Unrepentant Photographer Turns McCain Into a Monster
It's not the first time photographer Jill Greenberg has behaved unprofessionally.
What has become of journalistic integrity? As if it wasn’t already on its way to a slow death, its demise has been shoved forward a few steps thanks to the Atlantic and photographer Jill Greenberg.
Ms. Greenberg, a professional, award-winning photographer, was hired by the Atlantic to do a photo shoot of John McCain, for an article written by Jeffrey Goldberg.
She delivered the image the magazine asked for — shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic … [b]ut she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says.
Greenberg then asked McCain to take another photo. This time she purposely set up the shoot so that the photo would be taken in harsh light and at a bad angle, making McCain look monstrous and menacing.
The Atlantic did not use that shot for their cover, but they did use the one that Greenberg did not touch up at all. And while that may not be disingenuous in and of itself, the fact that she probably would have touched up the photo if she did not have a visceral hatred for the presidential candidate is. In other words, Greenberg editorialized the article by way of her photography.
That’s not a bad thing, you say. The Atlantic is a magazine. They are not beholden to any party, any candidate, any ideals. What they do is editorialize. This is the magazine that employs Andrew Sullivan. But there is one thing wrong with this particular case of wearing your politics on your media sleeve; this was not Greenberg’s article. She chose to use a very unflattering image as a way to insert her opinion into the mix and editorialize an article that was written by someone else. That someone else — Jeffrey Goldberg — is not happy with Greenberg’s actions:
Like others at the Atlantic, I was appalled to read about the actions of Jill Greenberg, the freelance photographer who took the cover portrait that illustrates my article about John McCain… Suffice it to say that her “art” is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive. This is not the issue, of course; the issue is that she betrayed this magazine, and disgraced her profession.
The Atlantic, scrambling to recover from the backlash, is sending out this PR snippet to anyone who inquires about the controversy:
We stand by the respectful image of John McCain that we used on our cover, and we expect to be judged by it. We were not aware of the manipulated and dishonest images Jill Greenberg had taken until this past Friday.
When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don’t vet them for their politics — instead, we assess their professional track records. Based on the portraits she had done of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger and her work for publications like Time, Wired, and Portfolio, we expected Jill Greenberg, like the other photographers we work with, to behave professionally.
Jill Greenberg has obviously not done that. She has, in fact, disgraced herself, and we are appalled by the manipulated images she has created for her Web site of John McCain.
Too bad Jill Greenberg has a history of behaving unprofessionally.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Michele Catalano lives, writes, and takes photographs on Long Island.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
112 Comments
1. J.J. Sefton:Jeez, how many people read that rag anyway? Besides, one more thing that will earn the ire of the general public towards the media, and into the camp for McCain/Palin.
Sep 15, 2008 - 3:59 am 2. Bob:The cover story is “McCain: Why War Is His Answer.” It should be: “The Media: Why Obama Is Their Answer.”
Sep 15, 2008 - 4:15 am 3. Katie, NJ:This should be fun watching the leftist who frequent pjm of late (they know who they are) defend the indefensible. Jill has certified BDS and more than likely its derivative PDS. She’s a categorical gadfly and one of many deranged individuals lauded by the elite left who profits from the despair of her subjects (in her case the misery of children also) and advancing senseless leftist agitprop.
If ever there was a pinup girl that best represents the lunacy of the left, besides the obvious Rosies this unhinged moonbat is it. What’s there to admire about this vile bitter person? Seriously.
Sep 15, 2008 - 4:35 am 4. Marc:I liked the photo. The article was favorable regarding McCains approach, and how his father was triumphing the hearts and minds strategy back in 1968 in Vietnam. There was an op-ed in The Atlantic praising Pretraeus too. Jeffery Goldberg is an unabashed liberal, but I think that it is a pretty balanced magazine.
Sep 15, 2008 - 4:44 am 5. Marc:Then I saw her altered pictures on New-Busters.
Awful. If you did that to Barry, you’d be a racist or worse. Oh wait, didn’t the New Yorker do that and get vilified? This lady gets praised?
What these people don’t realize is that a significant portion of there revenues is generated by ads. If there is sufficient backlash, their ad revenue could be undercut by an outright protest against the media. You can pull crap like this, or the Gibson interview, but sooner or later, the public is going to fight back.
For the record, I still like the Atlantic, despite their poor judgement in photographer selection for a big interview.
Sep 15, 2008 - 4:52 am 6. Full Metal Cynic:Well, at least she’s been outed (just as ABC and Charlie Gibson have bee outed in their Palin interview agenda). But anyone looking at the photo and the real McCain can see the ruse.
Sep 15, 2008 - 5:03 am 7. Tom W.:I think her photos of McCain are great.
She made him look powerful, a battered old warrior who will never give up and who will kick all the booty necessary to clean out Washington.
She also made him look unnervingly enigmatic and iconic, exactly the sort of guy I want facing down Putin, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad.
The stupid lefty pwned herself, and she doesn’t even know it. She made McCain look terrific, and she also garnered tons of sympathy for McCain and galvanized his supporters.
Well done, Jill! McCain and Palin’s march into the White House continues unabated, thanks to toxic morons like you.
Sep 15, 2008 - 5:05 am 8. richard:Couldn’t the Atlantic simply do the retouching of the photograph themselves?
Ironically for her, McCain looks quite splendid on the cover of Atlantic as is, as Tom W pointed out.
Sep 15, 2008 - 5:26 am 9. Chuck Pelto:TO: Michele Catalano, et al.
RE: As If
….you REALLY expected personal integrity from her ilk?
And as for The Atlantic….ever visit their blog-site? It reeks of Kos Kidz. It’s as though Goebbels is alive and well and managing editor there.
So……what could anyone possibly expect? I’m surprised McCain fell into this trap in the first place.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Sep 15, 2008 - 5:33 am 10. RE:[Propaganda must not serve the truth. -- Adolf Hitler]
We should be thanking Jill Greenberg for the expose of her Leftist character and mentality.
It’s better that these scumbags are out in the light of day.
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:10 am 11. Lisa Paul:Again, a bit of a tempest in a teacup here. So one photographer is a loud-mouth, extremely unprofessional and stupid enough to brag about it? The Atlantic used the right picture and rightly came out in condemnation of her attitude. They will probably never use her again and she may find herself out of nearly all editorial assignments in the future. Justice is served and the Atlantic’s actions demonstrated that there IS integrity in the media or at least at this magazine.
But even what she actually did is pretty small potatoes. So McCain has blotchy skin and he’s not an attractive guy and she shot him from an unflattering angle without retouching. It’s not like she made his skin darker as Time did OJ in a racist attempt to make him more menacing. She took a crap picture on purpose. It wasn’t used.
I hope your readers don’t start making sweeping statements about THE MEDIA or CANADIANS. This is a one-off case of one idiot, swiftly and correctly dealt with.
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:11 am 12. misanthropicus:The photogs’ conspiracy – you better believe that.
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:35 am 13. Gibson & Greenberg (Media Double Standards~No Standards Actually) « Zipline Conservative:While the liberal medias’ written word in Glibama/McCain competition gets the scrutiny and scorn it deserves, the visual support of those articles has seldom been addressed, despite its glaring, pro-Glibama manipulation.
McCain is uniformly shown in harsh, jarring light, while Glibama is done in mellow, soothing tones – uniformly.
Then, what about the TV coverage – to stay only with the convention coverage: McCain in long, high angle shots showing a little, ridiculous figure in a hangar, or low shots conceived to show him alone either on a cold backgroud of brutal blue or green (the white House lawn or sky), while Glibam was bathed is warmth-inducing light brown.
Then, what about Glibama’s standard, Jesus of Rio pose – ceaaselessly low angles, the man with a raised hand pointing towards a luminous future.
Then what about the Leni Reifenstahl type of shots used in his crowd shots in Berlin? Bunuel selected those types of shots from Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” for FDR’s edification – and FDR was indeed impressed with their efficiency (NB: Luis Bunuel got the job in 1941-?? to do a montage/review Leni Reiffenstahl’s propaganda work for Hitler for the White House – FDR was very impressed by Rieffenstahl’s forcefulness.)
Photogs and camera operators can do lots of nasty things when they are allowed or instructed to – and the visual coverage of McCain is a good example of the (not so) subtle ways the liberal media tries to distort the perceptions of the electorate.
[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/unrepentant-photographer-turns-mccain-into-a-monster/ [...]
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:40 am 14. Dylan Bruns:Um, he looks badass. I mean, honestly, I think he looks cool. I’m sure it was designed to make him look menacing, but I would really like a menacing President.
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:49 am 15. jbb:“This is a one-off case of one idiot, swiftly and correctly dealt with.”
There sure are a lot of one-off cases going on lately.
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:55 am 16. Therese:Misanthropicus – I agree!
Since we are a visual society, images say a lot. I think that this Atlantic Monthly thing is the tip of the iceberg of what has been going on behind the scene during this entire election.
Obama always has flattering images and I do believe that the media has been projecting pictures of him to make him look more Presidential and like the “Chosen One.”
Now it is backfiring and people are waking up to the truth.
I hope that this Atlantic Monthly incident gets lots and lots of coverage because it will only make more people wake up to the fact that the American media has become too corrupted by liberals.
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:58 am 17. Typewriter King:This lady freelancing for The Atlantic must not be deeply educated in her craft. Tom W. is correct, the McCain pictures unintentionally bare resemblance to the photography of Anton Corbijn, who is known for taking striking images of rock stars.
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:04 am 18. Joshua:You should be thanking her for giving you something to talk about besides policy.
Greenberg’s an idiot — and a not even an American idiot. But if all we have to do to discredit an entire group is find a moron who espouses their ideology, I see your Jill Greenberg and raise you a David Adkisson.
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:10 am 19. crossover:Now the Atlantic Monthly is apologizing to John McCain and has refused to pay the witch!
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:15 am 20. Don:-Her book of photograph can be bought at the Wal-Mart discount shopping cart book bin.
$3.95
I think you’re pointing the majority of your ire at the wrong folks here. So the photographer is kind of a jerk. Okay, agreed – but so what? If a contract employee does a bad job that’s between them and their employer.
The Atlantic didn’t run this picture without seeing it, they looked at it and thought “okay, good” and put it on the cover. If it’s objectionable they’re the people to blame. If this was Bigfoot we were talking about it would be one thing, but pictures or artist’s representations of McCain aren’t exactly hard to come by.
Blasting Greenberg isn’t just misdirected, it takes the heat off the actual decision makers.
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:41 am 21. Chuck Pelto:TO: crossover
RE: Heh
It don’t mean nothing….
….unless they pull every copy back.
Damage, for what it’s worth, is done and they can laugh all the way to the bank over the publicity.
In the end, I am still convinced that the managing editor of that rag is Goebbels, reincarnated.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:42 am 22. jbb:I see your David Adkisson and raise you a NYT
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:45 am 23. 111:oh, boohoo…
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:52 am 24. jbb:Dylan Bruns:
“Um, he looks badass. I mean, honestly, I think he looks cool. I’m sure it was designed to make him look menacing, but I would really like a menacing President.”
Now we need the Darth Vader look Condoleezza Rice wore for Governor Palin or maybe leather. Just a thought, she’s got my vote either way.
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:55 am 25. Joshua:jbb: You mean the NYT that sat on the warrantless wiretapping story until after the 2004 elections? Yeah, those guys will do anything in pursuit of their agenda of rage.
So the NYT is the ideological equivalent of David Adkisson and the managing editor of Atlantic Monthly is Goebbels.
Okay then.
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:02 am 26. mbabbitt:An apology from Greenberg? Keep dreaming. She believes she’s right and on the Left that provides a license to do anything at anytime to anyone they disagree with. Morality and professional ethics is the least of her concerns.
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:05 am 27. Valerieb:Why doesn’t anyone talk about this? This is from Barry’s co-workers.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did-obama-turn-down-a-wall-street-career
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:22 am 28. trangbang68:Joshua, Your failure to recognize the bias of the NYT says volumes about you and discredits anything else you say.
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:35 am 29. penny:Five minutes on Google would have given the Atlantic editors all that they needed to know about Greenberg’s partisan politics. They weren’t blindsided, they were willfully stupid.
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:37 am 30. jbb:Joshua,
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:40 am 31. Bugs:Truth is the NYT has done damage to this country but do your own damn research. You sound like Boris with his “post a link” crap.
Politics transforms another American into a complete asshole. Q’elle surprise…
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:45 am 32. Morton Doodslag:In these photos, but especially those of all the abused 2 and 3 year old toddlers featured widely in the blogs in 2004 we see signs of a Debra Frisch type psychopath in Mz. Greenberg…
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:49 am 33. Javelin:More petty grousing over a picture no less. Maybe the writer is just projecting her feelings on the photographer. Wait, this is a right wing blog, and this is the juvenile media baiting they live for, to make themselves feel like righteous victims. Funny, but McCain was treated far worse by his fellow right wingers for daring to think for himself instead of consulting the Limbo approved party line.
Sep 15, 2008 - 8:50 am 34. mwl:I would not go overboard on blaming the Atlantic editors for the cover photograph. (Inaccuracies or distortions in the text, which I have not read, are another matter.) Yes, the lighting is harsh, but that only emphasizes McCain’s strength. If they made any mistake, it was in not claiming ownership of all photos from the shoot.
Nor do I think McCain made a mistake. He feeds the leftist media rope, and they hang themselves with it. Each incident like this one encourages more people to realize exactly how polarized the media has become. As they lose credibility, their power to distort the truth is diminished.
Greenberg is the big loser here, and justly so. No honest person will be able to apply the word “professional” to her work after this incident. I doubt she’ll starve, but I expect she’ll have much more difficulty finding work after this embarrassment.
Sep 15, 2008 - 9:10 am 35. Lisa Paul:I’m still not seeing the conspiracy here. Half of you think the picture looks good. The one or two people who actually read the article (as I did) realize it was favorable or at least very even-handed to McCain. The instructions to the photographer were to photograph McCain “looking heroic” (which she did before her other antics) and that was the cover that ran. Sounds like the bias, if there was any, was in McCain’s favor.
The fact is McCain is not a good-looking man. Obama is. It shouldn’t matter, but in this visual media age, it becomes a factor. But goodlooking has no political bias. It worked in Ronald Reagan’s favor. It worked for John F. Kennedy. It worked against Nixon. It worked for George Bush. There is a reason that since the television age, the tallest candidate has always won. People are prejudiced by visual appearance. I don’t doubt that some of Sarah Palin’s appeal is her looks. Just as I’m sure that’s some of Obama’s appeal is his. Remember, this is a country where large numbers of people in polls said they’d vote for Bush over Gore because Bush looked like a guy they wanted to have a beer with.
Why should they have smoothed out McCain’s skin blotches and given him a Photoshop Facelift? THAT would have been dishonest. And as someone points out, in a campaign where one of the central issues is who’s experienced enough to lead, the guy with the crags and the lines may have a visual advantage.
THere are many heinous examples of media malfeasance on both ends of the political spectrum. This one is just a blip and one that never was allowed to be published — except on Greenburg’s website. And who has control over anyone’s personal website?
Sep 15, 2008 - 9:11 am 36. jbb:Javelin,
“but McCain was treated far worse by his fellow right wingers for daring to think for himself instead of consulting the Limbo approved party line”
I actually agree with you. McCain has bucked the party line on principles. Something Obama knows nothing about.
Sep 15, 2008 - 9:42 am 37. Herb:Seriously? Why do I have a feeling that McCain’s going to lose this thing? Oh yeah…it’s because his supporters focus on totally inconsequential controversies while ignoring the stuff that really matters.
Lehman Brothers went under today. Merril Lynch had to sell. AIG is begging the Fed for funds.
But, by all means, let’s talk the Jill Greenberg’s photograph that the Atlantic didn’t even use….
Sep 15, 2008 - 9:47 am 38. michele:I think a lot of you are missing my main point, which has very little to do with the politics of the matter: Greenberg used someone else’s article to make her political views known through her photograph. If Greenberg herself wrote the article, there would be little to complain about. But she basically used Goldberg to hammer home her point, and that’s the main thing that’s wrong with this picture.
Sep 15, 2008 - 9:54 am 39. Sandra M:In the battle of the visuals:
Lisa Paul: “The fact is McCain is not a good-looking man. Obama is.”
A matter of opinion. Harold Ford I find handsome. Obama reminds me of Urkel. Big ears, purple lips. Not pretty. And when they try to make him look like a messiah. I laugh. Not what I’m looking for in a President. Germany thought they’d found a savior in Hitler and look what happened.
This weekend, a friend sent me the side by side photos of Sarah Palin leaning on a motorcycle vs. a frail-looking Obama wearing a helmet and riding his bike, Peggy Noonan had written about as being emailed across the web as fast as a virus. The caption was: “This settles it.”
This may be Obama’s equivalent of Dukakis in a tank wearing what on him looked like a Mickey Mouse helmet. Reputedly, Lee Atwater saw that photo while sitting in a barber shop, leaped up and said: “we’ve won!!”
I forwarded the photos to everyone I’ve ever emailed and to several members of the press.
However, I still believe this election will be won on our better IDEAS.
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:00 am 40. Lisa Paul:Michelle,
Your point, and I think you were coming at it as a photographer and a journalist, was all about how you deplored Greenburg’s actions. Fair enough and good article.
It just concerns me how many people are grabbing on to this non-issue to scream that “THE MEDIA is attacking my candidate”. The media isn’t — at least not in this case. And as Herb points out, it pulls us all away from the issues we should be discussing.
BTW, just a note. When I worked at magazines, any product created at a photoshoot where a photographer was on hire, were the property of the magazine and not allowed to be reused without permission. In fact, negatives and digital images were quickly collected and kept in the magazine photo library. (Usually reuse was confined to being included in the photographers portfolio.) How did Greenburg get to walk out with the negatives and/or digital images?
I’m sure the Atlantic will quickly institute that policy!
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:02 am 41. IncPen:It’s the internet, thank Gore.
Once the gatekeepers lost their stranglehold, the people were free, and saw the light.
Media Bias = Layoffs
No tears from me.
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:04 am 42. avoidswork:Herb, it’s what they do…
Fox News and Friends told them that Gibson’s interview of Palin was sexist, therefore it was sexist…
Greenberg’s atrocious actions should have no bearing on The Atlantic – as Lisa Paul pointed out regarding the context of the actual article – since they did not run the actual photo.
How pathetic, really, that now the meme is that the media is mean to McCain.
Another “Boo Hoo”, this time to the old POW who can’t use a computer due to his experience with “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Another T*rdBlossom gem.
AND, I mean, no one is talking about the fact that Karl Rove, yes KARL ROVE , actually said McCain ads have gone too far on FOX NEWS no less! Of course, he also thinks inconsequential things like “Fact checking” are not to be trusted, so…
They have two candidates who are more of the same, have no clue about real reform (otherwise mccain would have to fire almost all of his campaign staff and advisores), and do not want to take America into the direction she needs to go in. Their concern is guns, gods, and gays.
Not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not the issues such as those mentioned by Herb above. Not the fact that Bush has amended his war position towards what Obama has been saying (troops out of Iraq, deployment to Afghanistan) and saying and saying.
They just want to bask in their Messiah, Palin. Oh, and that old POW dude she’s running with.
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:07 am 43. avoidswork:OMG!
I also forget that FOX NEWS’ Megyn Kelly zinged Tucker Bounds about mccain/PALIN campaign falsehood that Obama is raising taxes:
“Has your candidate gone too far, has he stretched the truth with the voters?”
Bounds initially attempted to dismiss her question, claiming that McCain has simply “gone to great lengths to discuss Barack Obama’s record.” “It is true that during a struggling economy, he proposes raising taxes,” declared Bounds.
“Not on the middle class,” shot back Kelly, noting that “virtually every independent analyst” has said that the McCain campaign is lying:
KELLY: But you guys have suggested he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class and virtually every independent analyst who took a look at that claim said that’s not true. He’ll raise it on people making $200,000 or $250,000, but not the middle class.
Bounds tried to push back by saying that Obama had voted to raise taxes in the past, but Kelly kept pushing Bounds to admit the McCain campaign was lying. “If that’s false, why would John McCain do that, Tucker? Why wouldn’t he just level with the voters?” asked Kelly:
KELLY: Let’s stay on point, I’m not giving him any credit. I’m saying what the independent analysts say. They say that claim is false. And if that’s false, why would John McCain do that Tucker? Why wouldn’t he just level with the voters and say, “look, he’s going to raise taxes on the wealthy or whatever you consider somebody to be making over $250,000, it’s going to have a trickle down effect. That may not be good for the middle class.” But why say he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class when he’s not?
—-
And here’s my secret crush, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, during the Friday (Sept 12th) Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources summit (Bipartisan Energy Summit Friday; included numerous Senators and experts).
During the hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked a question:
WHITEHOUSE: Gentlemen, we’re in the middle of a near total mortgage system meltdown in this country. We have a health care system that burns 16 percent of our GDP, in which the Medicare liability alone has been estimated at $34 trillion. We’re burning $10 billion a month in Iraq.
This administration has run up $7.7 trillion in national debt, by our calculation. And there is worsening evidence every day of global warming, with worsening environmental and national security ramifications. In light of those conditions, do any of you seriously contend that drilling for more oil is the number one issue facing the American people today?
(Long silent pause during which nobody answers.)
WHITEHOUSE: No, it doesn’t seem so.
—-
mccain/PALIN — lying about Obama taxes and wrong on what is truly wrong with America today.
Save your soul, this land, this planet, and the future of your children. If you want change, you have to take the “risk” and vote Obama/Biden.
They care. mccain’s lobbyists don’t.
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:22 am 44. Lisa Paul:Sandra M,
Please tell my your vote isn’t going to be cast by which candidate can straddle a Harley and which candidate rides a bike! Or the fact that you don’t find Obama cute enough to date.
I hate everything George Bush stands for and has done, but I will freely admit that he’s a remarkably fit and even good looking guy for his age with a lanky Texas charm when he wants to turn it on. Has no effect on my vote.
If I told you that Palin likes to “hunt” by shooting defenseless animals with a high powered rifle from a helicopter, would that seal the deal?
Not that I’m against hunting. My father hunted in Alaska and could field dress a moose. But he hired Native American guides, hiked miles into the backcountry carrying a 20 lb. Winchester, didn’t shoot until he had a clean kill shot and participated in a program that donated meat to impoverished Native communities.
None of which qualified him to be a leader of the free world.
So I now digress as much as the people I’m criticizing.
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:38 am 45. W::So we must all become “sophisticated” and verify the politics of doctors and computer workers?
Should tow truck drivers pass up stranded motorists because of an Obama sticker?
Would Greenberg applaud if home repairmen, roofers, gardners, auto service workers, etc do comparable things to anyone with an Obama sign in their car or yard?
Good job there Jill, in elevating the human spirit. What a loser.
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:45 am 46. RE:Politics transforms another American into a complete asshole. Q’elle surprise…
Jill Greenberg is a Canadian
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:55 am 47. B Dubya:Anybody remember the shot taken of Churchill in 1940? Right after the photog gamed the shot by grabbing away his cigar?
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:07 am 48. Ken:That photograph came to symbolize British courage and resolve during the Blitz.
This unsuspecting tool has delivered a shot very much like it.
Karl Rove will be pleased.
Jill Greenberg is no better or worse than all the rest of the Democrats, who think that Sarah Palin should be destroyed for not butchering her baby, and who think gun owners should be wacoed for allegedly having small penises (since no less an authority than Larry Flynt said sex is all that matters).
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:21 am 49. JMH:The Atlantic is sinking, so to speak. They continue to host Sullivan, who has clearly gone bat-crazy. He’s allowed partisan hatered to warp is world view. D’ya think continuing to associate with someone like that makes the Atlantic look like a friendly place for other partisan loons like Greenberg? The Atlantic has brought this on themselves by indulging in the loony left. But they’re just following the path already blazed by CBS, MSNBC, and the NYT. Just like Greenberg’s photographs can no longer be trusted, the reporting of so many organs of the media can’t be either.
For Lisa, the issue isn’t really Greenberg. It’s that she is just one for data point in a very, very clear trend of so-called professional journalists and their usual publications of skewing strongly to the left. It is not “both sides of the spectrum” as you claim. It is almost entirely slanted left. If you don’t believe that, I’d ask you to consider if you are fooling yourself. Any instance of a national media organization slanting a story, editing a story, or ignoring a story, in favor of a conservative can be matched by at least a half-dozen examples going the other direction.
For Herb, it isn’t about this election. McCain will probably win because Obama is melting down. The real problem is the long-term damage to our civic institutions by hyper-partisans like Greenberg who ignore professional obligations for often petty, juvenile, but always partisan, objectives. Repairing this damage will take some time.
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:27 am 50. Donna:Lisa Paul: Give me some proof that Palin has hunted wolves from the air, for God’s sake. The managed aerial shooting of wolves (by state employees, not hunters) was approved by her to protect the moose and caribou populations.
The left just can’t stop lying,…,
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:42 am 51. Lisa Paul:Sorry JMH,
I’m not buying it. I think the bias is pretty evenly matched. Which is the sad thing. Media to the Left and the Right are finding their audiences and playing to them — as if they were running American Idol and not in a profession where they are supposed to be fact finders and truth seekers. Unfortunately, the corporations who run many media outlets have found that prejudice and loud screaming partisanship sells.
If we want this to end, we need to look to ourselves. If we weren’t making this profitable (by buying, quoting, tuning in, patronizing advertisers), they wouldn’t be doing it.
Oh and please stop laying Greenberg at our door. She’s not a Democrat. She’s not even a US Citizen. She’s a Canadian. There are plenty of European pundits, especially in England, in lockstep with Bill O’Reilly, but I never assume they have anything to do with the Republican Party.
I’d ask how many of you, especially those accusing all Democrats of wanting to butcher babies, have a significant number of friends who are of another party and with whom you regularly have civilized, respectful debate. Happens a lot in my neck of the woods. Sometimes I convince my Republican friends of my viewpoint, sometimes they convince me. If you actually tried adult discussion, you’d find we all have valid opinions and concerns and we all have much more in common than we think.
By flying into a silly partisan rage over this non-issue (again, the photo was never used, Greenberg was chastised and a basically thoughtful piece on McCain was published) or about a stupid “lipstick on a pig” phrase that politicians from both sides have used, we take our eyes off the ball and allow ourselves to be manipulated instead of holding our candidates’ feet to the fire to find out EXACTLY what they propose to do for us.
But again, off point to Michele’s article. And sermon over.
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:51 am 52. Lisa Paul:Sorry Donna,
I was being snarky, but apparently not clear. No idea how Palin hunts and didn’t mean to imply how she does so. Just trying to make a point that some people seem to seize on extraneous issues, such as whether a candidate is “cute” enough, as a basis for a vote. I know for sure she’s a better shot than Dick Cheney and that’s some comfort.
And for the record, I have no problem with ecologically managed, responsible hunting. You’d laugh to see how many former hippie, Greenpeace sustainable farmers in Sonoma County carry rifles when coyotes are menacing the goats that supply milk for that fancy Laura Chenel goat cheese.
I myself have my Dad’s old Winchester hunting rifle. Not sure if I really want to use it, but there is a very large Mountain Lion in residence on our land. Not sure how Liberal I’d be if I saw him charging me. But then again, the way a Mountain Lion hunts, I probably wouldn’t see him.
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:58 am 53. trangbang68:Yeah lets take a chance on Obama, the candidate of change. Never mind he’s a sock puppet for George Soros a seriously anti American currency manipulator.
Sep 15, 2008 - 12:02 pm 54. colagirl:The Greenberg propaganda is not a trivial affair because our freedom depends on a certain integrity in the political process. When distortion and the manipulation of media fosters deception and wide spread voter fraud such as regularly propagated by left wing groups such as ACORN prevail, our very system of representative democracy is in danger. “It can’t happen here” Oh yes it can.
Actually, I like the McCain photo. It makes him look presidential and commanding. That said, Greenberg’s actions were clearly unprofessional in the extreme, and reflect badly not only on her, but on the media by increasing public mistrust in the media’s motives. They also have the potential to hurt not just her but other photographers as well, as candidates may be less likely to trust them and more likely to limit access. (Glenn Reynolds has started saying bring your own photographer to the candidates.) IIRC, the Atlantic has said they’re not paying her and considering a lawsuit. I also expect she’ll have difficulty finding work in the future. In the end, she may find that her childish actions have hurt no one so much as herself.
Sep 15, 2008 - 12:26 pm 55. W::The Atlantic appears blameless and has acted professionally in rebuking that poor excuse for a human being.
I agree that this is not the fault of “Democrats.” There do seem to be a lot of angry left people though, like Greenberg, and the people who will key any car with a McCain sticker on it, whereas I have never heard of such a thing happening to an Obama stickered car.
Sep 15, 2008 - 12:48 pm 56. Steve A:Looks like McCain and/or the Atlantic has a fraud and/or breech of contract case.
Sep 15, 2008 - 1:26 pm 57. schnargley:The problem is that the system is unfair. The MSM is owned by American multinational corporations of the right, leaving us on the progressive revolutionary Left having no place in the MSM to express our thoughts, views and opinions. Thus so we are forced to do it by subterfuge in what can maybe be interpreted as an underhanded way. We have a right to be totally bitter, angry, manipulative and violent because our voice is being silenced as we watch our candidate slip below the surface.
If Obama loses, we will be forced into using more of these kinds of Alinsky tactics becuase of our powerlessness in America to influence the vast majority of mindless, middle-class, religious-duped Amerikkans.
Sep 15, 2008 - 1:37 pm 58. Brian:You guys must be white…..
Sep 15, 2008 - 1:38 pm 59. JMH:Lisa,
You’re correct that the bias is a sad thing, but if you really think it’s evenly distributed, then I don’t know what to say to you. Ignoring it won’t make it go away. Again, any instance of conservative bias is completely swamped by liberal bias. Please, just look at this campaign. How many hatchet jobs on McCain and Palin have there been? How many against Obama or Biden? There are reporters crawling all over Alaska, trying to find dirt on Palin. The energy put into finding something wrong with Palin’s background is only matched by the energy put into denouncing anyone trying to investigate Obama’s Chicago roots.
Sep 15, 2008 - 1:40 pm 60. Vox:Of course, there are people much more clever than she who saw the real potential in her photos.
http://minx.cc/?post=273406
There is a man you can feel good about voting for.
Sep 15, 2008 - 1:48 pm 61. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: OOOooooooo…..
….racist in the open….FIRE FOR EFFECT!
TO: Brian
RE: Self-Identification
Well…
…you know….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. It isn’t about ’skin coloration’. In fact, if you ‘cut’ me…I’m ‘green’.
[When I look out at that formation. I don't see red, white, yellow, brown or red. All I see is GREEN. -- Famous US Army First Sergeant answering a question on Equal Employment Opportunity from an Annual General Inspection Inquisitioner]
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:01 pm 62. Chuck Pelto:OOoooops….
Doubled ‘red’ when I meant to enter ‘black’. I suspect something to do with that rather ‘funky’ headache I had last week. The one that started twitching some muscles and had me forgetting things like peoples’ names.
I’m trying to get over that ‘think’…..please have patience…..
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:04 pm 63. Lisa Paul:JMH,
I respectfully disagree. It’s evenly divided and despicable on both sides of the media. I think the reason Obama hasn’t gotten the hatchet jobs yet is for the same reason people are treading lightly around Sarah Palin: fear of appearing racist or sexist. Not to say that that shouldn’t be a fear. If all media would just focus on the issues, the voting record and public record of candidates that would transcend gender and race issues.
Do we KNOW that every journalist who goes to Alaska is there to dig up dirt? I prefer to think the vast majority are just trying to find out who the hell she is. I, for one, would want to know, just as I wanted to know who this Obama character was who suddenly burst out of obscurity. Each in their own time is and has been a big story. If most people are saying who’s Sarah Palin, what does she stand for (as they should be) isn’t the media doing it’s job to go to the source to find out those answers?
I’ve never said ignore bias in the media. In fact, I’m advocating that we actively discourage it by proving to the people who run these media conglomerates that bias doesn’t pay. Sadly bias and polarization currently does pay and whoever gets the dirt, substantiated or not, and blasts it out first often gets a boost in ratings.
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:10 pm 64. avoidswork:Everyone is commenting over the fac that the MSM is trying to hatchet job Palin, press/lawyers crawling over Alaska to dig up dirt, etc.
Actually, in all fairness, this person came onto the National stage weeks ago. And as what? A VP pick.
Be honest, unless you were from Alaska, most AMERICANS did not know who she was. So yes, people are out there scrutinizing her records, her policies and the like from her mayorship of Wasilla through her governorship of Alaska.
It’s not a hatchet job. But when you say you stopped the “Bridge to Nowhere” and evidence to the contrary shows you were a supporter until it became a joke, THEN unsupported it, well…
I would call that a fact, not a “hatchet” job.
Troopergate, BTW, is not about Wooten being fired. It’s about a Wooten supervisor being fired for not firing Wooten.
At least I can say with a clear conscience that I don’t jump on the Obama bandwagon. I read. Multiple sources and then I decide on the truthiness of an article/statement/etc. And I don’t always agree with him on all issues. But morally, I cannot vote Republican, so Obama/Biden it is.
But even more than my moral standing, I see mccain as a man who sold his soul and honor for this 2008 election bid and I see PALIN as a female GWB. Ignorant, incurious, cocky and wrong for America.
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:12 pm 65. Bubba:I don’t suffer fools gladly. Advertisers just got suckered, again.
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:20 pm 66. Lisa Paul:It should be noted that the McCain of two elections ago was a man respected on both ends of the political spectrum. The media, whether you want to label them Liberal or Conservative, universally loved him and he enjoyed almost unprecedented favorable media coverage.
Then he was heinously smeared by the Rove machine (and who was pulling those strings?) Everything from unfounded charges of brain damage as a result of his POW experience to completely off-the-charts evil memos in South Carolina about him fathering a Black child (he had adopted an Indian girl and chose to preserve her privacy which is why he didn’t parade her around and use her as a prop.)
So McCain’s destruction as a viable candidate was engineered by Republicans way back when. Even now that he’s the candidate, support from many Rovian style Republicans seems to be very left-handed and lukewarm.
But again, McCain is not the McCain of 2001. He has indeed sold his soul for the chance to be president, moved in lockstep with Bush even on issues he previously questioned, and destroyed his reputation as a maverick which had earned him respect on all sides of the political spectrum.
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:27 pm 67. Concerned Citizen:Getting back on topic…
These images say more about the photographer than the subject and as they were outtakes, who really cares?
People may at one time have accepted a photograph as “documentary evidence”, today, with electronic retouching, etc. ordinary people realize what artists have for 30 years… photos lie. They all do. As a photographer, you can change the framing and angle, lighting, cropping and retouch things to add and subtract things that were or weren’t in the original. There is nothing “real” about editorial photography, it’s all a big fat lie.
Yes, Jill may get bounced from some of the commercial work she might have gotten, but the value of her art just went up. Don’t forget that most of her customers (commercial OR fine art) are probably not McCain voters, anyway. It’s safe to say she’s probably enjoying the whole thing; well…except for all the nasty grams from lawyers. And Atlantic is getting way more PR value than the cost of any photo shoot. I’d say it’s upside for both of them and McCain could probably pick up some sympathy as an innocent victim here, too. Keep sending the photos around and McCain will bounce another point. The loser here is Obama, in my opinion.
Besides, the cover shot of John McCain looks as “real” as any photograph I’ve seen of him — I think it’s pretty good and shows strength and dignity, a good story for a public servant who has really put “country first”. Maybe we could get Jill to do a piece on Sarah Palin….LOL.
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:36 pm 68. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: Self-Delusion
I wonder how many attorneys and ‘reporters’ Rush Limbaugh has unleashed on Obama or Biden….vis-a-vis the NYT against Palin.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Sep 15, 2008 - 2:57 pm 69. Lisa Paul:Concerned Citizen,
Yes, getting back on topic. Even before the days of Photoshop, editorial photography was still all about the photographer’s perception of the sitter. ( Think of the famous 1903 Edward Steichen photo where STeichen manipulated shadows to make Morgan, whom he hated, appear to hold a knife.) See it here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:JP_Morgan.jpg
It always has been up to the people who employ/hire writers and photographers up to keep things fair — as I think the Atlantic did here. The article was actually quite good and reminded me of what I originally admired about McCain. I recommend reading it — especially if you think Liberal leaning periodicals are all “out to get” Republicans.
But I think I’ve had my last say on this subject.
Sep 15, 2008 - 3:09 pm 70. Bookem Dano:“Wah wah wah … the New York Times is unfair … wah wah wah … a photographer at the Atlantic made McCain look ugly … wah wah wah …”
Hey, I think I just figured out who McCain was talking about when he called America a “nation of whiners”… he was talking about his supporters!
Sep 15, 2008 - 3:41 pm 71. Bookem Dano:Let me understand this … the problem with the photo Atlantic used was that it WASN’T retouched? The problem is that the photo GENUINELY REFLECTS WHAT MCCAIN LOOKS LIKE? And you call this a “lack of journalistic integrity.” Wow. What does that say about what Republicans think “journalistic integrity” is about? Moreover, I think this pretty much proves that the Republicans are totally desperate and clutching at straws.
Sep 15, 2008 - 3:45 pm 72. michele:Dano, let me explain again, slowly, for you. The lack of integrity stems from her editorializing someone else’s words with her photograph. Got it?
And I’m not a Republican.
Sep 15, 2008 - 4:52 pm 73. Lisa Paul:Spot on Michele. She’s entitle to do anything she wants as “personal artwork”. But I question whether photos shot at a “for hire” Atlantic Monthly photo shoot are her property. I’ve never seen a situation where a magazine doesn’t own all the photos, negatives, files and outtakes of any photo shoot they orchestrate and pay for. So that’s another point of lack of journalistic integrity. Those photos probably weren’t hers to take and manipulate.
Secondly, her assignment was to take a picture to illustrate an article. She was specifically told, “Make McCain look heroic”. She got off one picture that fulfilled the brief. But she had no business gathering material for her “art” or rants or whatever on time and at a studio venue paid for by her employer.
Thirdly, she excuses her malfeasance by saying everyone should have known she had no professional scruples.
‘Nuff said. She’s a scumbag and we should all write letters to the editor to any periodical that decides to engage her “talents”.
Sep 15, 2008 - 5:10 pm 74. Mary in LA:I don’t mind the photo on the Atlantic cover. There is something refreshing about a picture portraying a man “warts and all”, as Cromwell is said to have said to his portrait painter.
That said, I *do* mind what Ms Greenberg did afterwards with the images (which she didn’t even own at that point — they were work for hire, and the Atlantic owns them). I *do* mind Photoshopping bloody shark teeth onto McCain’s face. I *do* mind the image of the chimp crapping on his head. I mind those, very much.
Sep 15, 2008 - 5:47 pm 75. A.M. Mallett:This was a seriously disgusting display of the true heart of a Democrat. The more these reprobates expose their dark side, the deeper into the morass Obama slips… absolutely incredible and crass.
Sep 15, 2008 - 6:55 pm 76. trangbang68:Ah that word “incurious”. By it one means Palin does not come over to the liberal side for a glance. Why, she doesn’t view the world with subtle nuance, she….. believes in moral absolutes. Oh the horror.
Sep 15, 2008 - 7:02 pm 77. Rachel Peepers:You know what Lazy (short for avoids work); some of us once were how shall I say it..curious.We took our own sojourn on the left, but we saw the cupboard was bare. When I quit taking dope I couldn’t get stupid enough to agree with Michael Moore or Barbra Streisand or Rosie O’Fathead or any of the rest of your crew of philosophical giants.
First, let me set some people straight. The contract between Greenberg and Atlantic Monthly is what determines who owns the photographs.
Second, it’s standard smearing procedure for the Obama campaign to have surrogates slander, demean and slam McCain and Palin, not to mention their families.
Then Obama denounces the sexist, ageist or demeaning communication. So Obama wins both ways. One, the smear gets out, and two, Obama gets to look good denouncing it. A classic example of a young politician digging deep into the old bag of dirty tricks. A poster child for hypocrisy.
At the same time, Jim Bennett and the Atlantic Monthly have undoubtedly pulled the same crap. First, Bennett approves the unflattering photo. So it runs. Then he apologizes for what Greenberg did. And looks honest.
Left wing, mud slinging, bias in the media. Picture that.
From the front page of the NY Times every day to the front cover of Atlantic Monthly for all to see.
Some believe that the more people try to denigrate John McCain and Sarah Palin, the more people realize they’re the ticket to vote for.
Let’s hope so.
Sep 15, 2008 - 9:08 pm 78. Lisa Paul:Oh please. And the Masons run everything. And the UN has special coded signs in every street sign just waiting for their invasion. And there really are aliens. We were lied to about Area 51.
Sep 15, 2008 - 9:39 pm 79. Civilitas:Funny – something seemed malicious about that photo when I saw it – we get that magazine and the photo and title were just off-putting. Against those initial instincts, I read the article late last week and found it excellent. A great and valuable insight into history that has shaped the life of John McCain. The attempt to draw parallels about how his father had tried to re-direct a previously mis-directed war was juxtaposed with his attempts to re-direct Iraq from prior mis-management. It made me appreciate him more and have greater confidence. Kudos overall to the Atlantic and the author.
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:23 pm 80. Jeff:Oh people, enough is enough. McCain has done his fair share of smearing on his campaign ads, spreading outrageous lies about Obama. If you count both candidates’ smear campaign ads, McCain outweighs Obama on that by far. I don’t hear you people complaining about that.
As far as this picture on the Atlantic magazine is concerned, I believe that Jill Greenberg truly wants America to see the true McCain for who he is or will be – the next war monger.
Sep 15, 2008 - 11:15 pm 81. Tom W.:I believe that Jill Greenberg truly wants America to see the true McCain for who he is or will be – the next war monger.
I hope he does mong some war. There are plenty of countries out there that need war monged on them. Plus, we’ve now got a military with the most combat experience in history. We can’t let all those killin’ smarts go to waste.
By the way, your endless cries of “Liar!” are about as effective as your endless cries of “Racist!”
You’ve overused the terms so much that nobody cares anymore. And I’ve looked into it.
McCain ain’t lying.
Sep 16, 2008 - 12:46 am 82. BMoon:The establishment Left is an old dog with no new tricks. During the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1959 the East coast elites desperately wanted Kennedy because he was one of them. The TV producers had given orders to turn up the heat and the spotlight intensity on Nixon knowing his propensity to sweat so as to make him look bad. Sure enough, as Paul Johnson mentions in his massive history, Modern Times, Nixon lost the debate according to TV viewers, but he won it according to radio listeners.
Sep 16, 2008 - 1:43 am 83. Jeff:This picture is far less damaging than the cartoon of Obama, dressed in Muslim attire and bumping fists with his wife, Michelle, dressed in militant attire with a machine gun strapped behind her back on The New Yorker a few months ago. Wasn’t that when the propaganda of him being a Muslim first came into the national scene? Was anyone complaining about that in any of the articles on this website? Apparently not so take a good look below —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVy5D6NsFw
Which depictions are more about the politics of instilling fear into the American public? McCain on The Atlantic or Obama’s cartoon on The New Yorker?
Sep 16, 2008 - 1:44 am 84. Jeff:Was the illustrator, Barry Blitt, at The New Yorker ever crucified for that stunt on the Obama cartoon as hard as Jill Greenberg is crucified for this McCain picture on The Atlantic?
Sep 16, 2008 - 1:56 am 85. David C:The sad thing is, she’ll probably only receive further fame and accolades from the Party of Hate as a result of all this. She’s a Hero of the Revolution now.
Sep 16, 2008 - 4:04 am 86. Tom W.:Which depictions are more about the politics of instilling fear into the American public? McCain on The Atlantic or Obama’s cartoon on The New Yorker?
Who said the McCain photo was about instilling fear? There isn’t a single person on the planet who’s making that argument.
Was the illustrator, Barry Blitt, at The New Yorker ever crucified for that stunt on the Obama cartoon as hard as Jill Greenberg is crucified for this McCain picture on The Atlantic?
I didn’t know there were degrees of crucifixion. How do you crucify someone harder than someone else?
Anyway, who cares about Jill Greenberg’s welfare? She’s a repulsive, arrogant, juvenile punk who harasses people for criticizing her. Her husband does, too. She wanted to create a stir, and now she’s got one. Hopefully it’ll ruin her career, which would make me really happy.
Imagine, self-destructing by strangling on your own venom. She’s like a snake that bit itself in the ass and died.
Excellent.
Sep 16, 2008 - 4:16 am 87. Steve Bronfman:Kick her out of the US!!!!
Sep 16, 2008 - 5:09 am 88. Steve Bronfman:Oh and I’m Canadian too!!
Sep 16, 2008 - 5:10 am 89. Ed Wallis:More moral relativism from “Jeff,” our resident multiple-personality-”true-Independent.”
Apples and oranges, Jeffie.
Try comparing NYer cover with Greenbergs photos on her website.
You express mental fraud…or just employing Alexrod O’bot techniques? YOU DECIDE:
There’s alot of action at balanced-to-conservative websites by Alexrod’s Astroturf writers*…you know, those “concerned Christians,” “sincere feminists,” “true Independents” who appeared sudddenly after Palin’s announcement…many of whom claim to be “former McCain” supporters but now ardently support Zerobama.
The veneer gets pretty thin and, after a few posts of their “party-line-prepared rhetoric,” it is clear what fraudulent thoughts they posit here. The only thing which comes through is the vitriol.
But I encourage them to keep on trying! Axelrod must have to pay out a heap of cash from Zerobama’s war chest, so better he spend the effort here.
* SEE:
Sep 16, 2008 - 5:13 am 90. Ed Wallis:http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001554.html
http://minx.cc/?post=273492
New article on this topic:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09162008/news/columnists/mag_has_blood_on_its_hands_129369.htm
Sep 16, 2008 - 5:16 am 91. Rubicon:Professionally, based on a large number of people in the crowds she runs with in the leftist media & entertainment industries, its probable they will create a special recognition award for her work. They will be “proud” of her deliberate efforts to portray McCain poorly.
Sep 16, 2008 - 6:14 am 92. Skip:To these folks, any action to promote “the cause” is acceptable.
Based on this article, I am under the impression there were two photo’s or two shoots where photo’s were taken or created. The second set were apparently totally unacceptable, but the first set were apparently reasonably acceptable. In most cases a photographer would do some touch up to take out “red eye” & perhaps other “blemishes.” Such “retouches” are apparently typical & acceptable manipulations since many people photograph harshly.
Its reasonable to question why the magazine editors allowed even these photo’s to go on their cover. Perhaps the editors were faced with print deadlines & had to go with the least objectionable shot since they did not have time to recreate the shoot based on schedules? I imagine it was difficult to arrange times to even take the photo’s that were taken, so a re-shoot would have caused a serious delay.
The photo on the mag cover that came from the first shoot where the photographer had not taken out the red eye effect. My 5 mega-pixel camera has some sort of thingy in it that corrects for red eye. I needed a camera that compensated for my lousy abilities with a camera. Now being color blind, I would not be able to see it either way. It may jump out to others though.
I think the point of this article is that she violated the trust the editors had placed in her to professionally photograph someone to accompany a story a writer was doing. I can say, in my profession, if one betrays a clients trust, you are done industry wide. I do not think this standard is applied to the media & entertainment industry, especially if the actions attack or denigrates a conservative.
Most people I know want nothing to do with those who betray our trust that they will give us their best work. Those who openly brag about their deceptiveness, rate a special disdain. Whether its fair or not, each incident where the public sees bias, whether its media, entertainment, or associated professions like photography, the public has learned they must take what these groups say with a grain of salt.
The photographer did not try to portray Obama as better than McCain in some sort of side by side comparison. But the photographer did try to portray McCain in a less favorable view.
To a public that has become aware of media bias in this election, any & all actions are now seen as bias & underhanded tactics of partisans.
By publicly bragging about her efforts, the photographer has inadvertently provided those asserting bias, with confirmation of bias.
Now, the entire industry & Obama’s entire support network, will be tarnished by this brush. It may not be fair, but neither has the coverage of the candidates been fair.
The photographer may not be “media,” but her work is used often by media. Therefore all media has been tainted by her actions, in a
“guilt by association” perspective. That too is decidedly unfair, but there is little one can do about that when the instigator actually brags about what they have done.
Some say, this has little to do with the election. Unfortunately, that is not completely the case. All the public has to go on when selecting their candidate is what they are told, see, or can personally discover. Since bias in this election appears obvious to many, & now a photographer has confirmed her actions were based on her bias, all in that camp get painted with the same brush. Worse is that if a number within a camp lack integrity or have character flaws, the public may assume “all” in that camp have character flaws. Included in such a supposition, is the actual candidate.
Many on the left have decided Bush is guilty of any & all wrongs or failures or happenings since the dawn of time. So if the public believes Obama is an active participant in the bias that has been openly displayed by the media in this election, one has to forgive them jumping to the conclusion Obama also has the same character & integrity flaws the media have.
Character counts when one is deciding who they want to lead our nation. If one practices deception or deplorable tactics during the campaign & such deceptive tactics are openly bragged about, its reasonable for the public to ask what that candidate would do if elected?
We need policy issues discussed. But so long as biased or partisan supporters resort to these actions, they make everyone deal with off topic issues & waste time for all candidates.
So, fair or not, my question is, “how low will they go?” (That means both candidates & their direct or indirect supporters!)
Where the heck were the editors and publisher? Didn’t they select the photo to publish?
Sep 16, 2008 - 7:22 am 93. Ursa Major:Why on earth did the McCain campaign permit this? Any political PR person worth a three-martini lunch should have enough brains to vet a photographer’s political leanings before agreeing to be photographed. It’s known as Public Relations 101. Obviously the McCain campaign didn’t take the course.
Sep 16, 2008 - 7:29 am 94. andy:Well, where is the New York AG looking into the hate crime aspect of this? After all, since 2000 it has been illegal to harass, stalk, and do a whole lot of other things if you were motivated by, among others, age and disability bias. What a great country, eh?
Imagine the Force 5 attention if a photographer took Obama’s picture and underexposed it by half a stop (making his skin look darker without resort to Photoshop), posed him in front of a graffiti-strewn wall (Obama as gangbanger), shot him up close with a short lens (unduly emphasizing his nerdly physique)and head-on (showing his Alfred E. Newman ears). Then posted his outtakes on a Website with Obama’s head wrapped in a PS’d kaffyieh. Hah!
Sep 16, 2008 - 7:45 am 95. RE:Ursa Major,
It could be another of McCain’s ‘reaching across the aisle’ gestures that Conservatives so rightfully dread.
Sep 16, 2008 - 8:00 am 96. Oscar Goesto:Sure the Atlantic apologized. Just like some prosecution apologizes after battering an innocent accused for months on end in some rape trial that suddently is nullifed by the real rapist turning himself in. At that point, the innocent accused might have lost his job, reputation, and have a stigma haunting him for years.
I’m not concerned in this case. The Atlantic is working with smoke and mirrors, knowing well that the audience is readily persuaded with fear and passion, and not their rational, objective, independent minds. Not to digress, but it reminds me of the human test in the classic Herbert series, Dune. It requires inserting one’s hand into “pain box” and then having the nerves stimulated to feel fire and eventually flesh burning off the hand, testing whether the subject can overcome the fearful emotions of acutely painful sensations. Withdrawing the hand early identifies the subject as not being fully human, but an animal, governed by emotions such as fear. Whoever endures the test is identified as a fully evolved human, governed by reason, by objective intellect reigning over emotion. Those who see past the duplicitous Atlantic-Greenburg charade, are not distracted from their political positions by petty visual parlour tricks.
Her lack of ebjectivity reveals that Ms. Greenburg is governed by emotions of hate, fear, and envy. Ironically, her negative photographic interpretation of McCain might be to his advantage since human appreciation or esteem of a subject tends to rise when the threshold or barrier to acceptance or attainment is elevated. Just like car enthusiasts dream about Ferrari, not Ford, or loving a fire-mutilated spouse is harder than a visually attractive one, it follows that the greater the hurdle to accepting McCain, the greater the commitment of the hurdler.
Friedrich Nietzsche put it most eloquently: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” How naively she expended the energy of her politcal hammer only to moreso temper her adversary’s sword.
Sep 16, 2008 - 10:26 am 97. Jeff:Ed Wallis,
It is you who has multiple personalities and maybe a hint of being senile. Did you forget that I mentioned numerous times in all of these posts that the Charlie Gibson thread comment was not by me but by another Jeff? I am quite sure that it was you posing as me and have used that post to numerously try to debunk me as a flip flopper throughout this whole website. Why would you do that? Now let me take a look. Maybe you are senile and cannot counter a good argument so you had to resort to that. Did I hit the point?
Independents like me are moving towards the Democratic Party in this election in large numbers because radicals, like you, on the Right are out of your minds and have a very one-track view of all the details.
Sep 16, 2008 - 10:42 am 98. Mary in LA:Tom W: “How do you crucify someone harder than someone else?”
I dunno, maybe more nails?
Sep 16, 2008 - 10:46 am 99. Jeff:Mary in LA,
Try to bring something more intelligent to the table, will you?
Sep 16, 2008 - 11:06 am 100. Mary in LA:Jeff:
A. You’re a troll, as is obvious from your performance on this and other threads. For you to chastise me about “bringing something more intelligent to the table” is a big laugh and a half!
B. You’re not the moderator. My comment passed moderation. If the moderator saw fit to let my comment through, you have nothing to say about it. Get your own blog.
Sep 16, 2008 - 11:44 am 101. Mary in LA:Jeff,
Sep 16, 2008 - 11:46 am 102. Mary in LA:You first.
Actually, you know what? Jeff, your snarky remark was unnecessary, but I’m sorry to have compounded the problem by replying with equally unnecessary peevishness. However, my comment that you should not arrogate to yourself the responsibilities of the moderator stands.
Please carry on the debate. I will resume lurking and comment no further.
Sep 16, 2008 - 12:00 pm 103. Ed Wallis:“Jeff” 10:42am,
YOU ARE AN AXELROD ASTROTURF WRITER (spraying T R O L L – B E – G O N E on the keyboard) and waste space of others with issues to discuss. No one owes you – Mister “Five minutes at wikipedia makes me a researcher” – anything.
I find it a pity that someone misued your “tag” in one post; perhaps you failed to note that my first reaction to this was to ask you for clarification on your seeming 180-degree turn in opinion.
You then responded by posting falsely under my “tag” AND ADMITTING IT.
That is extremely childish behavior and, as you may now know, in error, as I had nothing to do with the first anonymous moron’s act of pretending to be you.
I have better things to do…like thinking and writing.
Grow up…better yet, grow up and buzz off, until you have something of import to say…NO ONE IS HOLDING THEIR BREATH on that one.
Sep 16, 2008 - 2:02 pm 104. Ed Wallis:Oh, yes…one last thing “Jeff”:
YOU ARE NO POLITICAL “INDEPENDENT”; nothing you have written on recent threads has resembled an “independent’s” thoughts. But that is to be expected, all things considered.
Refer to my post of 5:13am today with these links reposted:
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001554.html
Sep 16, 2008 - 2:08 pm 105. Pinkie Ann LeBrainne:http://minx.cc/?post=273492
What a gal, huh! Stand up Jill, and let the folks see you. Oh Gawd love ya, Jill.
Sep 16, 2008 - 2:27 pm 106. Annoyed White Male:Here’s how to handle this kind of thing:
http://annoyedwhitemale.squarespace.com/journal/2008/9/14/blatently-stollen-from-jill-greenberg.html
Turn it back on them.
Sep 16, 2008 - 3:16 pm 107. Annoyed White Male:Here’s how to handle this kind of thing:
http://annoyedwhitemale.squarespace.com/journal/2008/9/14/blatently-stollen-from-jill-greenberg.html
Turn it back on them.
Sep 16, 2008 - 3:17 pm 108. Ed Wallis:“AWM” –
As the one of the West’s and East’s most revered philosophers, Borat, once said…
NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE….
Sep 16, 2008 - 4:27 pm 109. Frank Hawkins:There’s no sense in blaming the goofy photographer. She has her own bias and again chose to show it by making McCain look as horrible as possible. But he blame lies entirely with the editor who has the right if not the obligation to reject material from the magazine that doesn’t meet certain standards. Shame on the editor.
But of course it really doesn’t matter. No one reads the magazine anyhow.
Sep 16, 2008 - 4:48 pm 110. Monte:Greenberg provided yet another insight into the “all inclusive and tolerant” liberal mind.
Sep 16, 2008 - 5:22 pm 111. DJRazorgirl:It is really sad to see this side of creativity. Jill Greenberg truly acted in an unproffesional and childish manner. Her art and actions will forever be remembered as part of the ugliest side of people.
Sep 17, 2008 - 1:21 pm 112. Advocate4Good:Congratulations Greenberg for showing just how horrific human nature can be. Anything for a buck and a platform huh? Didn’t mind making babies cry. Guess you must have considered them barely human. Not old enough for it to matter how you made them feel. But studies have shown the damage that can be caused in later life. And those parents that were a party too it should be ashamed.
If I were a democrat, I would feel you showed incompetance and made the party look bad. In fact, I believe that regardless. As an independant, even I am truly ashamed of this putrid behavior.
Anyone who is sensitive to their spirit can see the godliness emanating from Sarah Palin and John McCain. (John 3:3) However, there are many who subscribe to the viewpoints of the media, which is totally bias. The dilemma is that fewer Americans are able to discern between good and evil much less what is righteousness, good and upright and most of all, godly. We must support the candidates who support and will defend the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments, which must be reinstated! We must never allow the Supreme Court to legislate law, as has been doing. They are to enforce our standards of law and nothing more!
John McCain has more then proven himself in what is morally right and sound, as is with Sarah Palin. Obama’s record of two years speaks for its self, zero accomplishments, except for voting to withhold support for our soldiers. He speaks volumes, but with NO experience or substance in truth. A man who openly speaks against God’s word!
Advocate4Good
You judge the following:
Sep 17, 2008 - 3:48 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl55589.swf&video_id=4FCNKwHRCQM&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i1.ytimg.com/vi/4FCNKwHRCQM/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJY0nHhzdjOzGpYAWbrFktX&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1