As NewsBusters reported Saturday, a freelance photographer hired to shoot John McCain for The Atlantic's October issue has not only admitted to taking a rather sinister picture of the Arizona Senator that she hoped the magazine would use on its cover, but also generated some truly disturbing and disgraceful images of the presidential nominee which she proudly displayed at her website.
Clearly embarrassed by this revelation, folks associated with the magazine are already responding to what is now being widely disseminated across old and new media.
The magazine's editor, James Bennet, issued the following statement Sunday which was e-mailed by the Senior Vice President of the public relations firm that represents The Atlantic (with permission):
“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."
Bennet elaborated to the New York Post Sunday:
"We feel totally blind-sided," he said. "Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional."
The author of the piece that accompanied her pictures, Jeffrey Goldberg, has also responded (h/t American Digest):
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. Greenberg doctored photographs of McCain she took during her Atlantic-arranged shoot, which took place last month in Las Vegas. She has posted these doctored photographs on her website, which you can go find yourself, if you must. 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. [...]
I don't know Greenberg (I count this as a blessing) and I can add nothing to what James Bennet told the Post except to say that Greenberg is quite obviously an indecent person who should not be working in magazine journalism. Every so often, journalists become deranged at the sight of certain candidates, and lose their bearings. Why, this has even happened in the case of John McCain once or twice. What I find truly astonishing is the blithe way in which she has tried to hurt this magazine.
Shannon Love over at Chicago Boyz offered this salient opinion Sunday (h/t Instapundit):
The important thing here is not that Greenberg took and altered the pictures. The import thing is that she felt comfortable bragging about what she did! She expected to receive accolades and approval from the Left for her dirty trick. This tells us a lot about what kind of ethics Greenberg believes the Left approves of. Given her immersion in the upper class, urban, articulate intellectual culture of the far Left, her assessment is probably correct.
The far Left has long since adopted the world view of the radical Marxist in which political utility equals truth. Incapable of believing themselves capable of intellectual error or moral failing, they see themselves obligated to acquire power by any means necessary. They view democracy as only a means of acquiring the legitimacy to use that power. If they must do so under false pretenses, then they will. They believe that the enormous benefits of their enlightened rule outweigh any consequences of the dishonest acts that bring about that rule.
Politics is an ugly business and dirty tricks abound. Individuals from every part of the political spectrum stoop to low tactics to win. What we see on the contemporary far Left, however, is a lack of shame about doing so and complete unwillingness to punish those who go too far.
We should worry if that mindset really does gain power.
Hear, hear!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
"When we contract with
September 14, 2008 - 19:52 ET by ThisnThat"When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics"
I'm highly sceptical. Has the Atlantic ever hired a Republican photographer? Is the Atlantic going to sue and ask for their money back?
Update 8:45pm. I didn't know about this quote from her when I wrote earlier. This kinda flys in the face of the Atlantic quote, doesn't it?
"Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for [The Atlantic] to hire me."
I call this the Atlantic-Biden quote. All the dims are admitting that they are incompetant, or mean, or just plain a$$ho##s. And they don't care who knows. Must be a badge of honor amongst dishonest people, I guess.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Well Greenberg's been fully
September 14, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Kenny BunkportWell Greenberg's been fully vetted now. She must have a lot of money and doesn't need more work. Despite politics, even in this industry, people expect a sense of professionalism, not schoolboy pranks. I think she'll see her revenues plummet for her chance to put a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
I think she will reap her reward when she finds out that only radicals will hire her. There isn't anyone right of Bill Clinton that will trust her to do a flattering shoot after this.
Notice, that like all spoiled liberals, she takes no responsibility. She puts the blame solely on the Atlantic for not predicting that she might pull this kind of trick.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Why is this a big problem?
September 14, 2008 - 20:33 ET by Jacob FreezeSpeaking as a leftist photographer whom no one will ever hire to make a photograph of John McCain, I can't understand why Jill Greenberg posting some altered images of McCain on her website was such a crime. The images are stupid, and they make Greenberg look like an untalented hack, but I can't see how they would do Senator McCain any harm on some obscure website that probably gets 100 hits in a month.
Some of us who formerly admired senator McCain don't admire him any more, but silly photographs don't have anything to do with it.
Before you flame this comment, think about it for one second. The photographer made a dumb visual joke on her website, and now her career will be destroyed by the weasels at the Atlantic.
I can't understand how this is a good thing. If the world isn't safe for a few dumb jokes, what's the point?
The John McCain I used to know would probably intervene on Ms. Greenberg's behalf. The Senator is the only Presidential candidate since Reagan who can actually tell a joke, and I can't believe he would want someone to lose her livelihood because of a few silly pictures.
Well, Jacob
September 14, 2008 - 20:48 ET by BlondeAs with most liberals, she just went ahead and stupidly published those photos on her website without considering the consequences of her actions.
She destroyed her own career. Did I, or anyone else, willfully destroy her professional status? No...she did it to herself. Who is going to hire her after such an unprofessional stunt?
She made her bed, now she can lie in it.
Why should John McCain bail this silly woman out of her own stupidity? Consequences. Real life has consequences.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Yea ok
September 14, 2008 - 21:32 ET by general companySome of us who formerly admired senator McCain don't admire him any more, but silly photographs don't have anything to do with it.
Really, why the turn around , is it cause he is winning? I think this has very little to do with your lack of support for McCain. I dont think you ever supported him.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Notice
September 14, 2008 - 21:39 ET by BlondeThe self-professed leftist has no comeback for consequences. They never do.
Yet he wants John McCain to help this dumb broad who obviously hates him enough to sabotage a professional photo shoot.
Beyond absurd.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Fore every action there is a
September 14, 2008 - 21:11 ET by SnappyFore every action there is a consequence. Jill is free to do all the "dumb jokes" she likes, the Atlantic is also free to disassociate from Jill over her "dumb jokes". This lesson of actions and consequences is one that Jill and others like her should have learned a long time ago.
Typical, when a liberal
September 14, 2008 - 21:53 ET by oilcanTypical, when a liberal intentionally screws up, it's the fault of the person who turned them in. It's not about accountability for them. Funny, you can see before your eyes how pervasive this line of thinking goes with MSM and blaming the McCain camp for being anti-media now. They tore Gov Palin up and have no memory of doing so. Who does Obama blame when his campaign screws up? Probably his hair trigger staff.
I'm not saying Greenberg was right.
September 14, 2008 - 22:36 ET by Jacob FreezeShe screwed up, and it isn't something I would have done to Dick Cheney, and, no offense to the posters here, whom I sort of casually insulted when I first started posting on NewsBusters....
I actually hate Dick Cheney, but I wouldn't manipulate a photograph to make him look bad. I might make a painting that didn't exactly reflect ordinary reality, but there's an element of deceit in a manipulated photograph that I think is repulsive.
With that said, it's still true that the work Ms. Greenberg actually published in the Atlantic was not doctored to make McCain look bad, and that's why I don't think her silly website is grounds for destroying her career.
The Atlantic didn't hire her for the rest of her life, and what she does after the session is none of their business, IMHO. The image she gave them was honest, and that's all they paid for.
I don't admire Jill Greenberg in any way, as a photographer or as a person, but I don't think any sort of professional artist is accountable to whoever contracts for their services beyond honest fulfillment of the contract.
Ah, but you still don't get the point.
September 14, 2008 - 22:44 ET by BlondeYour words, from your post further up this thread:
now her career will be destroyed by the weasels at the Atlantic.
From your post above:
that's why I don't think her silly website is grounds for destroying her career.
So, Mr. Freeze, self-described leftist photographer, let me spell it out for you one last time.
Jill Greenberg destroyed her own career by her own actions.
Actions have consequences, something liberals are apparently loathe to learn.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
A sudden change of opinion
September 15, 2008 - 00:31 ET by Jacob FreezeAfter a little further research and reflection, I don't think Greenberg is worth defending. It's obvious she calculated that the controversy around the altered photographs would be worth more than the loss of straight jounalistic assignments.
In my opinion that makes her nothing but a whore, and it's pointless to defend her as if she were an artist.
Jacob
September 15, 2008 - 00:47 ET by cocodrieAren't you embarrassed to defend a person as vicious and depraved as this? Or is this normal behavior for left-wing extremists?
Surprise?
September 15, 2008 - 01:37 ET by Jacob FreezeI guess it's so surprising when anyone changes his opinion in a discussion like this that cocodrie didn't notice that I had stopped defending Greenberg.
The internet really hasn't done much to enlighten the public, since everyone quickly sequestered themselves into like-thinking bubbles. I don't fit in with the Obamabots on DailyKos or anywhere else, really.
So I drift around discussing the topic of the moment without any particular point of view, and I call myself a leftist because I'm usually on the side of the little guy against big corporations, and I also believe we have almost totally destroyed our planet.
But I don't think that 1,000,000,000 Latin Americans south of the border can become citizens with full rights in the United States just by sneaking across the Rio Grande, and this opinion makes me a pariah on leftist sites like Daily Kos. What is it about the United States that means we don't have the right to control our own border like every other country in the world? I don't know, and the Kossacks can't be bothered to explain it.
So yeah, if Greenberg were following her artistic vision I would still defend her even though I don't like her art, but since she's apparently just another soulless art-hustler, I hope she gets fucked over somehow, but it probably won't happen.
It says a lot about your
September 15, 2008 - 01:45 ET by cocodrieIt says a lot about your morals that you defended her in the first place. I noticed that you pretended to change your tune but I can still hear the same melody.
Another surprise!
September 15, 2008 - 03:23 ET by Jacob FreezeThere are posters just as stupid as cocodrie on Daily Kos, and they also want to reduce every discussion to a few simple ideological categories.
"There you go again!" -
September 15, 2008 - 06:47 ET by Indiana Joe"There you go again!" - Ronald Reagan
With your penchant for casual insults, I'm surprised you didn't feel you "fit in" at DailyKos.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I suppose your rut is too
September 15, 2008 - 08:35 ET by cocodrieI suppose your rut is too deep for you to climb out of or for you to see reality. If I had your address I'd send you a can of Shinola.
Jacob
September 15, 2008 - 07:20 ET by BlondeFirst of all, I do find it surprising that you changed horses mid-stream about this artist. What we objected to, and what you may be missing, is that we like our artists to shut up and sing (or whatever it is that they do), without interjecting their politics into everything they do.
Secondly, a suggestion, keep the f'bomb off the main boards here. It adds nothing to the discussion, and we don't like this site to look like DKos.
I have a question for you. You self-identify as a leftist because you're "usually on the side of the little guy against big corporations". That kind of thinking is beyond my grasp, maybe you could explain further.
Why do you think big corporations are inherently evil? Almost all are publicly traded, and have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to profitably produce goods and/or services while operating within the confines of the applicable laws and regulatory environment. Granted, there are bad apples sometimes (Enron), but corporations, and the people who who run them, are not inherently evil in the conservative p.o.v. We promote free markets, with the underlying assumption(s) I laid out in this paragraph.
Big corporations are owned by many "little" people. My mom got her Exxon dividend the other day, to an elderly person on a fixed income, "big oil's" record profits are great news. Big companies employ millions, providing steadier employment (than small companies) and excellent benefits. As organizations, companies act in their own self-interest to remain viable entities, such as GE and their "ecomagination" move. It makes sense to them in today's green marketplace to do so.
Can you explain to me why liberals and the left reflexively take the anti-corporate stance, viewing them as a negative and as a source to be robbed of their success in a consumer marketplace (windfall profits taxes)? Wouldn't you love to have freelance jobs to do the cover of the likes of Time Magazine? Furthermore, why does the left find it incomprehensible that when government imposes punative taxes and/or regulations, that companies don't just "eat" the extra cost, but rather pass it on to the consumer, i.e. your "little guy"?
I'm asking you this because you seem to be one of the few liberals who's shown up here with at least a willingness to consider your pre-conceived position(s) and open your mind to the possibility that those of us on the right aren't lock-step monsters.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
With that said, it's still
September 14, 2008 - 22:46 ET by bigtimerWith that said, it's still true that the work Ms. Greenberg actually published in the Atlantic was not doctored to make McCain look bad, and that's why I don't think her silly website is grounds for destroying her career.
She, and she alone has destroyed her own career.
...that is, if she really has.
Your side of the aisle will/would be craving more of her work if they think they can get away with it, and the Devil's not in the Details for all to see or know...which they count on.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Jacob, perhaps you need to
September 14, 2008 - 22:57 ET by Kenny BunkportJacob, perhaps you need to research what magazines expect freelance photographers to do with their outtakes. The access to the model is through the magazine and the photographer is contracted for a service (ie, an employee).
Most photo contracts deny the right of the photographer to profit from outtakes. Additionally, most have a clause regarding outtake photos being used in a defamatory way which may have negative impact against the employer (magazine).
This is prudent as it is the magazine which set up the shoot and is the party whose reputation will be harmed. Surely Jacob, in your experience in the service industry you have been confronted by some rule that says you can't wear offensive or provocative clothing. That is because as an employee of the company you become their representative. They become responsible for your actions and speech and so have the right to curb it. Ms. Greenberg was an employee (contract) of the Atlantic so they do have a say with what she does with THEIR photographs.
I suspect there will be some litigaion against Greenberg by the Atlantic for violating a contract clause.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
She was contracted, was she not?
September 15, 2008 - 10:20 ET by CobraMan"The Atlantic didn't hire her for the rest of her life, and what she does after the session is none of their business, IMHO. The image she gave them was honest, and that's all they paid for."
That's not "all they paid for," as you put it. They contracted this woman to perform a service, and any product she created as a result of that service reflects upon the integrity of the contractor. She violated that contract by purposely manipulating the lighting, pose, and various other factors of photography to produce a set of images that do not portray the subject accurately. She admits that she refused to use professional standards in her CONTRACTED work. That, at the very least, is an ethical violation, if not a criminal violation.
In addition to disregarding professionalism, this woman made copies of photographs that are, in my opinion, the PROPERTY of the Atlantic and manipulated them for her own perverse pleasure. She was contracted to take those photos on the behest of the Atlantic, photos that she submitted as per her contract. After fulfilling her contract, she then took COPIES of those photographs and manipulated them. She then proudly presented them for public view; something that should be considered a copyright infringement at the very least. It’s similar to a consigned portrait painter copying an original portrait, altering it from it’s original form, and displaying it as his or her ORIGINAL works. That's copyright infringement, is it not?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
well, how about
September 15, 2008 - 17:28 ET by UndercoverConservativeif i do a photoshop of Obama as a muslim terrorist...think that would get me hired to do photography again?
Plus, on the legal side, those photos weren't hers. They were contracted by the publication and belonged to them. She had no right to modify them.
That's the real reason she's gonna get canned. You just don't mess with copyright these days.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
Jacob
September 15, 2008 - 07:29 ET by allanfSince you don’t understand why Jill Greenberg's malfeasance was so atrocious, let me respectfully suggest an analogy. Think of a doctor who molests an anesthetized patient. Greenberg created a work for hire, and did not carry out the assignment properly. Those photos are probably the intellectual property of the Atlantic Monthly or John McCain. Decisions on derivative works should be made by the Atlantic, not Greenberg.
Freedom of speech, lib style
September 15, 2008 - 09:43 ET by SickofLibsSome obscure website that probably only gets 100 per month? Doi. Maybe before. Now I bet the server is about to crash with all the traffic.
Just a "a stupid photograph?" Maybe you didn't see her cute captions:
"It was really fun to cheat on my car-injury disabled wife"
"I called my wife a cunt in front of reporters"
"I am a bloodthirsty warmonger"
I'm sure McCain 'wouldn't want her to lose her livlihood' any more than, if say, someone posted doctored photos of your spouse, child or mother in a sexually perverse situation with disgusting captions.
As to your personal photographic talents, you don't know jack since you called Greenberg an 'untalented hack'. Her style is unique, highly technical and creative - only problem is she is a friggin' lunatic. I'm sure her editorial assignments will now limited to shooting monkey portraits and crying babies.
At least McCain is an
September 14, 2008 - 21:23 ET by motherbeltAt least McCain is an adult. This is what she did with children! (h/t pabarge, who posted the link in the first thread on this, this AM).
Crying Babies is her latest exhibition.
Be warned; the photos are upsetting. I didn't even look at all of them; I'd had it after about 4, so I don't know how many there are.
Jill Greenberg is sick, IMO.
And so are the "parents" who she says were at the shoot and "were fine with it."
Greenberg should be ashamed of herself for using children to make
political statements, and the parents, for submitting their children to
this for either money or a few minutes of fame.
mb...No only the
September 14, 2008 - 22:28 ET by bigtimermb...
Not only the parents, some were friends of hers, let alone some were from her own daughter, of course meaning her own grandchildren.
I made it to #9 and the site went down saying a whole bunch of blah blah blah...we can't bring this site up anymore ect.
Yeah, describing her as sick is putting it politely.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I made it through...
September 15, 2008 - 06:56 ET by Indiana JoeBut I wanted to slap the person responsible for etching so much misery on those kids' faces.
And her comments about how "happy" the kids were, or how there would be no "lasting effects" of this were just too glib and BS'y.
Her new book is called "Monkey Pictures" or some such. Maybe that's where the famous McCain/monkey feces pic will turn up.
This is "art?" To whom?
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
A clear intent
September 15, 2008 - 08:57 ET by JPR1to inflict emotional distress.
Prosecute for abuse!
Parallels what some of these idiot school admins do when they suspend some poor kid for being a little unclear on illogical "weapons" regulations.
The stupidity is rampant.
Shannon Love helps define Obamaism
September 14, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Vivaldi5Shannon Love's words are powerful, especially the comment
I cannot help applying this to this weekend's soundbites of Obama flailing around telling everyone how John McCain's commercials are all dishonorable and lies. Of course it would be absurd to ask the Obama-ities to cite specific instances of lies in McCain's commercials; after all, "political utility equals truth," so anyone on the opposing side of The Audacious One is automatically guilty of lies and slander. And if they have to slander and lie themselves, the fact that in their own minds they are incapable of "intellectual error or moral failing" absolves them from any blame. After all, are they not working for the greater good of the people?
Vivaldi5
September 14, 2008 - 18:34 ET by Indiana JoeHere, to me anyway, is the real money quote from Love:
Exactly right! She just can't believe that anyone who "matters" would not agree with her "any means to an end" philosophy. This attitude has been building on the left for years, and is impossible to deny anymore.
Thanks, libs, for finally taking the mask off!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Welcome to the world of the
September 14, 2008 - 19:17 ET by kgWelcome to the world of the new Democrat.
The KOS Democrat.
The MoveOn Democrat.
These nut cases said they would overtake the Democrat party and they did! The Democrats laid down and accepted these groups with open arms, all in their quest of more power.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Their decision, their consequences...
September 15, 2008 - 06:59 ET by Indiana JoeAnd now they have to live with it.
Don't you love it when a plan comes together? ;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
it's not "political unity"..
September 15, 2008 - 17:36 ET by UndercoverConservative...it's "Consensus"! Not just for AlGoreWarming anymore!
next up, hive mind..:)
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
the photo shoot
September 14, 2008 - 18:25 ET by PaarlMy question is why Mc Cain's handlers allowed the lefty broad anywhere near the senator???
Paarl of Rhodesia
My guess is
September 14, 2008 - 19:11 ET by Cape Conservativeit won't happen again!
I've come to the conclusion that McCain and Palin should appear at their own scheduled events and tell all of the media, television or print, to go pound sand! They had their chance and they blew it!
It is disgusting how the msm is so intent on tripping up the Republicans - I will NEVER watch Gibson again after his hatchet job...the pompous A$$!
And Judy Woodruff the other night"...Senator Obama, Senator McCain said thus and so - do you agree???" She did it at least 3 times!!! Like Hillary, I was waiting for the "would you like a pillow" question next!
That's my question
September 15, 2008 - 06:32 ET by Sergeant ROCKMcCain might still be living in the 'pre-nomination' world of fawning media coverage as he once was the media's favorite Republican.
PALIN/McCain 2008
"Do you smell that?"
September 14, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Indiana JoeI really think we've reached a tipping-point here. These guys are on the defensive. They know they have to respond to these kind of charges now, they can't just blow them off as some kind of "vast conspiracy."
They're having to deny the real "vast conspiracy" that they've been part of for years. It's on display for everyone to see. And it's being seen. Their own desperation is making the wheels come off.
And it's a losing battle. They're sunk.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Tipping point???
September 14, 2008 - 19:00 ET by PaarlThe now dead communist PM of the UK..Harold Wilson...once said that a week in poitics is an eternity.....
Don't get overconfident...run like they are on your arse..and getting closer...
Paarl of Rhodesia
The term "tipping point"
September 14, 2008 - 19:11 ET by Indiana JoeThe term "tipping point" was in reference to the MSM bias becoming so blatant that it's obvious to the most politically disinclined. Like "the vast right-wing conspiracy" and "Bush stole Florida," it now has legs, and is gaining momentum on it's own.
The difference being, this one is true, and it's out there in plain sight.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
We should worry if that
September 14, 2008 - 18:33 ET by bigtimerWe should worry if that mindset really does gain power.
Indeed.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
dimwits
September 14, 2008 - 18:48 ET by sawing battathese clowns have seriously lost their marbles.
It is fantastic that they display it for all to see.
Dimwits
September 14, 2008 - 19:00 ET by merlin61The more they get dirty the more the public is
going to be turned off and the more the
McCain /Palin campaign will gain.
Merlin61, we're on the same wave length!
September 14, 2008 - 21:09 ET by goldenthroatYou and I are on the same wave length - the MSM has plunged so deep and so far into the sewer in their attacks on McCain/Palin, they're now running like a little kid from a bully - or should I say "pit bull"!
Personally, I hope they continue this downward spiral of yellow journalism - because, every time they do, McCain gets another boost in the polls.
It's like the saying goes: "Give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves". The MSM along with Osama Bama's campaign of lies, innuendo, flip-flops, character asssasination and deceit are about to fall through the trap door!
"The sun's not going down, the horizon's moving up!" - Firesign Theatre
A couple things...
September 14, 2008 - 19:11 ET by Tom1969caIn other words, "Liberals believe conservatives are evil, and thus feel justified in lying, cheating and stealing in order to protect us from them."
=====
"There are some who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those who use their careers to promote change."
--Sarah Palin
If any legitimate business or
September 14, 2008 - 19:15 ET by Cape Conservativemagazine uses this photographer in the future, they had better have their head examined! The great unwashed masses are not as "ignorant" as they think we are!
Her only hope is that George Soros will keep her on a retainer!
She's probably researching
September 14, 2008 - 23:07 ET by Kenny BunkportShe's probably researching creative photography of crucifixes and bullwhips to get a grant from the NEA, since her commercial career is over.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
yeah
September 15, 2008 - 17:41 ET by UndercoverConservativeand with luckshe'll get 'em confused-the bullwhip in the jar and the sharp edged crucifix wedges sideways where her "art" comes from.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
In defense of the Atlantic
September 14, 2008 - 19:16 ET by magicalangelicusAs a reader of The Atlantic, I believe them when they say they don't vet photographers for their politics. I also commend them on their quick condemnation of Greenberg's behaviour.
Keep in mind, that The Atlantic asked for a "heroic" pic of McCain and published arguably one of the most favorable pics from the shoot.
I recommend this mag to folks who are open to centrist and objective analyses. There is no better mag than The Atlantic to represent two sides to an argument. Sure, Fallows is a lib and Andrew Sullivan is a nut, but they have plenty of folks who balance it all out.
For kicks, here's a spectrum of magazines, from left to right:
Mother Jones < Harper's < The New Republic < The Atlantic > National Review
Atlantic
September 14, 2008 - 23:22 ET by mbuelThey may have picked the "best" photo, but Greenberg did a _horrendous_ job photographing him and let her bias affect her work.
The fact that Atlantic saw the photos and didn't ask for a reshoot, shows their bias.
Here's the real scale:
Mother Jones < Harper's < The New Republic < The Atlantic < Investors Business Daily > National Review
IBD is one of the few places that offers editorials from both sides. While they are "right", they are much closer (MUCH) to center than the liberal rag, "The Atlantic". (IMO)
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
Okay so Atlantic did their
September 14, 2008 - 19:33 ET by winston smithOkay so The Atlantic did their part for Obama. Greenberg is freelance so she is not a staff photographer and of course, James Bennet is "appalled" by the pictures. Plausible deniablity? But the deed is done and I guess the hope is that McCain will lose respect among young, interent types that don't really follow politics. Like I said a few weeks ago, my political paranoia runs high in a presidential election year --- especially because I am a Republican and have come to expect nothing but the worst from the establishment media. I'm still waiting for "the book" or the "unauthorized biography" to appear on the scene in late September or early October that will smear McCain with "new allegations" in the Keating Five scandal. Then of course, the "new allegations" will circulate through the MSM as they endlessly recount all the juicy stuff, all the illegal stuff -- without bothering to fact-check of course and without bothering to inform voters that McCain was exonerated. They've been way too silent all these months on McCain & Keating Five, they need to start putting him on the defensive before his numbers get too unsurmountable. I bet Chris Matthiews is praying for it. I think they're saving the best for last. Hold on to your seats.
Isn't this Barry's crowd?!
September 14, 2008 - 19:50 ET by suburbanite"This tells us a lot about what kind of ethics Greenberg believes the
Left approves of. Given her immersion in the upper class, urban,
articulate intellectual culture of the far Left, her assessment is
probably correct."
"Fight the good fight every moment
It's your only way" Triumph
for what it's worth
September 14, 2008 - 20:19 ET by candanceI believe Bennet when he says Greenberg acted on her own and embarrassed The Atlantic. A fake apology would have sounded fake (like US Weekly) but his statement sounded like he was really ticked off.
Who is the target audience?
September 14, 2008 - 20:33 ET by lareeDoes the Alantic, have a court case against her. They could argue she hurt their publication, with this negative publicity, they did hire her to only take photos for their publication. One would think they have some rights as does John McCain who posed right?
I think it is past time, that some of the really borderline wild stuff, that is coming from the fringes, starts getting addressed with some Lawyers, applying their trade. They want to act out let them pay for a price for it.
Where do they get off calling John McCain a War monger?
A decorated military service equates to war mongering status now? No one questions this designation? No Challenge?
shhh, ya' hear
September 14, 2008 - 21:00 ET by Blazershhh, ya' hear that?
Thats Jills career getting flushed down the toilet, lets see where all the smug is now as she's swirling around the bowl and desperately trying to grab on to a turd to save it..
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Her career is over.
September 14, 2008 - 21:14 ET by FairlightHer career is over. Millions of Americans will make sure of it.
How Do Your Really Feel Jill?
September 14, 2008 - 23:06 ET by CapeCodScottIf a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, I wonder how much the now dwindling Atlantic Monthly magazine will be able to get when they sue Ms. Greenberg for her callous disregard of the impact that her actions caused her contracted employer.
She won't even be able to get a job taking pictures of kids at Sears Portrait studio, oh, that's right she's so good with kids, she's a natural!
It's now 14:59 on the Andy Warhol "Fame Clock" for Jill, tick-tock, tick-tock
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
Typical of Fascism
September 14, 2008 - 23:19 ET by mbuelRemember how the germans did the same thing to Jews? Tell a lie enough and eventually people will believe it.
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
So liberals are crazy Marxists
September 15, 2008 - 01:18 ET by Lame CherryConsidering the onslaught of Charlie Gibson at ABC doing a digital smear of Gov. Palin, I honestly started laughing in reaction to the juvenile mania of the McCain photos as it is a great deal to take in the hatred of some people.
The suggestion I have is apparently, McCain and Palin must obtain releases with million dollar penalties if there are found cutting, doctoring or editing of interviews or images.
One has to consider how desperate Gibson and his ilk are to stoop to such unAmerican activity in being so unfair, malevolent and pure hate.
It is what winning looks like as they have lost the intellectual battle.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Atlantic Monthly
September 15, 2008 - 01:19 ET by VinncyGLets not assume the Atlantic Monthly is free of guilt here. Maybe after these photos were discovered plus the slanted photos of John McCain already out that they fear what is happening to Us Weekly will start to happen to them. They are acting innocent all the while they could very well have been complicit.
Maybe the libs are getting scared that they have finally gone to far. I for one can do without Atlantic Monthly no big loss.
Reply to Jacob Freeze
September 15, 2008 - 01:26 ET by JudithHey, Jake if Greenberg didn't distort the pictures to make McCain look bad, why did she do it? You libs are all made with the same cookie cutters. And yeah, you have insulted my intelligence to think I would buy your crap!!
Why?
September 15, 2008 - 03:34 ET by jawebster1I am pleased that people are standing up for John McCain and going after people who take unfair shots at him, but where are the defenders of George W. Bush? Far worse things have been done and said about Bush over the years, yet no one seems to want to stand up for him. Why? He has kept our country safe from another attack, he has nominated two great justices, he has cut taxes, he has performed his job with class and dignity and best of all, he has relentlessly gone after the terrorists where they live. Sure, he has done things we don't agree with, (McCain-Feingold and failure to control spending) but his heart was good and when you consider what the alternatives (Gore and Kerry) would have done to this country, he was a rousing success. Jim Webster
Quick answer:
September 15, 2008 - 07:06 ET by Indiana JoeThat conversation has occurred, and the response has been "la-la-la, I can't hear you, Bush lied, people died, la-la-la."
That strategy isn't going to work this time.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Bush sets the lefties on edge
September 15, 2008 - 07:36 ET by Mistah BittermanYou are absolutly right about W. This honorable man has endured relentless attacks from the MSM & libs for 8 years.
You must remember that liberals do not set any standards when it comes to ethics. Therefore no recriminations when you don't live up to them. It's, it's like magic.
Having left leaners discuss John McCain's military service or Sarah Palin's religion is laughable as they have no street cred when it comes to the two two topics they hate so vehemently. "Clinging to their guns and their religion" This is the side that supports Roe v. Wade - NAMBLA - ELF - William "Boom Boom"Ayres, Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, Barney "Brothel" Frank, "Chappaquidick swim team captain" Teddy and their poster child Bill " You might want to put some ice on that" Clinton
War = Bad - Religion = Bad - Religious war = really really bad War monger = Really really really bad. Perhaps they might want to google the meaning of Jihad. I say we pull back our brave troops and insert the "Blooming Idiots Peace Team" We will arm them with bouquets of flowers to stick in the barrels of insurgent fighters. "Hey man peace out, like stop the fighting, we luh... " Boom!
"W' is in this to win and were with him to the end.
Can't help but wonder...
September 15, 2008 - 08:43 ET by left_handed_right_thinker...what the MSM's reaction would be if a contractor for The National Review had depicted Obama in Muslim headgear.
My guess? There would be satellite trucks parked on this woman’s lawn…
Gibson/Obama 6/4/08: "Has the joyfulness of this hit home yet?”
Gibson/Palin 9/11/08: "Didn’t that take some hubris?”
Atlantic Monthly Editor on Fox
September 15, 2008 - 09:09 ET by BlondeThis ought to be interesting.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Briefly....
September 15, 2008 - 09:19 ET by BlondeHe was appalled. He still likes the photo on the cover, even though the photog pointed out how she could have made it better.
Yes, has contacted the McCain campaign. Is drafting a letter of apology. Feels the article was very comprehensive about McCain's foreign policy.
Photog violated contract. Will not be paid. Looking into legal actions.
Didn't google her reputation (learned a lesson).
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
»→ Great interview Blonde
September 15, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Cool ArrowWow, Hemmer is hammering the crap out of Bill Burton, Obama spokesman.
Is Bill Hemmer the next Brit Hume?
This guy is learning the art of relentless.
ROFLMAO.
"Us white folk will take care of you" - Barbara Walters