In a follow up to Noel Sheppard's last post on the controversy over the choice of partisan photographer Jill Greenberg to shoot the cover shot of John McCain by Atlantic Magazine, we find that the Atlantic folks have issued an apology for ever having hired her. After it was revealed that she indulged in tricks and lies to ridicule John McCain while she was in a position of representing Atlantic Magazine as its photographer, the folks at Atlantic expressed their disappointment and shock at the photog's unprofessional behavior. They promise not to repeat the error of hiring her again.
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. We had never worked with Jill Greenberg before (and, obviously, we will not work with her again). Based on the portraits she had done of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger and her work for publications like Time, Wired, and Portfolio, we expected her, 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.
Personally, I find her work grotesque, even when she isn't being overtly political.
Take a look at some of the grotesque photos of young children crying that she has created and this will show a deeply twisted look at children that should disturb anyone. They are almost pornographic in the harsh way in which these poor kids were depicted.
The Atlantic folks have definitely made the right choice, this time.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm Not Buying It
September 16, 2008 - 09:10 ET by Gothampc"The Atlantic folks have definitely made the right choice, this time."
I'm not that forgiving. The "we didn't know" excuse doesn't cut it. The magazine couldn't do a Google search and come up with some of her other work? They couldn't locate that the crying children photo shoot was targeted at President Bush and Christians? Does The Atlantic have anyone with research skills?
Next month in The Atlantic are beautiful pictures of the Palin children taken by Sally Mann. /sarc off
I can understand your
September 16, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Ruths husband BenI can understand your cynicism, but the fact remains that Atlantic strongly denounced the photographer. I don't know if they should have known, but I give them credit for not doing damage control like other media outlets have done (i.e., "yeah it was wrong, but the truth was told through a lie", or "yeah it was wrong, but Republicans do it all the time", or, worst of all, "yeah it was wrong, (wink, wink).")
“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” - Justice Antonin Scalia
Us Magazine?
September 16, 2008 - 12:30 ET by GothampcWould they be acting like this if the Us Magazine situation hadn't blown up?
The Atlantic is genuine
September 16, 2008 - 14:53 ET by magicalangelicusYes, as a matter of fact, they would. The Atlantic is one of the few intellectual magazines that has, for the most part, meticulously maintained a fair, centrist, and objective reputation. This alone differentiates it from the rags that slid Left such as The New Republic and Harper's.
Try picking up a copy some time...you'll get good soft left, center, and soft right arguments and analyses...the best balanced mag in the business.
>>> ...the best balanced
September 16, 2008 - 21:53 ET by seanrobins>>> ...the best balanced mag in the business.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah . . .
( whew! )
( uh... )
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Anyone that ever employs
September 16, 2008 - 09:16 ET by kgAnyone that ever employs this woman again is a fool. We could only guess what she is doing with your photos.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Atlantic mag must think we're all idiots
September 16, 2008 - 09:32 ET by SpikerIt would have taken, what, two minutes to search this photographer on the internet and find her site. I read some more about her today and it's quite obvious that she has an agenda (and is more than a little disturbed.) I didn't think that the cover they went with was "respectful" at all, it was probably one of the worst photos I've ever seen of McCain. They are just trying to cover their behinds now that everyone has seen the revolting images produced by Ms. Greenburg.
Photos of distraught children
September 16, 2008 - 09:36 ET by MPCPianoAnyone who has kids knows that the children in her photos were truly upset and distraught, not posing or acting. And the photographer admits she got them in this state and then took the pictures, then used them for a Bush-bashing art display.
This person is sick. I would like more of her "work" investigated and brought out so people know about this.
She's done as a serious
September 16, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Hero SquadShe's done as a serious professional photographer. She couldn't even get work as an assistant to the college-aged photographer at Sears now.
Even respectable organizations who share her views won't want to touch her with a 10-foot pole.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
HS
September 16, 2008 - 12:33 ET by DoktorFrankenI would like to think that she's toast as well. However, we all have seen what makes toads heroes in the eyes of the Left. I truly believe she will find no dearth of employers in the vein of Keith Olbermann, Kos, Huffington, NYT, etc. All of these 'outlets' believe in 'free speech' - that is, unless it's aimed at them. Then their detractors are all 'Nazis'.
Oh, her work will play well
September 16, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Hero SquadOh, her work will play well to the fringe groups. Unfortunately for her, most fringe groups don't pay well.
And she'll never be able to score a photo session with any serious politician ever again, and probably few celebrities of note beyond that as well.
They'll pass, suspecting she'll have some alterior motive. Even Keith Olbermann may wonder what's up if he's asked to pose.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Marginal, Uninteresting and Predictable
September 16, 2008 - 12:05 ET by SquonkamaticIt's always sad to see talent being co-opted by political agenda, especially when it comes from within. I have similar feelings about other artists & performers like Neil Young, who have allowed their political motivations to define their work rather than using their work to define political motive. I don't think there is anything wrong with artistic expression having a political edge and artists using their medium as a way of expressing their ideas. I am also a firm believer in the adage that not all art necessarily has to be in good taste or pursue traditional standards of beauty. But this woman is clearly out of control as the stories of her techniques in making babies cry for her expression demonstrate. That's just plain cruel and unusual. Sometimes I wonder about my fellow humans ... the worst aspect of it is that her work strikes me as being so marginal, predictable and uninteresting, dwelling on technical aspects and trying to use tragedy or suffering as a lightning rod of encoded meaning. It might work on some viewers but only if they are really stupid.
Sorry they got caught
September 16, 2008 - 12:44 ET by greenfairieThe Atlantic didn't mind the menacing looking shots that did make it in the magazine plus there's the McCainidiot file identification. It doesn't all smell like margarine to me.
I'd Cry Too
September 16, 2008 - 15:30 ET by JoelCTFrom the "Crying Kids" article:
"I have a two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, and she cries for no reason, a hundred times a day."
I've raised two children to adulthood and they didn't cry all the time. Perhaps her kids have already realized their mommy is a looney and a psychopath and they're afraid all of the time of what she might do next.
I'd cry "a hundred times a day" if she was MY mommy, that's for sure.
Magical
September 16, 2008 - 15:44 ET by VinncyGHey Magical ignorant huh. It certainly looks like your holier than thou Atlantic Monthly just took a political stand and realized they backed the wrong horse.
Do subscribers matter? Do advertisers matter?, The problem with these publications is that in the past WE conservatives passed it off as liberal fluff, But with an election as important as this one, its about time WE are fighting back. And yes, they should have known who represents their magazine ESPECIALLY the front page. The ignorant one is the one with blinders on.
Another thing Magical I'll bet my conservative stances against anything you have day or night.
Gee for all we know you work for them.
You're still ignorant
September 16, 2008 - 16:31 ET by magicalangelicusYou ignored some of the facts (i.e., request for "heroic" picture, choice of front page pic that wasn't bad, magazine doesn't vet photographer politics) and essentially tarred the mag as another Left rag. That's ignorant.
Gee, for all you know, I am subscriber of the magazine who demanded an explanation for this debacle as well as the mccainidiot.jpg embarrsment. That doesn't change the fact that I also respect the mag as one of the few that has avoided the slide into Lefty La-La-Land (unlike Harper's, The Nation, TNR, etc.) and continues to cover issues in a generally substantive and objective fashion.
Take a step back and be a little less angry and strident. Honestly you're acting like the flip side of a coin with DailyKos on the other side.
>>>The Atlantic folks have
September 16, 2008 - 21:49 ET by seanrobins>>>The Atlantic folks have definitely made the right choice, this time
Ehhhh, . . . Not really. For the people at The Atlantic to claim that they had no idea that Jill Greenberg was a freakish lunatic of a leftist psycho-nightmare, is to admit that they are utterly brainless.
Greenberg is not an unknown quantity: She is quite known. Her past "professional" escapades are well documented, and the editors at The Atlantic have no legitimate excuse for claiming "We was robbed."
Now, I don't have a basis for asserting that they actually wanted Greenberg to S**t all over their magazine or McCain - but they were at least professionally reckless for hiring the cretin in the first place.
Let's not give too many kudos to the "wilfully blind" editors at The Atlantic.
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Jill Greenberg
September 17, 2008 - 16:38 ET by mondorebGood story.
Nice followup.