I think we differ on whether a mutated blurred image is a free equivalent.  And your argument for minimal usage is subjective, a slippery slope, and easily disqualify the screen shot of the ABC interview on the article. At this point, I'm not that interested in pushing for quality.  I'll remove the image.  Better to have nothing that what's "libre" (as you put it).  I think we should now consider removing that under your fair use points above.