The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Cottingley Fairies, 1917
The Berners Street Hoax, 1810
Jennifer Love Hewitt's Disappearing Breasts
Rachael Ray cooks her family and her dog
Taco Bells buys the Liberty Bell, 1996
Boy floats away in balloon, 2009
Stotham, Massachusetts: the town that didn't exist, 1920
Female thieves hide money in their bras, 1950
What do the lines on Solo cups mean?
Prankster causes volcano to erupt, 1974
Martha Stewart’s New Body
image It's being reported that the current issue of Newsweek has a faux picture of Martha Stewart on its cover. Its her head pasted on to someone else's body. "Janice E. Castro, a director at Northwestern's school of journalism, said the fact that the image did not look completely artificial and could be mistaken for the real thing was a problem." Newsweek actually admits that the picture is fake inside the magazine, so I don't think this is really that big a deal. Plus, nowadays I think it would be more surprising if a star on the cover of a magazine weren't photoshopped in some way. Anyway, the most outrageous instance of a celebrity's face combined with someone else's body on a magazine cover remains the August 26, 1989 cover of TV Guide sporting the Oprah/Ann-Margret Frankenstein creation.
Categories: Celebrities, Photos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Thu Mar 03, 2005
Comments (7)
I prefer the Jay Leno version, he put Martha's face on the cover of the SPORTS ILLUSTRATED swimsuit edition. Nice body Martha, maybe I should start watching your show.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Thu Mar 03, 2005  at  10:10 PM
Sheesh, anyone can clearly see that that's Allegra Coleman's body they stuck Martha's head on.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Mar 03, 2005  at  10:31 PM
Alex said:

"Newsweek actually admits that the picture is fake inside the magazine, so I don't think this is really that big a deal. Plus, nowadays I think it would be more surprising if a star on the cover of a magazine weren't photoshopped in some way."

That's probably true, Alex, but don't you think that Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post, by the way) should be held to a higher journalistic standard than, say, Entertainment Weekly?

I mean, who gives a damn, really, if Ashton Kutcher's head is put on Spiderman's body or something, but shouldn't a NEWS magazine report the truth as accurately as they can?

In this particular case (which, for the record, I do not think is the worst example of this kind of thing that could exist), since the body in the picture isn't actually Martha Stewart's, what is the point of the picture at all (other than to fill up the cover, that is)?

When information in a "news" story (including photos) isn't trustworthy, then the "news" has crossed the line over into infotainment.

At the very least, shouldn't there be a disclaimer that says "Photo illustration" or something similar on the front cover, next to the "photo?" Burying it inside is kind of a cop-out.

Remember when the Chinese press used to run "photos" of Mao "swimming" in the Yangtze River, when in reality he had one foot on death's door and the other on a banana peel?

How soon can we expect Fox News to fake footage of George Bush gorilla pressing a Chevy over his head to "prove" how manly he is or walking on water to demonstrate his Godliness? Remember that there was a court ruling that said that news organizations have no obligation to tell the truth, after all.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Mar 04, 2005  at  04:59 AM
Ah, the Office of Homeland Distraction is busy, busy these days. Between MJ, MS, RB, SP, and BS, there's hardly any room for GWB, WMDs, or 1500 dead GIs.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Mar 04, 2005  at  09:17 AM
If it headlines about her looks, it's fairly silly to fake them, isn't it? And when does the appearance of either a convict or a home-ec instructor matter much, anyway?
Posted by cvirtue  in  deleted  on  Fri Mar 04, 2005  at  04:46 PM
banana Bread and Circus
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Mar 04, 2005  at  05:38 PM
On the news, I heard that the reason they faked the photograph was for legal reasons having to do with the fact Martha still couldn't conduct business or something, so they couldn't take her picture. (Though that doesn't explain why they couldn't use an older picture of her, if that's true.)

I wasn't paying much attention to the report, I heard it in passing.
Posted by Rita  on  Sun Mar 06, 2005  at  09:49 AM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.