At this point, I'm about to give up and reactivate my Facebook account. I just don't think Google is agile enough to run an evolving social networking site.
Good Photoshopping is worth at least as much as good photography. Look at any high quality professional photography these days, and a large portion of the quality and look comes from post-processing. The only people who would disagree with that are either delusional about the current state of photography, or desperately clinging to the last vestiges of the analog age. Obviously journalistic photos aren't edited to the degree in the article, but most things not explicitly documentarian in nature are.
It's also true that a lot of analog-age artists have trouble making the switch to Photoshop. It's a completely different skillset that allows people without traditional artistic ability to make art, and challenges traditional artists who have to develop entirely new technical skills. Makes me wonder how many other photographers out there are doing this, but are competent enough at Photoshop to get away with it. I certainly know how to clone things out without leaving telltale clone marks or other amateur mistakes. And I'm not even that good with Photoshop.
I think photographers keep getting away with this because people are gullible, and tend to believe what they see without listening to the quiet, nagging voice in the back of their mind telling them that something looks wrong. I'm a little surprised they caught him by spotting that the Lynx had the wrong season coat. When I looked at the pictures it was glaringly obvious that they were poorly-edited fakes, regardless of their content.
“The startling results of this study suggest that when left unchecked texting and other widely popular methods of staying connected can have dangerous health effects on teenagers,” said Frank. “This should be a wake-up call for parents to not only help their children stay safe by not texting and driving, but by discouraging excessive use of the cell phone or social websites in general.”
That sounds like "if your kids text, they'll start doing drugs!" to me. Which is sad, because usually the original study is well-intentioned, but is misquoted and turned into fearmongering bullshit by the media. In this case, it looks like the author intended for that from the beginning.
Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?