Are you kidding me?? I've never seen such an unrealistic photoshopping. It totally looks photoshopped - the tear is WAY too big.. top

Why why why? top

So what!!!!??? top

Not like this is the first time that Time has photoshopped on its cover, yet there will be an outcry because Reagan is the patron saint of conservatism (for good or bad), ignoring this history.

People will know it's photoshopped. There was also an ourcry when Ann Coulter's legs were morphed to by much larger on the cover of Time.

No one complained at photo manipulation when it was Bush senior (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19910520,00.html), I note. Maybe because it wasn't an affront to Reagan? top

I don't know, man... I wasn't at all confused. It looks like an illustration of a tear to me. top

What does Reagan have to say about all this? top

Reagan says :,( top

REAGAN SMASH!!!!! top

unpossible. zombies don't cry. top

that's not a tear, it's a jelly bean stuck to his cheek. top

I think its a parody of an ad in the 70's of an Indian crying because of all of the pollution. His tears looked fake too. top

i wondered what happened to that indian... top

The "Indian" and his tears were both totally fake:

"That "crying Indian," as he would later sometimes be referred to, was Iron Eyes Cody, an actor who throughout his life claimed to be of Cherokee/Cree extraction. Yet his asserted ancestry was just as artificial as the tear that rolled down his cheek in that television spot — the tear was glycerine, and the "Indian" a second-generation Italian-American."

See: http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/ironeyes.htm top

Doesn't everyone know that tears come from the inside of the eye, where the tear duct is? Not the outside! Booo. top

So what? TIME is completely irrelevant anyway. The whole premise behind the headline is ludicrous -- the Right didn't "go wrong." The Right was always wrong, and Reagan and his cronies (many of whom were/are part of the current regime) were just as "wrong" as Bush and his ilk. top

Ouch. Well, I should really stay out of this, but several comments were made that I would like to address. I did the tear on Reagan. The tear has to be large to be a quick read not only on the magazine, but reduced in Web format.
I am a realist painter and know full well that it is way too large.
I did several versions, some from the tear duct and some on the side. They chose that tear.

The whole issue of how TIME credits the cover is completely clear. The photo is by the photographer, the drop by me. Some people might be happier if the credit read,"Time hired an illustrator to add a tear digitally and knows that former President Reagan would not actually cry and is, in fact, deceased."
It has to be that Reagan is deemed untouchable to republicans. If one were to read the article, it actually represent Reagan and his legacy with great respect. The tear reflects and authors premise that he would be disappointed with the current state of the GOP.
The real outrage may be what his son Michael Reagan indicated on FOX, that his dad would not cry.
Thanks
TOB top

He cried oil not salt water. top

The larger point isn't whether Reagan would cry or whether the tear on Reagan's downy cheek stirs up some right-wing nostalgia. The real import is that Time --- a newsmagazine --- is tinkering with photos and *still* not being clear and direct with its readers. They're in the business of journalism, not fakery. Besides, 90 percent of America doesn't have a clue what Photoshop IS, let alone what it can do. top

I can't see how this discussion has become so misdirected.
I'm from Australia, so although I'm familiar with TIME, its not a mainstream magazine here simply because it doesn't cover relevant local current affairs.
To me this is an issue of Journalistic integrity, one of accurately portraying facts in a news magazine. Regardless of if he would cry, how big the tear would be, or where it would come from, HE DIDN'T cry in this photo. The facts (ie a photograph) were altered by a news organization to SPIN a point of view, and did so in a (potentially) misleading way.
The same point of view could be made with an illustration or cartoon without misleading anyone about what really happened. top

It's an illustration. It's editorializing. It's pretty self-explanatory and pretty well-done. People who don't "get it" more than likely cannot read and have no idea what a magazine even is let alone who Reagan was. top

This would be a good opportunity to get conservatives interested in accurate and honest photojournalism. This could be a great way to make people aware of what can be done to manipulate images, how it's been done in the past, and what we should be careful of in the future. top

I don't see how the reality of the tear matters at all. Say they took a pic of him actually crying (for some other reason) and put the text "how the right went wrong" beside it. Same effect, real tear, and the image and text are still unrelated in context. top

to be honest I grew up during the Reagan era - what I remember seems to be at odds with his ascent into sainthood -

This is the president who had to be shown to pass an intelligence test before being allowed to take office, and whose public figure was that of your grandad suffering from alzheimers.

This is the guy who invented nuclear proliferation, forcing the world to live in fear of the seemingly inevitable escalation to conflict as Russian and American politicians held their own populations to ransom with atomic weapons.

This is the guy who actually believed the US should and could win a nuclear war.

This is the guy who sponsored death squads and civil wars in Latin America creating vast pools of men with military training and combat experience who subsequently gravitated to the US and latino criminal gangs like Mara Salvatrucha.

So as to whether or not the tear is real - as far as I'm concerned Ronnie should have wept a long time ago, for his own deeds. top

Seems appropriate to me considering this administration. top

The tear is way too big, and it's coming out the wrong side of the eye. Also, who cares? top

long live the king top

Whackjob top

A photoillustration does not have to involve photoshop. This was/is done routinely in the darkroom and requires the same level of skill, albeit a different skill set, to acheive. top

hahahahaha... top