Wonkette smears Michelle again; Update: Gawker piles on

posted at 10:50 am on September 29, 2006 by Allahpundit

I make this mistake when I do “head transfer” photoshops, too. You’d be surprised how hard it is to judge the size and how even minor adjustments to it can make the new image look absurd. Whoever was responsible for the fake Michelle bikini shot shrunk the ‘shopped-in head a bit to reflect the fact that the woman in the picture is leaning backward, such that her upper extremities should appear slightly smaller than the rest of the body. But he/she overdid it, and so you’re left with that Reuters-worthy abortion.

There are two ways we could play this, I guess. One: call a libel lawyer, point them to Alex Pareene’s earlier post about Michelle and ping-pong balls, and see if we can’t fashion a little “actual malice” from the pattern here. Or two: fire with fire. It’d be a shame to have to go that route, but this nonsense has to stop.

I promise you this, though. If it does come to that, the shocking! new! photos! we “discover” and circulate will be a lot more convincing than that amateur-hour crap currently running on Gawker Inc.

Here’s the column Michelle wrote about Charlotte Church that inspired all this, by the way. Or rather, here’s the column Michelle wrote about Charlotte Church that Muller and Layne used as a pretext to run that photoshop of Michelle. It’s “hypocritical,” you see, for a woman who’s worn a bikini to criticize celebrities for selling sex to children. Why? Because women who wear bikinis are whores.

Update: Charles says he knows what it’s like to have one’s head photoshopped onto the body of a woman.

Update: Okay, I guess this is how it’s going to be, then. Remember who started it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That has to be one of the lament photoshops. Ever. At least try and get someone a bit more diminutive.

Yesterday Esmay, today Bimbette. Is this desperation for linkage? Are these peples so berfet of talent and readers they have to invoke Michelle’s name just to drive up traffic?

Lame.

Anyway, I say fire back. Get your photoshops ready, AP.

JammieWearingFool on September 29, 2006 at 10:54 AM

Primal research.

Niko on September 29, 2006 at 10:59 AM

Michelle,

Are you sure that isn’t you?

Shmo on September 29, 2006 at 11:02 AM

Rise above – don’t lose your moral high ground by participating in a deliberate smear campaign.

GregH on September 29, 2006 at 11:04 AM

Its no surprise that these poor-excuse-for-liberals chose Michelle’s latest column to launch this 7th grader’s version of an attack. These type libs loathe any mention or reference to purity, modesty, or innocence in our culture.

Michelle’s column this week was one of my favorites, and had some good points for parents to ponder.

realVerse on September 29, 2006 at 11:11 AM

GregH,

You need to understand the difference between a deliberate smear campaign, a common practice of the left, and retaliation.

JammieWearingFool on September 29, 2006 at 11:17 AM

You’d really have to want to believe that to be Michelle. Whoever that is appears to have significantly more junk in the trunk than Michelle, who can only be described as petite. Not to a freakish degree or anything, but it’s clearly someone who’s got several lbs on the boss.

I might as well ‘shop my head on to Schwarzenneger and try passing that off as authentic. Would Photoshop lie to you?

Pablo on September 29, 2006 at 11:17 AM

Wankette…LOL!

Ropera on September 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM

You’d really have to want to believe that to be Michelle. Whoever that is appears to have significantly more junk in the trunk than Michelle, who can only be described as petite. Not to a freakish degree or anything, but it’s clearly someone who’s got several lbs on the boss.

I was going to mention that in the post but didn’t want to get into scrutinizing her figure for the masses. You’re right, though. Michelle is very petite. 90 lbs, if I had to guess. This woman’s no fatty, but the body types simply aren’t the same.

Allahpundit on September 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM

This is just the venom of the left pouring out onto the messenger. They know they aren’t going to take back Congress from the Republicans, they know they can’t stand on the issues, so they do the same thing Clinton did… go on the attack. Nevermind the lies, Nevermind the fact that it’s all a diversion…

E L Frederick on September 29, 2006 at 11:22 AM

It’d be a shame to have to go that route, but this nonsense has to stop.

They’ll laugh and make jokes if you use a lawyer, because it’s “all in good fun”, but they’ll be shocked an appalled by the “slanderous and mean spirited photos” if you take the fight fire with fire route.

High Desert Wanderer on September 29, 2006 at 11:24 AM

I’m sorry, but do you have to even know Michelle or have met her in person to see that the photo is clearly fake? The girl looks to have about 6 inches on her for starters, and something, and it’s just…. that’s clearly not her body.

But as AP made clear in his last paragraph… what if it had been. A girl who once wore a bikini isn’t allowed to comment on the lack of morals of a teen pop singer? Especially sense this picture would have made Michelle 22 (1992 was 14 years ago people, believe it or not), but that’s irrelevant anyway. Wearing a bikini has absolutely nothing to do her column. She could have vlogged her column about Charlotte Church, wearing a bikini, and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

I just can’t get over how pathetic and low this libs will go.

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 11:24 AM

These type libs loathe any mention or reference to purity, modesty, or innocence in our culture.

And they have to bring anyone who mentions virtue down to their level.

Like the Pope, right GregH?

Pablo on September 29, 2006 at 11:26 AM

You’d really have to want to believe that to be Michelle. Whoever that is appears to have significantly more junk in the trunk than Michelle, who can only be described as petite. Not to a freakish degree or anything, but it’s clearly someone who’s got several lbs on the boss.

I was going to mention that in the post but didn’t want to get into scrutinizing her figure for the masses. You’re right, though. Michelle is very petite. 90 lbs, if I had to guess. This woman’s no fatty, but the body types simply aren’t the same.

Allahpundit on September 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM

I concur. The point you fellas are making is what I was trying to say in my paragraph above.

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 11:26 AM

I wouldn’t say they’re photoshopped (at least the bikini pic doesn’t appear to be) but I seriously doubt that it’s Michelle in them. First, the bikini pic…the face looks similar, but not exactly like Michelle’s face. I’d say that it’s a look-a-like. The second pic (“The girls”) doesn’t seem to have any obvious photoshopping artifacts, but the face definitely doesn’t fit proportionally. It’s close, but not quite good enough. I’d say the first pic is real, but not of Michelle, the second pic is most likely a fake.

Since we’re on the topic of Bikini pics, when will we see a “Conservative Hotties” calendar?! Dagnabit, it’s about time for one, don’tcha think!? Michelle Malkin, cover girl! ;-)

DakRoland on September 29, 2006 at 11:26 AM

I’m with ELF on this one, to a point.The “water off a duck’s back” mode of not letting them diffuse the real issues with all this playground nonsense is the moral high ground without a doubt,but at the same time we must call these clowns to the mat, Wankerbabe,Esmay and all their ilk need a spanking and some corner time.

bbz123 on September 29, 2006 at 11:27 AM

oops, guess you can’t blockquote within a blockquote here?

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 11:31 AM

I have to give Michelle kudos for my new favorite word. “skankification” “skankification” “skankification” “skankification” :)

E L Frederick on September 29, 2006 at 11:32 AM

Crikey! I used to live 10 minutes away from UNC in Chapel Hill. It should be obvious to everyone why I moved…lol. Wonkette should be more worried about all the “homeless panhandlers” that pervade that liberal bastion called Chapel Hill, NC, but I digress.

SouthernGent on September 29, 2006 at 11:32 AM

If you do do a photoshop, remember to include a puppy inside a blender somewhere in the background.

frankj on September 29, 2006 at 11:40 AM

GregH, very good point! I understand the reasons for going after the Wankers for deliberately misleading the public with Lamont photography, yet I do see that this will unfortunately give those irrevelant damnfools more attention than they deserve.

I think the body they used might belong to an underage girl. Notify the feds.

I believe that this Professor Muller has way too much time on his hands. IMHO, he cannot be fully performing his duties as a professor while lending the credibility of the UNC School of Law to the Wanker site. Maybe someone there can verify this for me.

No doubt about it. This should be fought in the courts.

DannoJyd on September 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM

oops, guess you can’t blockquote within a blockquote here?

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 11:31 AM

Sure you can.

Kid from Brooklyn on September 29, 2006 at 11:57 AM

Since we’re on the topic of Bikini pics, when will we see a “Conservative Hotties” calendar?!

Don’t know, but we do have this index of Republican and/or conservative ladies via JerseyGOP.

Anyway, if they wanted some conservative bikini blogging (actually vlogging), they needn’t look any further than Atlas Shrugs.

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 11:57 AM

That’s weird…

Kid from Brooklyn on September 29, 2006 at 11:57 AM

Sure you can.

Nah, that was just blockquoting (and I just did it again), but I mean, I can’t blockquote, inside the blockquote… because I was trying to bloquote AP above, including something he had blockquoted see how it came out (11:26)

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 11:59 AM

My first reaction upon seeing the photo was that it was an obvious photoshop. As others have pointed out the head is too small (almost hilariously so) and the rest of the body is way too big to be Michelle. Viewed in this light, Ken Layne’s We report, you decide can only be seen as disingenuous. He knew, just as everone else involved in this childish prank knew, that the photo was a phony.

I’m not worried about the retribution option, Allah notwithstanding, because Michelle is much too classy to act like a 7th grader just because her critics are. On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind seeing Allah’s other suggestion regarding fashioning a case for malice implemented.

student on September 29, 2006 at 12:11 PM

Oh and I originally meant to say that I hope Malkin goes on O’Reilly and blasts these people. Yeah, who wants to give these losers attention… but the gloves have to come off some time.

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 12:19 PM

Stooping to their level would be amusing, but ultimately pointless. You can’t beat a monkey in a poo-flinging contest.

World B. Free on September 29, 2006 at 12:26 PM

This is ridiculous
I don’t know much about photoshop but I do know a fake and that’s FAAAKE to the extreme.

Defector01 on September 29, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Caught Charlotte show in London a while ago. She’s just vulgar. And frankly her voice was never that great, just relative to her age it was exceptional.

honora on September 29, 2006 at 12:33 PM

Defend the bikini!!

How did the word slut get associated with bikini…..arrgh!!! Is there no end to the depths moonbats will sink!!! Arrgh!

How tall is Michelle. Trying to visualize 90lbs, as my wife is 5’2″ and weighs 95lbs on a good day.

MarkB on September 29, 2006 at 12:42 PM

At my blog I made the point that rightwinged made above about how she was an adult in 1992 and also extended it to note that the same people who bitch about “purity” are the ones who take the same media to task for skinny models and the like. Its the same goddam argument so you should be allies

Francis Turner on September 29, 2006 at 12:46 PM

Interesting that they wrote “possibly legitimate snapshot” under the picture.

AP, I think you guys should sue, or threaten to at any rate. A few serious letters or calls from a lawyer might scare some sense into them. A dose of reality tends to do that.

To think that participating in a Photoshop war with these dorks would do anything but spur them on is misguided. It would never end. They are probably celebrating the fact that you even mentioned them.

Take serious action and eventually they will be forced to respond seriously whether they want to or not. Don’t let people like this get away with it. Send a message.

Cary on September 29, 2006 at 1:15 PM

MarkB,

She says “I swear I am 5′ 1 1/2.” 5′ 4 1/2″ with these on.”

I believe it. Ain’t no way that’s Michelle from the neck down.

Pablo on September 29, 2006 at 1:18 PM

Pablo

Agreed. Thanks for the info.

MarkB on September 29, 2006 at 1:25 PM

Seriously, this is pretty sad that this thing is spreading even though I think it’s already been debunked. I think she has to respond on the Factor at least if she’s not going to even threaten legal action.

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 1:37 PM

I’m no photoshop pro, but there is NO WAY that body is Ms. Malkin.

Not that I’m eye balling Michelle, but the body in the picture is, to be kind, a bit too fluffy.

Alden Pyle on September 29, 2006 at 1:40 PM

You know what they say:

“Photoshop is the sincerest form of photomanipulative flattery.”

Kevin M on September 29, 2006 at 1:45 PM

(by the way, my last comment was in reference to AP’s update and link to Gawker)

RightWinged on September 29, 2006 at 1:45 PM

Blondette has been forever overrated and has “misoverestimated” herself over time.

That aside, I find this hilarious and don’t believe it should be fought, other than with humor and ridicule of the perpetrators and their hypocrisy, even in trivial matters, such as this.

I have no talent in photography, other than to smile in pictures. I only take pictures of anything other-than-people.

However, it is obvious that the bikini-body is of caucasian or European origin. This should not be interpreted as anything, except just that fact. It could also be of Eurasian origin. I don’t believe Michelle is either (not that it would matter one way or another, just so long as we have the facts). Perhaps she’ll confim her background.

The head, of course, looks Asian or Eurasian, or something similar. People of varied backgrounds look interesting and are generally attractive. They, however, look more natural than this picture and more features blend. The head looks too different from the rest of the body.

Pablo, you and I are getting a ‘divorce’ my friend :) The bikini picture, sin head, could be me (when I was a bit younger), so long as the skin would be darker from lots of sun, the hair dark blond and long, the eyes dark brown, and the bikini yellow-orange. Never mind the ’rounded’ middle. Spagetti-skinni is not ideal. So long as one is still slim!

On the substance of this hypocrisy – how befuddling that the left would even go there – a bikini? Have these folks ever been at a beach in Europe? Ever? I don’t get this at all, especially not from the leftie elite. Well, they only claim to be progressive…

Entelechy on September 29, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Maybe it’s just a small refrigerator, and a low ceiling? Bah… I just want it to be Michelle so I can see her in a bikini. My appreciation for the beauty of Michelle and all the lovely ladies of HotAir and the friends of HotAir… and even KP, is appreciation for their inner beauty as well. Actually, the inner beauty is what’s so appealing to begin with… but the gals being easy on the eyes is a plus too ;)

People should know better than to try to pass off some crappy photoshop as the real thing by now, especially some egghead like Professor Twinkletoes. He, and everyone else on Earth, should know better than to eF with Michelle, period. The sad part is, they want to revel in their self-righteous indignation so badly, they don’t have the moral fortitude to take down their slanderous craptastic drivel, or post a retraction… yet. Even their own commenters are telling them it’s all fake. But yet, they keep it there to glean as much sick satisfaction as they can from their lies, and they know it’s all lies. I guess that stands to reason though, their whole lives are based on lies and imagined existence.

More moonbat guano for them and their bedwetting masses.

SilverStar830 on September 29, 2006 at 2:51 PM

DakRoland wrote:

when will we see a “Conservative Hotties” calendar

I have one in my office right now, and MM is Mrs. September. Really. Alas, no bikini.

It’s from the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute

dinasour on September 29, 2006 at 3:57 PM

It’s bad enough that Wonkette had to smear the first smear, but to have Gawker amplify the smear leads me to the following boycott: I’m an avid reader of Gizmodo, Jalopnik, and Lifehacker blogs, all owned (among others) by Gawker. I can’t imagine it’ll make much difference, but on principle I’m removing them from my rss reader account. I hope others are with me.

*whimper*… at least I still have Engadget.

redwolf on September 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM

Stooping to their level would be amusing, but ultimately pointless. You can’t beat a monkey in a poo-flinging contest.

Right. As Dilbert said, “Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

student on September 29, 2006 at 4:50 PM

One last thought. The left has pretensions to leadership and believes that we should elect them to lead. This prank illustrates concisely why we shouldn’t:

(1) They lack the maturity.

(2) As evidenced by the primitive photoshoping, they also lack the competence.

student on September 29, 2006 at 5:01 PM

This is another case of Liberals treating a woman…..the way Liberals treat women.

IndependentConserv on September 29, 2006 at 5:39 PM

Pablo, you and I are getting a ‘divorce’ my friend :) The bikini picture, sin head, could be me (when I was a bit younger), so long as the skin would be darker from lots of sun, the hair dark blond and long, the eyes dark brown, and the bikini yellow-orange. Never mind the ’rounded’ middle. Spagetti-skinni is not ideal. So long as one is still slim!

Hey, hey! It’s no knock on the rest of whatever young lady that is…just pointing out that it there’s considerably more to her than MM walks around with. Everything appears to be in it’s proper place, and I’m sure she’s quite lovely with her own head. :-)

Pablo on September 29, 2006 at 7:16 PM

Had to say that when I checked Michelle’s blog at 5:00 this morning my eyes went from half-open to wide open in a fraction of a second – without the aid of my morning coffee.

And for a similar fraction of a second – before I even began looking for evidence of Photoshopping – I thought to myself, “Whoa! This is too good to be true!” And then I realized it was. I mean, anyone who has paid attention to Michelle for any length of time knows that she’d never post an image of herself like that, even if one existed and despite the fact that *some* of us really wouldn’t mind … ahem.

If that is her head morphed onto that body, though, all I can say is, what a captivating smile. That said, I hope she sues the bastards.

Spurius Ligustinus on September 29, 2006 at 7:31 PM

Pablo, le perdono :)

Entelechy on September 29, 2006 at 8:14 PM

Wankette is in dire need of hip waders as she continues to work in the liberal filth pool that they call ambrosia, but stinks like camel caca.

Perhaps they never had their PEST treated?

DannoJyd on September 30, 2006 at 2:48 AM