Revisionist Photos.

Perhaps you might like to see an extensive analysis of recent photo-jounalism and manipulation:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005687.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005700.htm

it all started when "neutral" Reuters realized that one of their own contractors was a little bit biased enough to doctor his own photos...
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005670.htm

Hopefully, you'll be a little bit more skeptical every time you read or see a Reuters report, or even a BBC report for that matter.
Do you like your news objective, or do you like it to pretend to be objective?
Also - more to the point - do you like the reporter to wish you dead or alive? Check back to the original photo of this post before you decide...

Becki, do yourself a favor and be a little bit more discriminating in the news sources you read, too. Michelle Malkin is a journalist in the same way that Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are journalists. I agree that the Reuters story is worthy of mention, but getting it from a Malkin link makes it unnecessarily partisan in a way.

But I'm not picking on you- just Malkin. Sincere good wishes,

Tom

The link provided showed a lot of glitzy pictures of eagles being removed from book covers, and text disappearing from pages. These images begin to create doubt as to who is actually doing the photoshopping.

How do we know which photo is the original, and if the one with the sign isn't the photoshopped one, created for the purpose of condemning revisionists?

Why would revisionists not simply alter the words of the sign, or place an entirely different sign there, say, directions to the local beerhall? Or just crop the damn thing? Because that isn't as dramatic...?

I don't doubt that signs such as that shown in the photo existed. I don't doubt that revisionists exist. However, I question the validity of this source.