I’m wondering what’s the benefit for the media to photoshopping his appearance?
Like I said,
IF THEY DID, it's likely indicative of a MSM agenda. I haven't looked to see what pics the MSM have published or not published, but the pics I compared in the tweet were obviously not the same person. The person on the R has a less elongated face, more proportional nose, etc... That is in NO WAY a reflection on the poor guy that was shot.
But there are in fact visible cues that almost everyone subconsciously notes at first sight of a person, that could alter their lasting opinion of the person.
It's one reason there's casting in movies.
And that's my criticism if it's in fact what the MSM has done. (I'll return to that thought.)
Example:
They pick an actor that looks like a stereotypical bad guy. Does that make the actor a bad guy? Is it any moral reflection on his character? Nope. It just means he looks right for the part, based on our human nature and instincts.
They pick an actor to play the hero based on looks. Does that make the actor a hero? Nope. He may be the biggest piece of *** on the planet. It just means he looks right for the part, based on our human nature and instincts.
If I point that out, is it a defense or attack on the actors? Nope.
If you take issue that the MSM may be making subtle changes
as "casting directors" as opposed to
just reporting the facts, is that attacking the poor guy that they may not have thought looked enough like a hero?
Or is it a correct criticism of the media.
Again... IF TRUE, and they actually did
trade their press credentials in for casting director credits?