Reversal of Fortune

I had something pointed out to me recently and I felt like I should pass on the information. There has been a huge blow up revolving around the celebrity chef Paula Deen. This post is not about what she said, didn't say, guilt, or innocence. This post is about being tried in the media, sort of. Prior to this whole mess the media was content to use pictures of her supplied by her publicist. They were retouched to the extreme just as most celebrity pictures are. There were no signs of wrinkles, her skin was perfect, her eyes were bright. Now let's look at a comparison I worked up of that verses the images of her that are being used now.

That is a pretty big difference.  (Click on the image to make it bigger)
This got me to thinking. How often does the media decide to go with a bad picture when a pretty one is available or when do they pick a pretty one when they could have one that is a bit more realistic?

You can often tell a writer's political leanings just by the pictures that go with it. Is the president looking presidential or sweating? Poor Marko Rubio didn't even get a shot in focus when the author disagreed with him, but in a more favorable article he looks in charge. The message here seems to be that if the writer likes the person then the picture is pretty. If they want to sway you against someone they will go to extreme lengths to find an unflattering shot.
Just this past week Alec Baldwin got wrinkly bags under his eyes and thinning hair. Who'd have thought that the simple act of insulting a journalist on twitter could age someone so quickly.