Well, I knew that this was coming. I just didn't realize that it would be coming from something that pretends to be a news source:

Photo editors cropped her head onto a model's slimmer body to create the visual effect, which even the New York Post knows is an ethical black hole (err, maybe they don't). A footnote does appear on page three with the credits: "Cover: Photo illustration by Michael Elins ... head shot by Marc Bryan-Brown."

But that's not exactly Clarissa Explains It All for the average reader. Another Jennifer Aniston on Redbook, you say? So do we, even if assistant managing editor Lynn Staley believes "Anybody who knows the (Stewart) story and is familiar with Martha's current situation would know this particular picture" was a "photo illustration."

Yes, these fakes tend to get picked up quickly by attentive readers. However, how many casual readers hear about that? And yes, this particular case is trivial. I'm just waiting for the first political dirty trick launched using photo/video editing - it's a matter of when, not if. The bottom line - you simply can't trust photos, video, or audio anymore unless you trust the source. The thing is, news sources are tossing their believability down the tubes with stunts like this.