PressEthic

Check out this picture of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in an USA TODAY article from last week. Now check out this one . See a difference?

The latter photo has clearly been altered from the original, brightening the Secretary of State's eyes so that she appears, in the words of the right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin, 'demonic.' The USA TODAY has since made an addendum to the original story, saying in an editor's note that the first picture didn't meet the newspaper's "editorial standards" and that an editor made a routine error in brightening Rice's face to make it more visible.

Still, the explanation by the newspaper hasn't satisfied the conservative blogosphere intent on seeing liberal bias in every major media outlet. One right-wing blogger, The Anchoress, said that modern-day journalism has been taken over by "malicious children in dire need of basic ethics training..." Another blogger, Confederate Yankee, called the altered image a "misleading, decidedly negative representation of an individual" and that the people who let it happen should be "terminated."

To be sure, altering a photo in any way to make it more palatable to the public is at best a questionable practice. But to assert that the USA TODAY, an avowedly non-partisan newspaper, was guided by blind, malicious hate when manipulating the photo is not supported by evidence. It's not even supported by common sense. To think the USA TODAY intentionally altered the photo to make Rice look evil is to believe the newspaper was actively attempting to alienate at least half of their business-traveler heavy (i.e., Republican) audience through a blatant, highly noticeable and unbelievably unethical practice. It's just not in their best interests as a news organization that wants to maintain its credibility and to make a profit to do so.

The most likely scenario is one the legions of conspiracy theorists loath to hear: It was likely just an honest mistake.