Why is it that a liberal blogger and a liberal newspaper both published altered photos of prominent black Republicans designed to play upon the lowest of racist stereotypes? Could it be a bit of racist intolerance for those who dared to stray off the plantation?

I found out about the first while making my daily pass through GOPBloggers.

Liberal Racists...

If you haven't seen it already, click here to see what kind of disgusting tactics liberal will go to when they are running scared...

The link will take you to a post full of racial slurs directed at Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland -- and a photo doctored by the racist who owns the site, Steve Gilliard, to make Lt. Gov. Steele appear to be a character from a minstrel show or an episode of Amos 'n' Andy. Gilliard offers the old "I'm black -- you can't criticize me for my racism" defense. Sorry, Steve, but I will follow the teachings of Dr. King and judge you not by the color of your skin but by the content of your character. -- and I find that character to be lacking indeed. That you find it necessary to engage in race-based insults against a man for daring to disagree with your ideology shows just how low you will go to fellate the folks who run the Slavocrat Party that has kept you and your people down for a couple of centuries.

Captain Ed also offers analysis.

And then there is the USA Today incident. Michelle Malkin goes into great detail in a couple of posts, as does Lone Star Times. Suffice it to say that the altered photo gave Dr. Rice glowing eyes that could be described as those of a wild animal or a demon. Malkin posts these analyses of the doctored photo.

The doctored photo of Condi Rice has been removed from USA Today's website with this editor's note:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

More photog feedback from Brad:

I am a professional photographer and have used Photoshop on a daily basis for many years. This malicious retouch of Condi's image is not only intentional, but must have cleared the photo director as well. In other words as a collaborative effort or a wink and a nod.

I don't believe the eye treatment could be the result of over-sharpening alone, but probably involved some heavy handed levels or curve adjustment as well, and the eyes had been isolated from the rest of the image by selection or masking.

And Jason R...

USA Today's explanation is bull. I've been working with Photoshop professionally for years and I don't buy it. If I was editing the image and simply sharpened and lightened her face a bit as they explain, I would hit Command-Z just as fast as I could if my result looked anything like theirs. Trust me, it's both amateurish and deliberate.

And reader KC...

Very interesting explanation from USA Today - what's also semi-comical is that they're in a tight spot as I would most of us would think brightening and sharpening a picture of Condi's ethnic background could also be construed as being racist.

Frankly, the newspaper's explanation just does not make any sense. It would take specific intent to make the eyes appear that way -- and if, by some outlandish chance, the result was unintentional, the decision to run the doctored photo was not. After all, it isn't like the effect is subtle or only in the eye of the beholder. Editor and Publisher has an interesting article that hews to the USA Today party line.

Interestingly enough, the professional Negros are silent. I've not been able to locate a word of outrage from Jesse, Al, or Louis, nor from any of the other swarm of folks who appear any time they can imagine a racial slight or slur. I wonder what the possible reason could be.