Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military The Media

AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo 622

Posted by kdawson
from the one-big-no-no dept.
djupedal notes a story up at the BBC about the Associated Press's suspension of the use of Department of Defense photos after a photo of General Ann Dunwoody was found to have been altered (before and after comparison). "The Pentagon has become embroiled in a row after the US Army released a photo of a general to the media which was found to have been digitally altered. Ann Dunwoody was shown in front of the US flag but it later emerged that this background had been added. The Associated Press news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defense photos. 'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,' said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo

Comments Filter:
  • by hagardtroll (562208) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:17AM (#25844323) Journal
    The alterations of of images transposed from within the confines of allocated semiconductor memory is a travesty of trustworthiness that makes on think of the simpler days of the chemical process for capturing images and storage on layered flexible devices. Those recollections also recoup melancholy days of sipping the Tranya amidst the family on late autumn holidays. One weeps for what this has become.
  • by Chaos Incarnate (772793) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:18AM (#25844331) Homepage
    That's not only altered, but altered badly. You'd think the US armed forces could afford to hire a decent graphic designer!
    • Actually, I was thinking exactly the opposite. If that original really was that blurry and grainy, and the Photoshop artist made it that sharp and natural looking, it was an incredible job. I'm staring at it, and I don't even know why you would think it was bad. The head is too sharp against the flag?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:06AM (#25844819)

        I'm staring at it, and I don't even know why you would think it was bad.

        That's automatic. Post any photo that's known to have been photoshopped and someone will always say how bad it is. It's guaranteed. The effect works even with pictures that have not been altered.

      • by esme (17526) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:14AM (#25844923) Homepage
        The original looks bad because it's a low-res version, and the altered version looks better because it's a hi-res version from AP. The bad photoshopping is how completely synthetic the flag looks. It doesn't even look passably real. A decent photoshop would at least use a real picture of a flag with similar lighting to the original photo, so the contrast between the subject and background is so jarring it's obviously been altered.
  • For $DEITYs sake (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RMH101 (636144) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:26AM (#25844397)
    It's a promo picture: it's practically a logo. Head and shoulders photo alphablended with a neat background. It's not like they were misleading anyone. Do you think the AP logo on their website is a photo? It's a graphical design rather than photo reportage we're talking about here.
    • by dsoltesz (563978) * <deborah.soltesz@gmail.com> on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:01AM (#25844749) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, I have to agree with this... I think AP is being pissy for pissy's sake. It's a simple portait (possibly because there's no professional portrait available?) intended to do nothing but show what she looks like. And frankly, a professional portrait done in a studio would have been touched up too. This photo is not trying to capture an event or otherwise document anything really at all. I can guess what happened because I've done it -- grab a person in the hall, take a photo of them, Photoshop into a pretty head shot for their web page or whatever.
    • by kremvax (307366) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:05AM (#25844815) Homepage

      But it's not being used as a logo. It's being used to identify a person.

      "For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography.

      You know, if the army is "promoting" her, in a literal and figurative sense, would it have been so hard to send someone around with a camera and take a decent picture of her in front of a flag?

      Photoshoppery from my government, even if it's just to make our leadership appear more endearing to the masses, is a bad habit at the very least.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by elrous0 (869638) *

        First of all, there is no such thing as an "accurate" portrait of a person. Factors such as lighting, the background, the time of day, how they have their hair styled at the moment, whether or not they're wearing makeup, their specific physical condition at the moment of the photo, the quality of the camera, etc. all play a major role in how any given photograph of a person looks.

        If the AP really is going to take such a ludicrous "zero tolerance" policy, then they had better just stop accepting outside ph

      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:09AM (#25845667) Journal
        What is the difference between setting up a stage with a flag on it and getting her to sit there for a photograph, and getting her to sit in her office for a photo and adding the flag later? Both are synthetic environments.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          And neither, frankly, should be passed on by any reputable news source, as both constitute blatant patriotic propaganda from a state source.
        • by Rary (566291) on Friday November 21, 2008 @12:08PM (#25847367)

          What is the difference between setting up a stage with a flag on it and getting her to sit there for a photograph, and getting her to sit in her office for a photo and adding the flag later?

          The main difference is the assumption of consent from the subject.

          If the person was photographed in front of the flag, then anyone receiving a copy of the photo can assume that the subject consented to being photographed in front of the flag. If the flag was digitally added after the fact, the recipient of the photo cannot make that assumption.

          In this particular case, it's unlikely that the subject would have objected to being photographed in front of a flag, but that's not really the point. The point is that if this image is allowed, what other retouched images could be allowed? Here's a portrait shot of the general in front of a flag. Here she is holding a copy of the Koran. Here she is shaking Osama Bin Laden's hand. Oh sure, we retouched it a little, but it's okay. We just wanted to show her in a particular setting. There's nothing wrong with that, as it's just a portrait, not a description of events.

          If the subject would not have consented to the photograph being physically staged as such, then it's not necessarily an accurate representation of that person. So, even though this particular case is pretty minor (at least, most of us think it is, but there may be others who disagree), and even though my last example was somewhat exaggerated to make the point, the best way to eliminate this kind of subjective judgement of each photograph is to simply ban any and all modified images.

    • by discontinuity (792010) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:08AM (#25844831)

      This comment is spot-on. If the AP is cracking down on the DoD for this, they also need to crack down on PR firms that issue retouched photos of celebrities.

      I think I would agree with the AP if the background they added made it look like she was in the field or something. That would have been a gross misrepresentation of the facts. This was just a headshot. The only people who should be upset at the retouching are people interested in dating the General.

      And let's not forget the AP probably would have whined (albeit, not publicly) had the DoD issued the original, grainy photo with the cluttered background.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      But how is the average reader supposed to tell the difference? The line between "illustration" (logos, graphics, etc. used to decorate a story) and "photo" (actual journalistic material) is already thin enough, oftentimes separated by (as far as I know) nothing more than a different caption, e.g. "photoillustration" vs "photograph". If you allow photo content to be doctored as well, it would only be a matter of time before readers are misled.

      So a flag background is no big deal, right? That's only because

  • yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jav1231 (539129) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:27AM (#25844409)
    Because if there's going to be any altering of photos for impact, it damn well is going to be done by the media themselves! Wouldn't want to subvert their authority to alter perception now would we?

    Remember Zombietime? [zombietime.com]
  • Making an example (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pzs (857406) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:29AM (#25844417)

    It's good that they're taking a firm stance and everything, but are they absolutely confident that none of their other pictures are photoshopped? Not everybody who doctors image is a clueless muppet [blogspot.com].

  • I hate to say this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xest (935314) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:29AM (#25844427)

    But I think it's AP that are being rather pathetic on this one.

    Such a mountain is being made out of a molehill with this story. Certainly if it was like the most recent Israel/Lebanon war where Reuters and co. had been daft enough to fall for doctored photos of Lebanon to make it look like the damage was worse than it was it'd be one thing but here we're talking about a picture of a member of the US military having her picture changed from standing in front of her office wall, to standing in front of a US flag. That really has absolutely no propaganda value whatsoever, I can't imagine even the most over the top patriotic American shouting "OMG SHES IN FRONT OF A US FLAG FUCK YEAH!" at the excitement of seeing the picture in question.

    I'm not sure if it's AP's fault for it being blown out of proportion or whether they simply followed protocol on a hardline rule of no doctored photos no matter how harmless (although that has implications of it's own, hardly any photo is a raw image now without at least automatic alterations by cameras) or whether the fault lies at the feet of other media organisations.

    When I saw this originally on the BBC the other day I have to admit it's arguably the most pointless slow-news day excuse for a story I'd seen in a while.

    • by Shivetya (243324) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:41AM (#25844543) Homepage Journal

      The AP is making a mountain out of a molehill because they are trying to remove the stain on their industry that they are other so called leaders have put there. As such they need to exaggerate even the silliest of things and scream like a schoolyard brat "see see see"

      I gave up long ago believing anything from Reuters when it came to stories involving Israel and for that matter the entire Middle East. They just lost their right to be trusted.

      • by sycodon (149926) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:07AM (#25844827)

        AP and Reuters have more to worry about than just photos. Their so-called "journalism" is just as fake and altered as they claim these photos to be. The difference is that the pentagon's photo alteration are the equivelent of correcting grammer and using different, but synonmous words.

        In order to rise to the level of fraud AP and Reuters typically exhibit in their journalism, the Pentagon would have had to put a mustache on her and make her a minority of some kind.

      • by nanoakron (234907) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:48AM (#25845381)

        It's also a convenient way of throwing up a smokescreen.

        Making a lot of hoo-ha about an obviously manipulated photo leads you to believe in their integrity. Which then allows them to slip far more subtly doctored and 'serious' photos through the net.

        Now where's my tinfoil hat?

    • by AngryNick (891056) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:25AM (#25845089) Homepage Journal
      This is a mountain in the eye of most journalists. Photojournalism is no different that journalism...you shouldn't be allowed to screw around with the facts, as mal-composed and uninteresting as they may be. I see little ethical difference between the adding a flag to an image and adding an extra missile [npr.org]. Post-processing to improve the clarity and visibility of the subject (exposure adjustments, dodge and burning, sharpening, cropping) is not the same as adding and subtracting visual facts.

      If the DoD wanted to provide a photo of the general in front of a flag, then they should have submitted a photo of her taken in front of a flag. [army.mil]
  • by Zedrick (764028) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:35AM (#25844485)
    Could someone please explain this to me, why does Americans see the need to constantly surround themselves with US flags?

    To most (non-american) people that's just plain bizarre. Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree). Are the majority of the population so bad at geography that they have to see a flag to know what country they're in? Or would people assume that General Ann Dunwoody is Canadian or (gasp!) French if it wasn't for the flag in the background?
    • by Ritchie70 (860516) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:44AM (#25844569) Journal

      I'm an American and don't understand it myself; it seems like it's gotten more pronounced over the last decade or so.

      All I can offer as an explanation is that, as school children, many of us began each day saying the pledge of allegiance, which really seems quite flag-centric.

      "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands...."

      • by caluml (551744) <slashdot&spamgoeshere,calum,org> on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:55AM (#25844677) Homepage

        many of us began each day saying the pledge of allegiance

        Which also I find quite bizarre. Talk about indoctrination from an early age. But I also find the obsession in the US with flags a little disturbing. In the UK, you won't see hardly any flags. Maybe on a few government buildings etc. It's seen as rather tasteless, rather low-brow. Duh, me Tarzan, me light fire, me wave flag.

        • by PinkyDead (862370) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:37AM (#25845247) Journal

          You should take a trip to Northern Ireland.

          Of course, the 'me wave flag' still applies.

        • by bentcd (690786) <bcd@pvv.org> on Friday November 21, 2008 @11:14AM (#25846601) Homepage

          Which also I find quite bizarre. Talk about indoctrination from an early age. But I also find the obsession in the US with flags a little disturbing. (...)

          Traditionally there wasn't really much to hold US citizens together. They came from a hodge-podge of different nations and subscribed to a hodge-podge of different religions that were often at odds with one another. One might have hoped that they would resort to their Constitution in order to create a nucleus to unite around but perhaps that document is just too heavy on points one can disagree with. So they used a symbol that is devoid of any meaning other than the one each individual puts their for himself: their colours.

          The statesmen that once set out to create a national identify for my own country, Norway, learned this from the US and made us the no.2 flag-wavers of the free world. Absent anything else of much use, what united Norway and what set us apart from our Swedish overlords was our colours.

          Most other established nations have hundreds and hundreds of years of culture to use as social binding agent. The US did/does not.

    • by Shivetya (243324) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:55AM (#25844679) Homepage Journal

      Actually its common for business execs to have their logo in their picture so why wouldn't a General or even regular soldier have a flag in theirs? Sorry if it offends but many of us are actually very proud of our country, its heritage, and as such don't see reason to not celebrate it which can mean having the flag visible.

      I guess its different elsewhere but we surrounded ourselves with the symbols of our freedom when we split from England, notice all the flags pictured then and the importance of some in song?

      You did highlight the major difference though, we don't have to do it but we do so out of our own free will. Because of that we may seem excessive but there should never be anything wrong with such pride in one's country.

      It would be more embarrassing to me to live somewhere where I would not feel comfortable showing it

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by thegnu (557446)

      Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree).

      Oh yes it is the same thing. They've equated patriotism with flag-bearing and equated being upatriotic with terrorism. So stupid people smother themselves in flags.

      A quote:
      "I'm the only person in my neighborhood with a McCain sign and an American flag"

      by which this guy meant that Obama supporters are terrorists. See?

    • What the flag means. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:17AM (#25844965)

      To most (non-american) people that's just plain bizarre. Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree).

      You have to understand that the US has a history very different than that of European nations, in that we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom. That fight was symbolized from the very beginning by the flag, whose image was used to unite the disparate colonies behind a single goal of American freedom. That flag was commissioned by George Washington, who realized that a nation and an army needed a common identity if the war for independece was to be won. Realize that, prior to that point, America was just 13 colonies. The flag was used to make them a nation.

      Because of that, the flag itself has become a symbol of freedom and the fight for it. That's why our national anthem is a poem written about the flag (in the War of 1812). That's why most lasting image of WWII (for Americans) is four soldiers lifting the flag at Iwo Jima. I could go on...

      As such, particularly for the military, the flag represents both who you are and what you're fighting for. Because Americans fought for their freedom and to create our very existence as a separate entity from a colonial power, our flag means a whole hell of a lot more to us than it probably does for most countries.

      You always take for granted that for which you didn't have to struggle. Americans have been taught about that struggle and what it means, and many of us refuse to take freedom for granted.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PMuse (320639)

        . . . we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom.

        It would be interesting to compare flag behavior in the States to other nations that have fought revolutions in the last few hundred years, e.g. France, Finland, Russia, China, Cuba, Romania.

        It might help us answer whether that 232-year old revolution is the explanation of the way flags are used in the States today.

    • by HighOrbit (631451) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:23AM (#25845049)
      Flags are important to Americans because they are a common unifying symbol outside of ethnicity. Most modern nation-states are organic ethnically based. In those countries, the nation and the ethnicity are the same (for example Danes and Denmark). Ethnic solidarity defines those nations. A Dane does not have to profess adherance to the King of Denmark or the Danish Idea to be a Dane. He is a Dane because, he is ethnically a Dane. This is not the case in Amercia. America is, by design, a synthetic nation. Our entire national identity is based on adherance to common political ideas and there is no ethnic solidarity. Our national solidarity is based common identification with political ideas and with symbols of those political ideas (the flag, the liberty bell, statue of liberty, etc). Therefore, it is important to have regular socialization with and emphasis on those political symbols and ideas, least baser instincts (like ethnicity) boil up.

      Few other nations (perhaps Canada) can credibly claim this. France similiarly claims to base its nationalaity on political ideas and common citizenship, but ethnicity and 'being French' seems to still be very important to them (although they deny it).
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Minupla (62455)

        Few other nations (perhaps Canada)can credibly claim this

        It's interesting. My wife, (born in the US, lived there till her late 20s when we married, we now have a daughter who is a dual cit) when she was dating me commented on the differences between the US and Canada said that she thought that Canadians were less patriotic then the Americans. I responded that we have a different type of patriotism, more quiet, and we don't feel the need to rub it in other people's faces.

        She now lives here and is consideri

    • by Media Tracker (455903) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:52AM (#25845427) Homepage

      why does Americans see the need to constantly surround themselves with US flags? [...] Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state

      I think that's wrong. In Paris there flag poles on the street that serve no other purpose than to wave the French flag around. In Germany, following the last Euro cup, many people kept the German flags they had been displaying during the competition on their houses and cars (following a very long history of flag-taboo in that country, granted). In some neighbourhoods of my hometown of Montreal, hundreds of people display the Quebec flag on their porch for no other reason that affirm their patriotism.

      I think we all have a natural tendency to notice flags much more when they have a negative connotation to us. Nationalist Quebecers notice Canadian flags everywhere but Quebec flags are invisible to them. Many people outside the US don't associate very positive thoughts to the Star-Spangled Banner, and the slight irritation it causes makes them notice it more.

      And the picture we're discussing here is a military picture. Of course they're going to pose in front of their flag.

      Just my $0.02 of course. Maybe the flag/capita ratio is indeed higher in the States than other countries, but I think that's the sort of domain where we're all heavily biased in what we notice and what we don't, so until I see actual figures I'll keep an eyebrow raised.

  • holy Crazy Eddie! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by viridari (1138635) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:37AM (#25844507)
    That photograph is horrible, both the original and the CGI monstrosity that it spawned. It looks like something you'd see on a Realtor's business card or a Brooklyn electronics shop ad.
  • Not Surprised (Score:5, Informative)

    by doomicon (5310) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:37AM (#25844509) Homepage Journal

    I served in the Army for 7+ years. Three years of which in a PAO (Public Affairs Office), that handles press releases, photo's, etc. Most people have this idea that there is this all encompassing control in the Army, as well as a focused strategy of deception. Believe me.. there isn't, they aren't that smart (like most companies we all work for).

    This picture is photoshopped badly because just like any small shop in the civilian world, some SPC or PFC got a request for a photo of Gen Whats Herface, thought it would be "cool" to use this new app on my computer. He then shows the photo to the Captain(or Major) who is the "Manager" of the office... He's technically a dud (like most Managers) and thinks it's awesome. So they hand it over.

    Point is, don't forgot the U.S. Army isn't unlike most Corporations when it comes to things other than "War (Training, etc."), they have bad manager's, are poorly run, make mistakes... I've personally NEVER seen a case where they were trying to cover something up, or lie, and I was working during the Cuban Camp setups in Central America (sh!t hit the fan with that one). Nobody even thought about lying or being deceptive, there was just this idea that you just don't do it, because we're soldiers, it's a black eye when the truth does come out, and it always does. (Now, when it comes to Operational Information, ie War. that is different. You don't have press releases that will tell the enemy 'Hey we'll be there next Friday, act surprised')

    On the flipside, when deceptive things happen or poor photoshop jobs are released, it's usually poor decisions by LOCAL offices or commands. It's not an all encompassing strategy.

    Just my personal experience :-)

    • Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

      by db32 (862117) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:00AM (#25844735) Journal
      I can't for the life of me figure that anti-military nonsense out. How the hell can people maintain 1. The military is a huge evil system hell bent on massive deception and evil lies while also maintaining 2. The military is a bunch of clueless incompetents that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The only thing I can get out of this is the people trying to maintian this kind of nonsense are actually saying "We are the biggest bunch of braindead morons for being so easily decieved by a bunch of incompentent fools".

      Honestly, from my experience I would almost expect things to have gone the other direction from what you lay out. The Captain/Major says "We need a photo of Gen Whosits, but she is too busy for us. Go dig up a picture of her and make it look like a nice handout picture". Given that you can walk into almost any government building and see pictures of the entire chain of command for that organization all the way up to the President, and almost every one of those photos are identical with the person sitting in front of a flag with perfect lighting etc... My guess it was downward directed because the Gen was too busy to actually stop to have one of these pictures done so they found an existing picture and turned it into one of these.

      For all their college education so many of the stupid ideas come from the officers...poor enlisted folk just get blamed for the execution of such goofball ideas.
  • Sharpening (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fëanáro (130986) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:41AM (#25844537)

    Forget the background, how did they add so much sharpness to the blurry original?

    Is it actually possible to get such a big improvement, or is the left picture just a blurry reproduction of a sharper original?

    If there is a tool that can do that, I'd have some pics myself I would want to touch up.

    • Re:Sharpening (Score:5, Informative)

      by fastest fascist (1086001) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:57AM (#25844697)
      I'm guessing the left picture is not the original, there's severe compression artefacting for one. But the flag is not the only alteration, you'll notice heavy airbrushing over the face as well as general tonal alterations - although done considerably better than the background switch. The shiny highlights from the flash used have been toned down and they've removed a number of lines on her face, especially around the eyes.
      • Re:Sharpening (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jmyers (208878) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:59AM (#25845527)

        If makes me wonder where the original came from. It is obviously not the original unless it was taken with a cell phone. If the AP wants people to take them seriously they need to pick better battles. Dissing a promo shot and making it "news" is pretty lame.

  • by Ritchie70 (860516) on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:53AM (#25844655) Journal

    If the AP really has a policy regarding altered images then they did the right thing.

    But the reality of this situation is probably that someone needed a press-suitable head shot of the General, snapped a quick pic in her office and edited in a background. They also appear to have smoothed out her face, but that is part of a professional portrait photo these days.

    The exact same image would likely have been fine if it had been done at the local Wal*mart portrait place in front of a flag backdrop and the guy there had blurred the focus a little to have a similar effect on her face.

    There are photos that are fact reporting, and there are photos that are PR head shots. This is a PR head shot, and nobody should think that it in any way reflects reality.

    My boss, a low-level director at my company, had a head shot done recently for PR reasons. I barely recognize him in it.

    I feel sorry for General Dunwoody in this; she was just made the first US female 4-star general three days ago, and now she has to put up with this stupidity.

  • by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:16AM (#25844953) Journal
    Remember Sgt. "GI Joe" Thomas [blogspot.com], or remember Arafat giving blood after 9/11 [newsbusters.org], or fake tornadoes [wjnoblog.com], and on and on...

    .
    Yet changing a stock head shot background from an office to a flag, and touching up skin is a hideous travesty of judgment. Glad to know the AP has standards!

  • AP Get a Clue! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thejuggler (610249) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:08AM (#25845663) Homepage Journal
    My wife is a photographer and according to her with today's digital photography it is common to use a green screen background for portrait shots and the digitally add in the desired background. If the AP really objects to this they are NUTS!

    This photo of the General looks like it was a quick snap from a cell phone then altered to make it presentable as a public relations head shot. The AP is so far out of line on this they border on being absurd.

    To me it looks like the kooks at the AP were searching hard for a reason to deny the DoD access to the media. They have more than once rejected the DoD versions of a story claiming "bias" when they openly welcome stories from those with a real bias (aka terrorists) against the DoD or U.S. Government.

    For me the AP had lost all credibility ages ago.
  • In Response (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zordak (123132) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:10AM (#25845689) Homepage Journal
    In response, the military has issued a new, official photo of Gen. Dunwoody. But again, it looks like they may have photoshopped it. If you look closely, you'll notice some differences between the before [mothertalkers.com] and after [google.com] pictures.

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin

Working...