http://www.RexBlog.com/2005/03/04/13696?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=newsweek-is-sorry Rex Hammock's Blog Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.RexBlog.com/2005/03/04/13696/comment-page-1#comment-6605 Hudge Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:18:13 +0000 http://test.rexblog.com/?p=13696#comment-6605 <a></a>Well to take Newsweek's side, the image IS in fact identified in the credits on the contents page as a photo illustration - fairly standard procedure for such instances. So maybe this falls into that grey area where Blockbuster's no late fee proclamation resides - it is not quite that, but yet it is. So maybe those hand-wringing media critics ought to get over with it and find something more worthy of wrath, or even of using up oxygen. If they weren't such blinking hypocrites, they'd be out picketing Congress to mandate that every magazine ought to carry a warning label advising that the camera is lying and that nearly every photo has been tinkered with by one or more persons. Or maybe they think those loving photos of Martha in her magazine are just as St. Kodak shot them? Well to take Newsweek’s side, the image IS in fact identified in the credits on the contents page as a photo illustration – fairly standard procedure for such instances. So maybe this falls into that grey area where Blockbuster’s no late fee proclamation resides – it is not quite that, but yet it is. So maybe those hand-wringing media critics ought to get over with it and find something more worthy of wrath, or even of using up oxygen. If they weren’t such blinking hypocrites, they’d be out picketing Congress to mandate that every magazine ought to carry a warning label advising that the camera is lying and that nearly every photo has been tinkered with by one or more persons. Or maybe they think those loving photos of Martha in her magazine are just as St. Kodak shot them?

]]>