<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Katie Couric Before/After</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photoshopnews.com/2006/08/29/katie-couric-beforeafter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photoshopnews.com/2006/08/29/katie-couric-beforeafter/</link>
	<description>The latest news about the top pixel wrangling application on the planet.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Charles</title>
		<link>http://photoshopnews.com/2006/08/29/katie-couric-beforeafter/#comment-8895</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photoshopnews.com/2006/08/29/katie-couric-beforeafter/#comment-8895</guid>
		<description>Boy I couldn't disagree more.  This photograph represents the new, CBS provided "Gold Standard" in TV journalism.  I realize that might not be a new Edward R. Murrow, but they should know that discovery of a doctored photo erodes any positive perception of how they handle the reporting of news at CBS.  Perhaps they effectively Photoshop there reports in a similar manner by purposefully casting a more attractive light on a less attractive story (which I am sure is the case anyway).  At any rate, CBS (Corporate or otherwise), should not be offering up altered realities.

In another light, I wonder how Katie feels about this.  Basically they called her a fatty, visually.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Boy I couldn&#8217;t disagree more.  This photograph represents the new, CBS provided &#8220;Gold Standard&#8221; in TV journalism.  I realize that might not be a new Edward R. Murrow, but they should know that discovery of a doctored photo erodes any positive perception of how they handle the reporting of news at CBS.  Perhaps they effectively Photoshop there reports in a similar manner by purposefully casting a more attractive light on a less attractive story (which I am sure is the case anyway).  At any rate, CBS (Corporate or otherwise), should not be offering up altered realities.</p>
<p>In another light, I wonder how Katie feels about this.  Basically they called her a fatty, visually.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dc photographer</title>
		<link>http://photoshopnews.com/2006/08/29/katie-couric-beforeafter/#comment-8894</link>
		<dc:creator>dc photographer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photoshopnews.com/2006/08/29/katie-couric-beforeafter/#comment-8894</guid>
		<description>While I don't see any problems with CBS corporate releasing a retouched photo, since it's not journalism. In fact, CBS may have re-released a second retouched one, and their sister publication either didn't know to find the earlier one, or never got it, and went with this one.

IF it were a newspaper or wire service who did the manipulation, then I'd have a big problem with it!

John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I don&#8217;t see any problems with CBS corporate releasing a retouched photo, since it&#8217;s not journalism. In fact, CBS may have re-released a second retouched one, and their sister publication either didn&#8217;t know to find the earlier one, or never got it, and went with this one.</p>
<p>IF it were a newspaper or wire service who did the manipulation, then I&#8217;d have a big problem with it!</p>
<p>John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
