General Discussion

peacetalksforall

(20,291 posts)

63. They took a photo of an American girl and made her look Arabic,

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:21 PM

Dec 2011

terrorist, non-terrorist, or representative of a Muslim girl who is required to wear face and hair covering.

Time is part of The New World Order group. They are part of the corporate media facilitators of the New World Order. They are not about honoring protesters, imo..

The photo shop artist said that he wanted a propaganda look.

They couldn't be plain American for an American magazine. They couldn't be straight. The couldn't just show the girl as is because they would have to pay her, name/provide cover credit to her? I am very negative about the role they play today.

My disrespect is for the magazine and all that it has come to stand for in spreading the corporate military complex culture. I have nothing against Muslims, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Malaysian, Moroccan or any other kind of Muslim people.

Why not try to get into the spread of choice when someone protests a magazine and a shill photo artist who sought a propaganda look?

The photo shop artist could split his income from Time with the American girl and some Muslim Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian, Yemen, Libyan, Bahreini girl to appease the duplicity an misrepresentation of both. Or Time could do it.

I'll remember the photo shop artist named Farley and avoid him.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

COVER OF TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" vs. Original Photograph. Note the Glaring Difference? [View all] kpete Dec 2011 OP

They also darkened the eyes and the area around the eyes to make her look different LiberalEsto Dec 2011 #1

Who is "They"?...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #18

The editors at Time. Zoeisright Dec 2011 #24

They darkened all the shadows and folds, like under her chin area where the bandana is... snooper2 Dec 2011 #65

We are lied to every day in every possible way. Our impressions are shaped ThomWV Dec 2011 #2

Well stated. Octafish Dec 2011 #62

If you look at the cover, you'll note that they're talking about MineralMan Dec 2011 #3

My thoughts exactly Amaril Dec 2011 #5

Of course you wouldn't. GeorgeGist Dec 2011 #6

Some would call it art ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2011 #16

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. MineralMan Dec 2011 #19

Depends on if you own rights to the photo hootinholler Dec 2011 #48

I love the cover. I think it's beautiful. CrispyQ Dec 2011 #10

The internationalized the image treestar Dec 2011 #11

By using only one person and changing that person from American to Muslim (illustion) they are peacetalksforall Dec 2011 #20

I didn't see the image as representing a Muslim MineralMan Dec 2011 #21

They took a photo of an American girl and made her look Arabic, peacetalksforall Dec 2011 #63

No. They posterized a photo of a woman. MineralMan Dec 2011 #64

No. They changed her outfit -hiding her exposed skin, darkened her coloring, made her look angrier bettyellen Dec 2011 #66

"From American to Muslim"? aquart Dec 2011 #37

to be honest, I noticed they covered up her skin and felt it was for just that reason bettyellen Dec 2011 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Dec 2011 #43

The original mask looks like muslin to me hootinholler Dec 2011 #49

:) pinboy3niner Dec 2011 #51

Label me a purist hootinholler Dec 2011 #55

So wearing a beanie makes me a Muslim? cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #50

they kept the beanie, but covered up her skin. and made her darker and angrier looking bettyellen Dec 2011 #61

I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about in reference to her brow. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #67

you don't see- the angle and length of the brows are more extreme. which gives a more sinister look bettyellen Dec 2011 #71

I agree on all counts and I would wager that for every person reading the article, a hundred or Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #73

and editors are very aware of this, yep. and most of us here wouldn't be swayed but conservative bettyellen Dec 2011 #77

Trying to keep OWS out of it and really making the person more "Terrorist-like". Thank you for Justice wanted Dec 2011 #4

Whatever the intention was, the result is as you stated - to make the LibDemAlways Dec 2011 #8

+1 Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #28

it mentions OWS right on the cover.... spanone Dec 2011 #9

yes in very small letters where as the picture of the girl the drawing came from had 99% on her Justice wanted Dec 2011 #25

+1 Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #29

I agree. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #45

Why don't you ask Shepard Fairey about the cover?... SidDithers Dec 2011 #7

Warhol is exactly who I thought of ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2011 #17

I wonder if Fairey really meant LiberalEsto Dec 2011 #26

"...who would come across as serious, but not scary." Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #30

I agree it's scarier than the original and all highlighted on a blood red background. Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #32

It's art... SidDithers Dec 2011 #40

The demeanor comes across as more sinister and threatening. Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #42

no, it's graphic art done to spec. the editors would decide if the 99% remains bettyellen Dec 2011 #58

Prove it... SidDithers Dec 2011 #59

In publishing the artists do not ever get the last say. Not my fault if you assumed otherwise bettyellen Dec 2011 #60

Fer chrissakes, it's TIME! May as well criticize Juggs for showing naked breasts. saras Dec 2011 #12

.... DeSwiss Dec 2011 #13

Seriously. Not a good mag by a moonshot. NuttyFluffers Dec 2011 #56

Seriously? This is bullshit criticism. Schema Thing Dec 2011 #14

They are playing on the fear of terrorism. Corporate media, especially Lint Head Dec 2011 #15

Kind of takes most of the meat out of the stew. Zorra Dec 2011 #22

They darkened her eyes to make her look like one of them kestrel91316 Dec 2011 #23

Yet another reason I Carolina Dec 2011 #27

Kick for the exposure of photographic manipulation by a major news corporation &R (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #31

Shepard Fairey hates OWS!!!... SidDithers Dec 2011 #33

Oh ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #34

No, he doesn't. You don't remember the redo of his famous Obama HOPE poster? SidDithers Dec 2011 #39

No, Time Magazine hates the OWS movement, Shepard Fairey was just hired by them to do the cover. Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #35

it mentions OWS right on the cover of the mag. spanone Dec 2011 #36

On a scarier depiction than the original pic as Adsos Letter observed Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #38

Shepard Fairey, the artist, is a huge supporter of OWS... SidDithers Dec 2011 #41

I'm not disputing that, it's not a question of the artist's support, it's a question of Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #47

Probably because they want to signify global protesters AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #44

Good god. Much ado about nothing. progressoid Dec 2011 #46

Time = We alter the news to fit our narrative slay Dec 2011 #52

Yes I do.... I prefer the original to the modified striped away 99%... midnight Dec 2011 #53

What I take away from this post is someone's angry because they don't think OWS big enough "props". cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #54

um no... it was deliberately left out not to give the attention to OWS fascisthunter Dec 2011 #69

Of course it was left out. Time and Newsweek Rex Dec 2011 #76

That was No Accident fascisthunter Dec 2011 #68

I posterized a pic of my (86yo) Mom. blaze Dec 2011 #70

Nice drawing. Very appropriate. Could be American, Greek, Spanish, Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan, etc. Prometheus Bound Dec 2011 #72

Well OF COURSE they had to take the 99% off! Rex Dec 2011 #74

Not to mention the exposed skin around the neck as was observed upthread. n/t Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #75

It is not about OWS specifically and there is anger Spike89 Dec 2011 #78

They took an image specifically from OWS and manipulated it with an obvious sinister bent from the Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #79