I really need to stay away from the news for a while. I went to Google thinking I could find a reference to Fox news, cause I wanted to see if they had anything to say about the Limbaugh romance with the chick from CNN, but got sidetracked. Found this story about Newsweek and Martha Stewart. Now, I don't give a rat's ass about Stewart, but I caught it long enough to get an idea about the story. It seems Newsweek has seen fit to put Martha on the cover, and do a story about her getting out of prison soon. Cool, ok, it could be news to someone. They however put her on the cover, and pasted her head on the picture of a model's body. They explain inside the magazine with this... "Cover: Photo illustration by Michael Elins ... head shot by Marc Bryan-Brown."

At first I thought, not a big deal. I mean, it's deceiving, but who really gives a fuck, it's just a picture. Then I thought about it some more. Yep, that's dangerous, and my wife was sitting here and had to listen to me go on about it. Even the fact that it is clearly a false picture still doesn't make it appear too harmful. My wife didn't see anything wrong with it. Aside from all that, Newsweek even attempting to justify something like this seems dangerous to me after thinking about it, and here's why.

Who decides when something that can be misleading is justified? This is after all, supposed to be a 'news' magazine. Being called 'Newsweek', you don't generally expect something from the pages of People, and people in general are going to expect to read 'news' when they delve between the pages. News organizations will be the first to admit there is some kind of responsibility when it comes to informing the public, so where do you draw the line between becoming a source of 'information', and becoming an 'influence'. Whether the person that allowed this picture likes it or not, this picture is influential, and doesn't belong on the cover of a magazine titled 'Newsweek'. I don't care how much they 'inform' their readers as to how much of the cover is 'illustration', anyone in their right mind will know the photo will influence people's judgment of Martha in some way shape or form. That's the way people are, they allow themselves to be influenced by such things, and knowing that should indicate to anyone, especially someone working for a 'news' organization that the 'picture' shouldn't be run as such. They explain it on the inside, as I stated above, but who the hell reads that shit?! There is way too much information to be absorbed for anyone with any sense at all to bother with reading shit like that.

That being said, why does it matter, the fact that the picture will influence somebody's judgment of Martha. Who cares what people think about after seeing this picture? I'll tell you how it matters. Let's look at why they wouldn't run an 'illustration' of her being old and scraggly. That is a no brainer, people would get the wrong impression from the 'image', and Martha wouldn't have any of that. It matters because she has not kept it a secret that she's coming out of prison feisty and ready to boost the dividends for the Martha Stewart Inc shareholders. It's all about money, and how much of it she can bilk the public out of when she is free to do so. The 'old and scraggly' image wouldn't help matters in that respect, of course not. So what is Newsweek's real purpose.... hell, even unintentional benefit from the 'model's' body they pasted hear head onto. It just makes sense that between the two images or 'illustrations', dividends will be better with the one they have, a 'modular' body, so to speak. Is this wrong? Hell yes it's wrong!! At that point it ceases to be a 'news' illustration and becomes an advertisement. They run advertisements, I'm sure, but it being on the cover and all leads people to believe it's news, and is going to influence the way some judge Martha Stewart, in effect influencing the inclination they will have to fork over money to her.

There's one more thing. The person that decided to use the illustration says this about it...

Assistant managing editor Lynn Staley says the photo won't mislead readers. "Anybody who knows the (Stewart) story and is familiar with Martha's current situation would know this particular picture" was a "photo illustration," she says.

ALL readers are implied there concerning not being mislead, but in the very next statement some are excluded, because she talks about those that follow the Martha 'situation', and how they will know it's just an illustration. I think this is what the English professor was talking about when he went over logical fallacies. How does the assertion that some will know what's going on prove that ALL readers won't be misled. It just doesn't make sense....