The photographer that viciously smeared John McCain at her website might be facing a lawsuit for violating the terms of agreement in her contract with The Atlantic magazine.
As NewsBusters reported Saturday, Jill Greenberg not only admitted to taking a rather sinister picture of the Republican presidential candidate that she hoped The Atlantic would use on its October cover, but she also generated some truly disturbing and disgraceful images of McCain which she proudly displayed at her website.
The magazine's editor, James Bennet, told Fox News's Megyn Kelly Monday that he was deeply sorry about this incident, and that The Atlantic isn't taking it lying down (audio available here, video and partial transcript follows, h/t NBer blonde) :
JAMES BENNET, EDITOR 'THE ATLANTIC': I'm already drafting a letter of apology [to McCain]. I mean, this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a covershot for us. Again, we stand by the picture, and we produced a terrific story on John McCain...But while she was there, she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way. [...]
MEGYN KELLY, HOST: What do you do to shut down her use on her website, not just of that covershot, but the disgusting things she has done to John McCain's image on her website which I won't repeat here?
BENNET: She's violated the terms of our agreement with her, or our contract with her. So, we're taking steps. We're looking into steps we can see to do something about that.
KELLY: Are you considering a lawsuit?
BENNET: We're looking into what we can do.
KELLY: Would that be including legal action?
BENNET: If we can, if it's available to us, yeah.
KELLY: Has she been paid?
BENNET: No.
KELLY: Will she be?
BENNET: No.
Clearly, this story isn't over yet...not by a longshot.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Dan Rather Memo Gate Part 2.5
September 15, 2008 - 16:07 ET by deerjerkydaveI keep predicting that the liberal media is going to have another Dan Rather memo-gate on its hands before this election is over. The libs in the media have gone so bananas over this election. MSNBC has already demoted its election anchors. Charlie Gibson got caught on his "Bush Doctrine" gotcha. And now this.
I've heard the lib media report the Daily Kos rumors. When will they repeat the far right rumors, that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii but in Africa (according to his African relatives), or that his birth certificate is thought to be a fake. Just sayin'.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
*Edited to add
The liberal media love to talk about this investigation into Palin's brother in law who got fired. You never hear about this lawsuit filed against Obama which claims he's technically not a citizen of the United States. Certainly the liberal media talked about McCain's elegibility given that he was born in Panama. It's the double standard that gets them everytime.
More independent votes for McCain
September 15, 2008 - 16:04 ET by krendlerIt's stuff like this, along with the media's attacks on Palin, that's driving independents to McCain.
"Change/unity/hope/new politics" - Yeah, whatever.
And the liberals are always talking about "divided America" and how big, bad GW Bush is to blame.
If anyone is to blame for the ultra-partisan atmosphere - it's the sore-loser libs.
Still waiting for McCain and company to remind everyone that Obama is black, per Obama's prediction. In the meantime, we get stuff like this from the left every week.
shifting
September 15, 2008 - 16:29 ET by MazziWe do get stuff like this every week. What seems to be changing though, is the response. I think that the less left-leaning organizations are starting to understand what is happening, and they don't want to be on the wrong side when the revolution comes.
Look at the strange assortment of people who are subtly shifting. A perfect example is Sally Quinn, who actually apologized, and said she was wrong. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/06/sally-quinn-does-complete-u-turn-sarah-palin Watching and listening to her it was clear that she didn't mean a word of it. And yet, she did something that many would see as publicly humiliating. Why? Because one thing Sally Quinn is, is a political ho. She is the "hostess with the mostest" in WDC, and she does not want to give that title up, even if it means doing a 180. She is actually sharp in a weasely sort of way, and she is almost certainly sniffing something in the air. I suspect that lots of weasely MSM people will begin to follow Ms. Quinn, and as with most things the libs do, once enough of them slide over, the rest will be crawling over themselves to join the crowd.
The Atlantic is not a horrible mag, nor is it terribly left for an elitest publication, but I still would not have bet that they had the integrity to do something like this.
"When a government robs Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw~
Sally Quinn's going to have a bit of a problem
September 15, 2008 - 16:37 ET by BlondeAs THE society hostess, with Vice President Palin in town.
The Governor doesn't strike me as the type to forgive, nor forget.
Particularly not sexist insults about her ability to do her job while having five children.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Good...pay backs are hell,
September 15, 2008 - 16:14 ET by bigtimerGood...pay backs are hell, including no pay.
She is reaping what she has sown...for now anyway.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hey Noel
September 15, 2008 - 16:17 ET by I.am.DILLIGAFthe link to the pics didnt work for me. Is it the link or me? Just wondering. I was wondering if McCain would have a case against her? Couldnt he sue her for something.
Guns and Violence are not the answer but they are one solution to the problem== SARG
And once the media really
September 15, 2008 - 16:23 ET by AJAnd once the media really picks up on this, they'll keep running infinite loops of all of her Photoshopped pictures. So in the end, yes, she well win. Hell, it's better than a measly magazine cover.
Dispicable... absolutely dispicable.
its art!
September 15, 2008 - 16:34 ET by MazziExcellent point AJ.
You have to wonder when this happened. There used to be a time when this sort of thing would have been so shameful that the photog would not even have been able to do weddings and bar mitzvahs. But this woman will probably be the next mapplethorpe (deliberate small m) or something.
It's sickening. Really.
"When a government robs Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw~
Atlantic Monthly
September 15, 2008 - 16:34 ET by VinncyGAtlantic Monthly trying to play us for fools. They had to be well aware of who they hired for their front page photo spread.
DUMP Atlantic Monthly.
Ignorant Post
September 15, 2008 - 17:14 ET by magicalangelicusVinncy, your post is ignorant. Read up on the whole story before you judge the magazine. Really, your post is more suitable for the shallow ranting grounds of the DailyKos.
pics
September 15, 2008 - 16:39 ET by BurgherWhen Mcain becomes POTUS every jihadist in the middle east will have the picture of the Pres. with the shark teeth and blood on parade for all to see.
Nice job Greenbugger.
How 'bout a pic of the Obaminator with the blood of botched abortion babies on his hands.
Another Obama's little helper takes one for the team
September 15, 2008 - 16:54 ET by SickofLibsI hire photogs all the time, and hell yeah, legal action is absolutely on the table as she violated the contract, in the worst possible way. Her access to McCain was only under the auspices of her assignment from the Atlantic; she was working as a representative of the Atlantic.
For those who don't know how much these bigtime photogs can command for a major cover shot for a national magazine, let's just say it's in the (many) tens of thousands of dollars and it would sure wreck MY year if I didn't get paid for an assignment like this. I sincerely hope they follow thru and sue.
That fact that she had the unbelievable hubris and self-righteousness to leave the shots (the doctored ones) up on her website tells the whole story. She's washed up as far as national editorial work goes.
Hope it was worth it, Jerk!
Major cover shot
September 15, 2008 - 17:47 ET by JPR1As it is, the shot they used doesn't go much beyond a head & shoulders shot of a regional insurance excutive to be included in an annual report.
Seems to me the little tart put all her "creative effort" into expressing personal disgust rather than the task at hand.
$500 would be a rip-off.
She's gonna feel this; I see some used gear coming to market.
Not Buying
September 15, 2008 - 17:17 ET by Great DebaterAtlantic Mag. didn't know what she might do with her leftover pics.? Yeah right - they got a chance to send one of the photogs over to shoot the Republican Presidential nominee and not know/remember anything about their photog's wacky background?
I guess the liberals don't realize that everytime they pull this type of foolishness, it just pulls the independents and moderates to McCain a little more. Just feels too good to them, I suppose.
You have a point.
September 15, 2008 - 18:57 ET by MearlineSomeone knew about the types of pictures that she created and her politics. I don't think there was any accident to it at all.
Out of curiosity i looked at her site. That's just disgraceful. Not just what she did to the first five pics but the last as well. That's a woman? What happens to leftist women? They're soulless.
In the old
September 15, 2008 - 23:15 ET by Kenny BunkportIn the old days photographers had to turn ALL the film over to the magazine (or employer) in a standard contract. The photog being "allowed" to use published pictures or given outtake shots to use in their portfolio. The digital age has now made it impossible to keep track of all the pictures.
Magazines hold the threat of legal action as their guarantee that photographers will abide by the contract. I take The Atlantic at face value when they say that they were shocked and outraged by Greenberg's behavior. It's something that you know is possible, but you trust in the professionalism of the photographer.
It's a little like your doctor suddenly handing out your medical records to your neighbors. It's something he can do, but is unlikely due to legal and reputational repercussions. Obviously, Greenberg is either stupid or or doesn't care. I really don't think The Atlantic imagined she would pull a stunt this stupid.
I find it telling that The Atlantic wouldn't say that they would file a lawsuit against Greenberg, but then said they wouldn't pay her. Now if a cover is worth tens of thousands of dollars as someone said, I doubt if Ms. Greenberg is going consider her work charity. Sounds like the magazine wants her to start the legal wrangling.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
And yet another " sorry"
September 15, 2008 - 19:01 ET by FastEdwhile time will tell - let us see how this plays out - will she get paid? Will the other pics surface again? Will the huffpos keep the pics alive? Is there a conserve photog with pics of Barry? Will there even be a suit?
As an aside, when photos are taken, unless there is a specific line item in the contract, or pre-agreement, the photos belong to the photog, along with the copywrite. It seems such an agreement was stipulated, and the bounds were overstepped.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
My question is why did John
September 15, 2008 - 19:00 ET by VickiMy question is why did John McCain allow this woman to even take photos of him???
No pun, but
September 15, 2008 - 19:04 ET by FastEdthe term is exposure. If they were smart, they'd have video of the session, and use it against her - here woiuld be a good place, or as a segement on NewsBusted.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Vicky... A few of us
September 15, 2008 - 19:04 ET by bigtimerVicky...
A few of us posters here said the same thing when this first came out here...especially to some of us considering the magazine.
Why indeed.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hey FastEd and bigtimer
September 15, 2008 - 19:14 ET by VickiMcCain and his team should have never allowed this to happen, knowing what kind of photographer Jill Greenberg is. They should have simply told the magazine, "thanks, but no thanks."
Hello Vicki, It's now 20/20 hindsight...
September 15, 2008 - 19:22 ET by upcountrywaterMac, was just hoping for a little eXposure...
Maybe this time, normal folk will find out how biased the MSM is.
One dim prank at a time.
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
Answer
September 15, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKBecause McCain is still living in a pre-nomination dreamworld where the media adored him. See what appeasement gets you?
I say use the picture on bumperstickers, buttons, t-shirts, etc. with some funny captions like, 'Republicans Eat Children', 'Obama - You're NEXT!', 'Brokaw - I know where you live!', 'Republicans - We only come out at night!', 'Lock Your Doors! - McCain 2008!', etc.
PALIN/McCain 2008
Sarg, it might be
September 15, 2008 - 21:44 ET by FastEda good thing that this is happening now - wait till he trys to "reach across the aisle" later - wonder what paloony and reeed will do to the extended hand?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
McCain is learning what we already knew!
September 15, 2008 - 19:40 ET by jefflebowskiThat the MSM that adored him as a "maverick" (aka...democrat) Senator now hates his guts. Who didn't see this a year ago?
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Attention ALL MALES!
September 15, 2008 - 20:17 ET by Cape ConservativeI don't know of another attractive woman who is a better example of that old saying your mother used to tell over and over again!
"YOU CAN'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER"
Consider this "fair warning" - BEWARE of lovely women with hidden agendas!
There has to be a special corner in he!! for people such as Jill. I hope Atlantic Monthly sues the dickens out of her and that her future earnings will be spent on large attorney fees! There should be a financial judgment that would enhance the McCain/Palin coffers! How the magazine will be able to restore its reputation is open for discussion.
Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me! "Never again" signs should be posted all over the campaign bus/plane whatever!
PS Not wanting to be considered sexist, ladies, just reverse the male/female above - Beware gorgeous men who have no substance!
OH THAT Jill Greenburg
September 15, 2008 - 21:45 ET by MearlineRemember within the past few years some photographer woman took pictures of weeping toddlers. Her methods to get them to weep were equivalent to child abuse. She gave them lollipops and took them away after getting parents to step outside a few moments and then stripping the children. Why is it that none of those parents sued her for child abuse and possible molestation. I wonder about a parent that would leave their toddler alone with such a person. After reading about this woman and her leftist tactics against McCain, I don't wonder that liberals have no problem with embarrassing and virtually pilloring the Palin children. Let's just be thankful that they've been unable to get their hands physically on the Palin kids.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/14/the-atlantic-should-have-googled-jill-greenberg-before-hiring-her/
She claims it's art?
September 15, 2008 - 22:14 ET by caiobabeThis woman is a real scum merchant. So I hear on XM's America's Right today that she has claimed that her photos are an artful way of decribing her disgust with McCain. It was her way of relating her feelings but was done intentionally.
Does anyone remember the artful display showing disdain for Christianity when the "artist" put a Crucifix in a jar of human urine?
Why is it that the self-proclaimed, admitted shock artists in this country are proud to vote democrat?
Why is it that the most disgusting individuals lacking any standards, morals or core beliefs happen to vote democrat?
Why is it that the most biased against those who have a faith in God vote democrat?
And this is called freedom.
They probably
September 15, 2008 - 22:19 ET by Mearlineeat a LOT of vegetables.
Left-leaning as it may be,
September 16, 2008 - 01:16 ET by thebobboLeft-leaning as it may be, I think The Atlantic got bushwacked (no pun intended) by Greenberg's actions. She took her virulent strain of BDS and did her best to inject McCain with it.
She acted in an entirely infantile way and let her politics take precedence over her professionalism. If there's any justice in the world, she'll get her due because of it.
To me, Bennet came off as a reasonable in his apology. Even in these times, I don't think most magazines should have an expectation to vet their photographers for their politics. The presumption is (was?) that they'd behave in a professional manner and perform the task at hand. Are we going to have to vet our plumbers next?
I haven't read the article, so can't comment on it, but I got the distinct impression that the magazine - even if might not mind a few pinpricks agains consertives - wasn't looking to torpedo McCain. Also to me, it's not the greatest cover photo in the world, but hey, we're workin' with John McCain here, not Brad McPitt. I'd bet if Greenberg had never opened her yap about it, nobody would be scrutinizing whether the cover was a hit job or not.
Any outrage should be directed at Greenberg, and justifiably so. She's a twit.
By the way, Megyn is hot as hell.