No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an
image).Â* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an
image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing
the original lighting conditions of an image).Â* Only minor Photoshop
work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We
require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300
dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to
perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated
hi-resolution screens…



None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine
cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you
cited are for news photos.

If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern
regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic.




You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing.




I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines.

More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news
magazine tho.
I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to
descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not
make it right.

On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture
featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these
organizations:

National Press Photographers Code of Ethics

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.�

Associated Press.

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate
the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph
must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element
should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The
faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop
or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning
tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments
in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast,
color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original
scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred
or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.


Reuters:

No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an
image).Â* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an
image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing
the original lighting conditions of an image).Â* Only minor Photoshop
work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We
require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300
dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to
perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated
hi-resolution screens…



None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine
cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you
cited are for news photos.

If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern
regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic.




You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing.




I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines.

More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news
magazine tho.
I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to
descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not
make it right.


I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows
the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to
meet with a tiny Latino kid.

I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a
daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible
ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is
funny.

On 6/23/2018 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture
featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these
organizations:

National Press Photographers Code of Ethics

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.�

Associated Press.

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate
the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph
must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element
should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The
faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop
or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning
tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments
in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast,
color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original
scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred
or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.


Reuters:

No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an
image).Â* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an
image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing
the original lighting conditions of an image).Â* Only minor Photoshop
work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We
require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300
dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to
perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated
hi-resolution screens…



None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine
cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you
cited are for news photos.

If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern
regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic.




You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing.




I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines.

More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news
magazine tho.
I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to
descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not
make it right.


Time's cover is something you might expect to see on the National
Enquirer in the check out aisle at the supermarket but I don't think
even they "photo-shop" their pictures.

On 6/23/2018 12:33 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture
featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these
organizations:

National Press Photographers Code of Ethics

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter
sound in
any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.�

Associated Press.

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate
the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph
must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element
should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The
faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop
or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning
tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor
adjustments
in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast,
color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original
scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred
or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.


Reuters:

No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original
image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an
image).Â* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an
image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing
the original lighting conditions of an image).Â* Only minor Photoshop
work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We
require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300
dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to
perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated
hi-resolution screens…



None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine
cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules
you
cited are for news photos.

If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern
regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic.




You're right.Â* We completely disagree about the Time cover thing.




I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines.

More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news
magazine tho.
I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to
descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not
make it right.


I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows
the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to
meet with a tiny Latino kid.

I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a
daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible
ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is
funny.


You do enough castigating of Trump on a daily basis for everyone.

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture
featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these
organizations:

National Press Photographers Code of Ethics

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.�

Associated Press.

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate
the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph
must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element
should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The
faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop
or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning
tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments
in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast,
color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original
scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred
or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.


Reuters:

No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an
image).Â* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an
image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing
the original lighting conditions of an image).Â* Only minor Photoshop
work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We
require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300
dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to
perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated
hi-resolution screens…



None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine
cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you
cited are for news photos.

If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern
regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic.




You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing.




I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines.

More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news
magazine tho.
I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to
descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not
make it right.


I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows
the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to
meet with a tiny Latino kid.

I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a
daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible
ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is
funny.

Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of
them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just
another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive
of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment.
There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or
Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC.

On 6/23/18 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture
featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these
organizations:

National Press Photographers Code of Ethics

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.�

Associated Press.

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate
the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph
must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element
should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The
faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop
or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning
tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments
in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast,
color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original
scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred
or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.


Reuters:

No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an
image).Â* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an
image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing
the original lighting conditions of an image).Â* Only minor Photoshop
work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We
require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300
dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to
perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated
hi-resolution screens…



None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine
cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you
cited are for news photos.

If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern
regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic.




You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing.




I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines.

More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news
magazine tho.
I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to
descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not
make it right.


I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows
the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to
meet with a tiny Latino kid.

I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a
daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible
ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is
funny.

Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of
them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just
another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive
of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment.
There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or
Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC.


You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions.

On 6/23/2018 3:19 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/23/18 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture
featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these
organizations:

National Press Photographers Code of Ethics

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter
sound in
any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.�

Associated Press.

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or
manipulate
the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph
must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element
should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The
faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by
PhotoShop
or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the
cloning
tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor
adjustments
in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast,
color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original
scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally
blurred
or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.


Reuters:

No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original
image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity
of an
image).Â* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the
image
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an
image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically
changing
the original lighting conditions of an image).Â* Only minor
Photoshop
work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We
require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300
dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to
perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated
hi-resolution screens…



None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine
cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The
rules you
cited are for news photos.

If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of
concern
regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic.




You're right.Â* We completely disagree about the Time cover thing.




I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines.

More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news
magazine tho.
I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to
descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not
make it right.


I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows
the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to
meet with a tiny Latino kid.

I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a
daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible
ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is
funny.

Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of
them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just
another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive
of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment.
There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or
Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC.


You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions.


In other words, if you disagree with Harry you are misinformed.

Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
You do enough castigating of Trump on a daily basis for everyone.

........


And that is one reason trump was elected.

“GO DONALD, GO!!!�