Steve, you are making a fool out of yourself and you are losing credibility, and I say that as one of several conservatives who have criticized you over this matter. This post is the very definition of a strawman argument; you are responding to the most ridiculous anonymous comment in the previous thread and "debunking" it, as if that proves anything fundamental.

Childish.

A mature, honourable man wouldn't even think of doing what you are doing here.

As previously explained to you, there are hundreds if not thousands of photos the CPC could have used; they chose - then manipulated - this photo for political opportunity. No wiggle room here; the CPC doctored a photo to imply Kennedy has a problem with the drink and it affects his decision making.

Give your head a shake, Steve, and choose your battles a lot more carefully. It is pathetic to watch a sometimes-honourable man debase himself like this; please return to your previous higher standards.

Posted by: CMT at August 29, 2006 05:45 AM

---

Higher standards?

Please, if I didn't have low standards, I wouldn't have any standards at all.

Personally I think this is a worthy discussion. Two allegations have been made.

One is that the photo was altered to enhance the view of the beers. Not likely, as everything in the foreground is in focus (except for one hand, which seems insignificant, whether in view or if removed -- it might represent the one and only attempt to remove foreground objects).

The second, and far more serious allegation, is that the elements of the image were moved around as happened with the infamous Reuters photos. If that were true, then there would be a very serious problem for the CPC web people. Based on this bit of amateur photographic analysis, I think we can stop worrying about that.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 29, 2006 06:49 AM

---

CMT - I have been looking at this photo on various websites since yesterday and for the life of me I cannot see where beer bottles were moved. They all look like they are in the same place. The photo was cropped in closer which - to my eye- makes them look bigger - and the background blurred.

If these liberals who have somehow taken this to the level of the faked Rueters photos want to still be trying to make something out of this, then Steve had every right to grudgingly provide more proof of the opposite.

and CMT - are you really a conservative supporter or a poser for the purposes of legitimatacy on this blog? Me thinks poser?

Posted by: Alberta Girl at August 29, 2006 07:32 AM

---

I don't see anything wrong with blurring the backround of the image, but by airbrushing out the hand (in the foreground) on the far right, they've implied that's another one of Kennedy's beers. There's absolutely no other reason to remove the hand and leave the beer in the photo.

I also thought that it was illegal to use previously published photos without permission and that they could not be modified in ANY way except for cropping.

Posted by: Grook at August 29, 2006 08:20 AM

---

What's the beef? Cropped, schmopped. If G. Kennedy drinks a beer or two, so what? Isn't that the sign of a TRUE Canadian? So what are the Liberals talking about? I thought THEY claimed TRUE Canadian values. Get over it. It's a figment - or should that be pigment - of your imagination.

Posted by: Gabby in QC at August 29, 2006 08:47 AM

---

I'm not convince. Even in the face of overwhelming (and animated! I'd thought you'd simply superimposed static images) evidence to the contrary, I still refuse to admit I was wrong. Also, it's clear the wrinkles on Mr. Kennedy's suit were digitally enhanced to create the impression that he's unkempt, or at least sartorially challenged. Get thee to Savile Row, man!

No, no, I merely jest. I was clearly in the wrong for suggesting the bottle was moved. I apologize to Steve, the CPC, the blogosphere, and all other offended parties for making such an inane, baseless accusation. No evidence at all to warrant such a thing. To not offer a retraction when I've spoken in error would be small of me. Hypocritical, even.

Steve, I trust you recognize the irony of writing "Die, you stupid story, die!" even as you're the one who brought this moronic Liberal blog story to the Conservative crowd, thereby giving it far more play than it deserved or sought?

Posted by: A at August 29, 2006 10:27 AM

---

Irony? Hell, like all mad geniuses, I am at risk of being destroyed by the very monster I created!

OK, jesting aside, there is a lot of sensitivity to the question of photographic integrity in the digital age. Cokie Roberts delivering a report from in front of the White House, but not really (she was in front of a blue screen). The magically appearing veil on that non-Muslim women. Reutergate.

So when someone says, or almost says, that the CPC tried to fake up a photo to make Gerard Kennedy look like problem drinker, it matters. If it's true that the photo was manipulated, then what other photos have been doctored? If it's not true, then how quickly can we kill the story? It matters, because in this day and age, it could be true, and for some people, that's enough to believe just about any allegation.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 29, 2006 11:01 AM

---

The photo editing was unneccesary, and unethical. We see enough manipulation of photos by left leaning organizations, we don't need it from the CPC.

Posted by: Adune at August 29, 2006 11:50 AM

---

I don't think the question should be whether or not it is acceptable for images on that site to be digitally altered. Being as it is not a news site I would assume most photo's are altered to one degree or another to either help send a message or to make the photo better suited to the format and small size the Conservatives use. For example, on the current version of the site there are 3 photos for thiner "top stories" and it would seem all of them are altered in one way or another.

The question should be whether the Conservatives engaged in a form of gutter politics and tried to use this photo to smear the image of Kennedy. Like others, I actually found the image to be a fairly complementary and I honestly have a hard time thinking that anyone would look at that pic and think 'wow, he must be a lush'.

Posted by: Denis at August 29, 2006 12:32 PM

---

It's the hand that's moved, not the beer bottle.

If you look at the effect you can see that our faithful editor removed the hand reaching for the beer bottle and edited in the portion of the chair that was previously covered by that hand. In the image on this page you can see the hand creeping back slowly. There is no need for that. While the beer bottle hasn't moved the two pictures do not fit in the portion as the hand has moved..

Posted by: pete at August 29, 2006 01:28 PM

---

It's not the beer bottles that are the issue with me - it's the mullet. Can you trust a guy with hockey hair to be PM?

Posted by: Eric at August 29, 2006 03:55 PM

---

Steve, say it ain't so. Your telling me the political scandal of the year is not a scandal........Damn this tinfoil itches......

I found the whole thing pretty funny actually....

Posted by: DazzlinDino at August 29, 2006 04:52 PM

---

Aren't a lot of these baying hounds the same crowd that was under the misguided impression tht the Prime Minister Stephen Harper indulged in "high class expensive coffee?" a.k.a. "Van Houtte."

maybe what we've got us here, is a real bona fide and certifiable honest to gosh Grit-Gripe. Kennedy WAS REALLY drinking bottles of Mouton Cadet Rothchild.

Bongo Urtz, BA, MSc,PhD (Metal State U) the Conservative photo-retoucher/sommelier, thinking that many Canadians might think that the plot was supposed be one exposing Kennedy sucking back some moderately priced ZZZZzing!, and end up with Kennedy being percieved as a cheap, low-life wino, decided to give Kennedy the "common touch," beer.

All that's missing to make Kennedy really fit into the Liberal Party of Tarawnna Everyman mould (yes, mould!), is to have him wearing a true loser's outfit, a Trawnna Make Belief Home Joisey, with Toe Dominoe's name on the back. Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket.

Posted by: TangoJuliette at August 29, 2006 06:07 PM

---

All your beer bottles are belong to me!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Posted by: Skul at August 30, 2006 07:09 PM

---

As was noted previously: It's flyshit in the pepper but it's flyshit that we shouldn't have to deal with... What makes it worse is those who don't accept that it was an error, acknowledge it as such and then move on.

I'll bet five bucks that Zerb, Kinsella, Jason C. or Robert M. bring it up during the next election...

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 30, 2006 11:04 PM

---