Whatever it takes

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:04 am

Title says it all. At least we know where GWB Stands.

Bush Camp Pulls Altered TV Ad
From today's LA Times

Bush Camp Pulls Altered TV Ad By Nick Anderson, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Bush campaign yanked one of its closing television advertisements Thursday after critics noticed that it contained a doctored photograph, with images of the same uniformed soldiers sprinkled repeatedly into a crowd to enhance the backdrop of a presidential speech.

A Bush campaign spokesman acknowledged the editing of an image in the 60-second Bush ad titled "Whatever It Takes."

The ad, launched Wednesday on national cable channels and posted on the Bush campaign website, shows an excerpt of President Bush's speech at the Republican National Convention.

In it, Bush expresses admiration for sacrifices made by military personnel and their families and promises to protect the nation.

In the 45th second, the ad shifts to an image of a sea of camouflage-clad military personnel who are apparently listening to the president speak at another rally.

As the image comes into focus over the course of about four seconds, a handful of faces of troops can be seen replicated in the crowd.

The visual duplication was pointed out by the left-leaning Web log http://www.dailykos.com .

The crowd shot, aides said, was taken from a rally at Ft. Drum, N.Y., home of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the president and his lectern obstructed part of the crowd in the lower left corner of the original photograph. So the ad makers erased Bush and filled in the empty space with replicated images of soldiers.

"What the photo shows is the president speaking to U.S. military forces — American soldiers," Schmidt said. "The soldiers are all real."

He said the ad would be pulled and a retooled version distributed this week. The ad was one of Bush's final TV appeals to voters before Tuesday's election.

Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign ridiculed the doctored photo.

"Now we know why this ad is named 'Whatever it Takes,' " said Kerry campaign advisor Joe Lockhart. "This administration has always had a problem telling the truth, from Iraq to jobs to healthcare…. If they won't tell the truth in an ad, they won't tell the truth about anything else."

*

Times staff writer Edwin Chen contributed to this report.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:17 am

Shrug. I don't see anything wrong with that. Photos are doctored all the time to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Removing mike stands, wires, etc. is common practice.

Manufacturing people to beef up crowd numbers - deception.

Manufacturing people to replace crowd members blocked from sight - advertising.

CeeKay · Post by **CeeKay** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:20 am

The crowd shot, aides said, was taken from a rally at Ft. Drum, N.Y., home of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the president and his lectern obstructed part of the crowd in the lower left corner of the original photograph. So the ad makers erased Bush and filled in the empty space with replicated images of soldiers.

"What the photo shows is the president speaking to U.S. military forces — American soldiers," Schmidt said. "The soldiers are all real."

Yep, they're real. Those soldiers copied over and over really exist, they're part of the sextuplet brigade

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:32 am

YellowKing wrote:Shrug. I don't see anything wrong with that. Photos are doctored all the time to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Removing mike stands, wires, etc. is common practice.

:Boggle:

I guess call me niave, but I still expect some truth in advertising, not just blatant manipulation.

I guess they must have confused GWB with a piece of stage equipment then.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:21 pm

YellowKing wrote:Shrug. I don't see anything wrong with that. Photos are doctored all the time to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Removing mike stands, wires, etc. is common practice.

Manufacturing people to beef up crowd numbers - deception.

Manufacturing people to replace crowd members blocked from sight - advertising.

If the government does this, isn't it propaganda?

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:35 pm

YellowKing wrote:Shrug. I don't see anything wrong with that. Photos are doctored all the time to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Removing mike stands, wires, etc. is common practice.

Manufacturing people to beef up crowd numbers - deception.

Manufacturing people to replace crowd members blocked from sight - advertising.

I agree. This isn't a big whoop.

However, I'm a little puzzled that they didn't have a good shot of the crowds... that just seems to be a curiously shortsighted move by a tightly run campaign.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:45 pm

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:50 pm

This is a travesty, but not because it's some sort of deception.

Whoever the ad agency is that produced that ad, and the Bush PR folks, are inexcusably weak. If we can't count on proper doctoring of photographs from the president's own people, how can we expect his administration to properly negotiate the tangled web of international politics? Deception, intrigue, backstabbing...if you don't got it, you don't got it. He can only save face by sacking the whole lot of them.

I bet the experts at Something Awful could have done a convincing job. Hell, if the money is right, I'll Photoshop his ads.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:56 pm

Of course I'm skeptical of all ads political or not, but it still amazes me (like Superhiro says) that after 4 years of public events and over a year of combat that they couldn't come up with a good soldier crowd shot.

I guess it suggests on a deeper note a sloppiness and rushed procedure that seems a little inherent in the current administration.

From wanting to run a tight ship with no leaks (this place leaks more than recent admins) to a rush to war without adequate prep. Just seems to me to capture everything in one short pic.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 pm

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:13 pm

I still think the black berets should be Army Rangers only.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:28 pm

Truth in advertising?

Do you think a McDonald's hamburger really looks like that 6-inch high perfectly sculptured sandwich you see on TV?

Do you think that supermodel advertising the bathing suit sports not a single blemish on her perfect skin, and jumps out of bed looking like an angel each morning without putting on a dab of makeup?

Maybe it's because I do photo editing and restoration work on the side, but to me removing an obstacle in a photo or switching a head around to be more aesthetically pleasing is no different than touching up a model's skin, removing a scratch, or doing a color correction.

With the advent of digital photography and computer photo manipulation, there is no more truth in photos.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:32 pm

SuperHiro wrote:I still think the black berets should be Army Rangers only.

Yeah, I think so too. I suppose it's nice to be an Army of One but still.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:29 pm

So YK why do you buy all the other Propaganda you are fed in ads and press releases?

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:29 pm

YellowKing wrote:Truth in advertising?

Do you think a McDonald's hamburger really looks like that 6-inch high perfectly sculptured sandwich you see on TV?

Do you think that supermodel advertising the bathing suit sports not a single blemish on her perfect skin, and jumps out of bed looking like an angel each morning without putting on a dab of makeup?

Maybe it's because I do photo editing and restoration work on the side, but to me removing an obstacle in a photo or switching a head around to be more aesthetically pleasing is no different than touching up a model's skin, removing a scratch, or doing a color correction.

With the advent of digital photography and computer photo manipulation, there is no more truth in photos.

I'm sorry when did McDonalds hamburgers and doctored Presidential commercials get mixed up? Totally different things, pardon me for thinking that commercials such as these shouldn't be doctored. A burgers, a burger. I expect candidates to rise above petty doctoring of footage to make their case seem better. But then I still hold onto the thought that ethics should have a say in elections.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:38 pm

CSL wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Truth in advertising?

Do you think a McDonald's hamburger really looks like that 6-inch high perfectly sculptured sandwich you see on TV?

Do you think that supermodel advertising the bathing suit sports not a single blemish on her perfect skin, and jumps out of bed looking like an angel each morning without putting on a dab of makeup?

Maybe it's because I do photo editing and restoration work on the side, but to me removing an obstacle in a photo or switching a head around to be more aesthetically pleasing is no different than touching up a model's skin, removing a scratch, or doing a color correction.

With the advent of digital photography and computer photo manipulation, there is no more truth in photos.
I'm sorry when did McDonalds hamburgers and doctored Presidential commercials get mixed up? Totally different things, pardon me for thinking that commercials such as these shouldn't be doctored. A burgers, a burger. I expect candidates to rise above petty doctoring of footage to make their case seem better. But then I still hold onto the thought that ethics should have a say in elections.

Petty doctoring of footage, heck they go way beyond that. Have we forgotten the Clinton Hotel Whitehouse? That's just the first one that comes to mind.