National Enquirer photo secret revealed (now we know why it's hard to figure out photos)

[zulchzulu]

It turns out that the National Enquirer graphics department take a perfectly good photo of a politician in the arms of another person they shouldn't doing so and make the photo "enhanced".

What will they think of next?







:sarcasm:

[Occam Bandage]

1. I'm so lost.

[zulchzulu]

2. They did it with the Cindy McCain smootchy photo

Apparently, she's dating the bass player for the Australian Pink Floyd cover band...

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

4. What kind of awful photo is that? That could be practically any blonde woman on Earth.

Hell, I have exes who look more like that photo than Cindy McCain does.

[npincus]

12. Is that really her, though?

[Kitty Herder]

3. Me, too. Maybe you have to be a regular reader of the National Enquirer to understand.

I'm certainly not going to take up the habit so I can be in on the joke.

[rateyes]

5. I hate that stupid assed rag.

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would read the damned thing, let alone pay to read it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. I don't know about the filter on that photo. It looks like it was taken at night with a cellphone

camera. Very poor resolution.

[Tutankhamun]

7. Hate them or not, they'll keep breaking stories.

John Edwards wasn't the first, and he won't be the last. They have their place in our media.

[dorkulon]

8. They float stories that don't make journalistic muster for other reporters to support or debunk

They catch a whiff of something, and don't their number of sources or their credibility. They stir the pot, and if the story's for real, hopefully another witness sees it and pipes up, or a legitimate journalist digs into it and finds something solid.

The Edwards story turned out to be real. This one, I'm gonna bet no. Especially after reading this:

A reader notes that this story is particularly dubious because Cindy McCain was on a trip to Kosovo at the time of the festival where the photos were supposedly taken."

[WinkyDink]

10. Oh, and KOSOVO is so easy to check. Snerk. I'm betting it's she in the photo. I recall DU'ers

mocking photos of Edwards, too.

"A reader notes...." Thank you, Reader McCain.

[dorkulon]

11. Actually, now that I look at it,

The Enquirer story says the pics were taken April 1st, 2006, but Cindy was in Kosovo in April of '08. So much for Huffpo.

[greymattermom]

9. check out the ear

Ears are unique and the photo has a decent view of her ear. An image expert could compare that with a picture of the real Cindy's ear and we'd know for almost sure if it's really her.

[sohndrsmith]

13. It's the plaid (flannel?) shirt that doesn't really work for me...

Unless of course, it was an attempt to be incognito. But that would be dumb without bothering to change hairstyle or wearing shades or somehow otherwise trying to cover up one's immediately recognizable face. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of CMcC wearing anything with a pattern/print, much less plaid. But who knows. Just doesn't particularly make a lot of sense to me.

As far as the photo quality, there's a big difference in a nighttime, low-quality, low resolution photo and a pixelated filter. However, it is possible to Photoshop a good photo and turn it into a bad one, (adding noise, not pixelation, among other things) but this looks like a real photo to me... agreed that it looks like it was taken from a camera phone. People don't set up tripods and fancy equipment for things like this, I wouldn't think.

But for me the jury is out as to whether it's Cindy McCain or not... the plaid shirt makes me skeptical, but the fact that she isn't unfamiliar with adultery on a rather large scale makes the idea (if not this particular incident) somewhat plausible. I'd be surprised if either McCain has been entirely faithful to one another, so it doesn't really grab me as particularly scandalous. Unfortunate and ugly, but not surprising.