In Depth: Jeff Zucker: Photoshopped or not?

Johnny Dollar tries to debunk Think Progress’ FNC Photoshop theory regarding Jeff Zucker and The Factor. Dollar makes a convincing case if you look at it at face value. However ICN never takes ANYTHING at face value and I busted out Photoshop. The results are interesting…but more importantly conclusive…Zucker was Photoshopped and Dollar owes Think Progress an apology…

Exhibit A:

(click for full size image)

This is a partial screengrab from Dollar’s page. I manage to line up the frame in the YouTube video Dollar posted with the Think Progress frame grab within +/- 1 frame (you can tell by compariong the two crawls on the bottom starting from the left side).

First of all the two images don’t match. You’ll notice that the black space inbetween the end of the video image and the end of the frame is bigger on the Think Progress grab than in the YouTube video. This is indicative of two different feeds from two different providers. For example the DirecTV feed for MSNBC is less compressed horizontally than the same exact broadcast as viewed on an Echostar Dish Network feed of the same channel. I’ve seen that first hand so I know that not all images that come across the TV screen are uniform between carriers. But all that proves is that Dollar’s feed isn’t an exact match for the Think Progress feed. It doesn’t prove Photoshop manipulation. But this does…

Exhibit B:

(click for full size image)

This gets a bit tricky. I took the stock NBC photo Dollar posted of Zucker and enlarged it a bit and then overlayed it on top of Dollar’s version of the alleged Photoshop job with an opacity setting of 46% so that the two bleed together. I also posted the same exact enlarged image to the right of that. If there was no Photoshopping the overlayed images should match 1:1. They don’t. The tie and collar and suit match perfectly as apparently does Zucker’s lower jaw. But the higher you look up the image the more things diverge between the unaltered image and Dollar’s version of the alleged Photoshop job and you can see that the top of Zucker’s head and the tip of his left ear (on the right side of course) are visible above where the same parts end on the unaltered image I enlarged.

Conclusion: Though Think Progress’ version is skewed because of the feed they had it’s still a Photoshop job. But there never should have been any doubt and this exercise wasn’t really necesary because the proof was there all the time staring Dollar in his face. Zucker’s right ear is missing in the Photoshop version. It’s been completely lopped off!

Update: Dollar, not quite willing to throw in the towel just yet, responds…

Inside Cable News takes on our analysis with one of their own. They chalk up the excessive skinniness of the Think Progress screen grab to variations among cable providers, which doesn’t explain why this one Think Progress screengrab shows a distortion not present in any of their others. Or what cable provider would broadcast such obviously squeezed images. Although ICN tries to concoct an explanation that would absolve TP, they basically concede our main point–that Think Progress used an image that was excessively squeezed.

ICN notes that even correcting for the squeezed image posted by TP, their comparisons still show a small vertical stretch in the Fox graphic. We take their point, but it’s certainly far less of a differential than with the obviously squeezed TP image, and barely noticeable without the A/B comparison. This time ICN does not make the argument that it could be the result of variations among cable carriers, but this slight variation is far removed from the grotesque differential suggested by TP’s use of an obviously squeezed screengrab. They should not be let off the hook for that.

I seriously doubt Think Progress is aware of the differences in feed images between carriers. You have to be a dedicated videophile to spot that sort of thing. I am. I doubt they are. So how can they be blamed for using an image they probably thought was accurate? I just don’t see the intent here. So I can’t see how Dollar can argue this is a deliberate smear? Dollar should retract that.

A third point ICN makes is that Zucker’s right ear is not visible in the Fox slide, which they cite as clear proof of a photoshopping job. Well, it’s obvious Zucker’s head was digitally placed into the box design with a blue background (The Factor uses these for head shots) and removing the original background could inadvertently remove Zucker’s ear as well. But there is no reason why Zucker’s ear would go missing if someone were just stretching the image, so this conclusive final argument from ICN isn’t really proof of intentional stretching at all. Just proof of something we already knew: Fox changed the background color.

Not quite. The key is his glasses on the left side jut out past his face. If this was a chroma key issue, they likely would have dissapeared with his ear. If it was sloppy editing, why did the ear dissapear but not his glasses when his glasses also came past his face? (in reality it’s not sloppy editing because FNC’s graphics department was probably using hi-res versions of the image…so accidentally lopping off an ear is basically an impossibility…they’d have to be total morons over there to do that. I’ve seen and met their graphics people in action and they’re definitely not morons.) And this doesn’t account for the vertical skewing of the overlayed images where the lower part of the image matches 1:1 but the upper part does not. Incidentally, the vertical skewing in overlayed images can’t be accounted for by a discrepency in video feeds like the Think Progress grab – a question Dollar raised to me by email – because if that were the case we shouldn’t have 1:1 matching anywhere in the overlayed image…either horizontally or vertically.