"Greenberg also crowed that she had tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor - turning the septuagenarian's face into a horror show of shadows.Like Jeffrey Goldberg, I'm appalled. So is James Bennet. But what many of our critics seem not to have noticed is that we didn't use the trick photo. No one knew what she was planning to do, and if the magazine had known, they certainly wouldn't have hired her. I've been staring at the photograph we did select for fifteen minutes, and darned if I can see anything wrong with it; McCain looks quite good in it, as far as I can see.Asking McCain to 'please come over here' for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.
The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.
'He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. 'I guess they're not very sophisticated,' she said.
Magazines have to extend their writers and photographers a great deal of trust. The editors can't follow people around to make sure that they don't make up quotes or stage photographs, any more than the department chair can follow around historians to ensure that they do accurate research. Occasionally, writers like Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair, or photographers like Jill Greenberg, violate that trust. But that isn't because the editors lack integrity, or endorse their reprehensible actions. In cases like this, all a magazine can do is refuse to employ Ms. Greenberg again--a course that I suspect will be followed by any magazine with integrity.
She specifically mentions that she took delight in providing a bad photo that you did use, "I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad."
We can't know how much post work The Atlantic did, but the image provided is not in Greenberg's usual style, which is highly retouched. She does provide great shots when not getting involved in politics, and I recognize many of her subjects from her magazine work.
I'd also note that Moe Larry and Jesus delighted in her efforts and thought I was ridiculous and idiotic, as well as partisan, to think it inappropriate.
Given what has bee published on a daily basis in the blog next door, The Atlantic has no expectation of integrity. Hiring an extreme partisan who believes that she shouldn't have been hired is rather shocking. The management problems are obviously pervasive, but what does one expect?
Especially in politics, no one can be trusted. Writers get fact checked, smart subjects know that they need their own tape of every conversation with the media and their own video of anything for TV. Now we know that magazines can not be trusted to hire photographers and that all images need to be supplied by the subject. It is ridiculousness like this that is destroying the industry.
Hey - it's very simple. Leftists are unhinged and can't restrain their rage when they encounter a conservative/Republican/Christian.
Again, with this issue, we have this weird double standard of surrogacy, where the bad actions of one stupid photographer get applied to a) the Obama campaign and b) liberals in general, whereas things like the pictures of Obama drawn as a monkey or with a watermelon, or the "Obama is a Muslim" book, don't get applied to conservatives or the McCain campaign.
Freddie - isn't there a difference between a mainstream liberal magazine like "The Atlantic" and some fringe right-wing group nobody ever heard of? Or are you saying that "The Atlantic" is a far left-wing fringe group?
I certainly do not blame The Atlantic for not knowing in advance that this photographer would behave without a scintilla of professionalism.
What will matter now, however, is how other purportedly "respectable" publications and businesses react. In theory, Jill Greenberg should be a pariah for her deed. No one should hire her.
We'll see what happens.
Peg - the Daily Kos will make sure she is gainfully employed.
The 'trick' photo looks a lot better than the one actually used. It disguises the puffiness of McCain's cheeks and gives him a more commanding presence.
I don't think The Atlantic should use politics to vet the photographers they hire but they should make sure that they only hire professionals. This girl's behavior was anything but professional and makes The Atlantic look like a bunch of amateurs.
1)Seems to me that a wise photo editor would have spent a few minutes with Google before choosing to employ a particular photographer.
2)Do you think that the title that went with the cover photograph, "WHY WAR IS HIS ANSWER," was unbiased? Or was it an attempt to frame him as a warmonger?
McCain looks quite good in it, as far as I can see.
Time for an eye exam, maybe? I mean we're talking about this picture, right?
He looks awful. While I don't necessarily think that the magazine told Greenberg to make him look good, and so it's not like she went against the terms of her employment, he does look pretty bad. Blotchy, beady-eyed, blubbery.
Or maybe he always looks like that?
Chet - yes McCain has those puffy cheeks, but the lighting in that photo makes him look insidious. Darth McCain a Sith Lord. Subliminal messaging.
He looks like an old man. Oh, the indignity! Oh the horror! Oh, the honesty!
i dont think i have ever read a correspondent comment on photograph for a magazine. this is just a weird post. seriously, who cares?
Hard to make a 72 year old man look "good" by any absolute criterion, in my opinion- only possible to make him look better or worse than he actually does.
However, like Megan, I have a hard time calling the photo of McCain "bad". If Greenberg's goal was to make him look really bad, then she failed. Of course, the photo editors may have worked on the photo afterwards. Perhaps some of them will be willing to speak up.
I guess this is yet another instance when not lying and faking and pretending on behalf of John McCain is proof of evil and bias.
And, Megan, I expect lots of discussion on this evening's financial news tomorrow when you have had time to digest it all.
Yancey - the subliminal message with the face in shadow = McCain is a sinister guy.
Freddie - Not only is there a power imbalance between the right's idiots and the left's, there's a difference in reaction by the respective side.
The reaction to the Obama Waffles thing from the pretty darn hardcore sites I read was "you goddamn idiots!" People acknowledged that there may have been some point that the anencephalic creators were trying to make (flip flop, and riffing on somethingfrom February), but they were attacked for using a bad cartoon of Obama, using the stupid robe photo, and playng with a racial stereotype ( see Rosco's Chicke & Waffles... what no Obama watermelons???) The right doesn't say "oh ha! great job! yeah black people sure are funny looking and they love their waffles!" They get damn pissed off at people on their own side.
On the left? We see so many people defending Greenberg and her ilk. Check out a Mr. Sullivan of this parish for truly filthy examples ( and no, he's not right leaning). Too many people are following the old notion of "no enemies to the Left". Nothing like that old-time anti-religion of Karl and Vladimir!
Okay, all snark aside, Greenberg is a dick because she sandbagged people who paid her to do an honest day's work.
However, vis a vis what she did to McCain: How much different is her work from one of the basic journalistic standards -- the hit job (portraying one's subject in a purposely unflattering manner), or another standard - the puff piece (happily reprinting ever manner of bullshit the subject feeds you in order to help create the image he's trying to promote)?
i didnt catch that last bit about how the photographer should never work for a reputable magazine again; it is bizarre and sort of palinesque comment, almost like it's personal for mm.
mccain knows he's old so does the rest of the world--it's one of his better qualities for heaven sake. the photographer wanted him to look old? so.
fine the photograph sounds like a wacko, but then so does this blog post.
Hey - One thing Lenin taught his followers is to make sure that they kept ideological purity. People mistakenly assume Stalin invented the police state in Russia - it was Lenin with his Cheka secret police. The prototype for the NKVD. Lenin initiated the mass paranoia, informers, sending people to the gulags for "incorrect ideas" and so on. Stalin simply took Lenin's prototype and scaled it up.
The first Soviet show trials... Under Lenin:
Lenin's show trials
Hey, whatever damage you suffered under a communist upbringing, if that's what makes you such a loon, does not justify being such a slavish devotee of John McCain.
Now as to the photo, it makes McCain look like a somewhat sinister Old Man, which he is. Is that really a cause for complaint on the right now? Really?
Crusader,
Perhaps, but then I may be immune to this particular subliminal message.
Little Boots - hey shitwit, I didn't live in the Soviet Union. I'm just stating history. Even so, what if I was a Soviet immigrant? What difference would it make? McCain is the only logical choice for this country. Obama is a socialist disaster.
I guess we can take the Atlantic at its word when they say they didn't know that photographer mischief was afoot, but the non-stop Obama pep rally that's been running on this site makes that a tough sell. And when you combine it with the deranged Sully pushing every despicable rumor about Sarah Palin that happens to reach his email, well it just makes the lot of you look like clowns or, what's worse, MSNBC.
And lets be honest, no one who reads The Atlantic is going to switch his vote away from McCain because of this photo. I imagine Ms. Greenberg has damaged her career and professional credibility in a fruitless endeavor.
The Atlantic is, in fact, a center-right publication, and has been for some time.
On the left? We see so many people defending Greenberg and her ilk.
No, actually, we don't-- name a single person who is defending Greenberg "on the left", cite a specific example of it, and maybe we'll have something to talk about.
Crusader, I actually was directing that question toward whoever calls itself "Hey." Either way, you show your wounds. McCain and logic? Socialist Obama? Just piss off, you useless clown.
It wasn't easy, but I found some leftists approving:
Greenberg discussion
The media in this country is killing itself. The level of bias in the mainstream media is palpable. The media is hemorrhaging money and credibility. Ms. Greenberg's idiocy is just the tip of the iceberg. The media has become so involved in Democratic Party ideology that they simply can't see anything else.
If the media can't reform itself, the process of collapse will accelerate. The media's most important currency is trust, and right now the media is starting to look like Lehman Brothers.
Little Boots - if that's the best you can do then this election is already over. All you can is rage impotently at the election gods for dealing you such a fate. Must be asking yourself now - "Why oh why did we nominate that clown Obama instead of Hillary"
Ah, yes, anonymous commenters on istockphoto.com, in a thread where most, in fact, deride Greenberg. Truly, a deluge of powerful media-types celebrating.
I feel like there's a name missing from that list. Perhaps that of a more recent writer? But I just can't place it...
"Little Boots - if that's the best you can do then this election is already over. All you can is rage impotently at the election gods for dealing you such a fate. Must be asking yourself now - "Why oh why did we nominate that clown Obama instead of Hillary"
Seriously? My inability to tolerate your foolishness is going to solve this whole election? Well, that's great. Because I so clearly win here.
Jay Reding - it's ok, an alternative media is already forming up to replace them. Ever hear of Pajamas Media?
Pajamas Media? Okay, now I feel mean. Pajamas Media? Good god.
" The editors can't follow people around to make sure that they don't make up quotes ..."
You mean they don't insist on taped interviews with proof that the quotes weren't fabricated?
That explains a lot.
Pajamas Media, Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!! No, really Pajamas Media?!???!!! You mean Malkin, Hansen and that crew?!
Crusader, you're cracking me up!!!
Btw: I haven't heard the term "leftists" in decades, you wacky comedian.
Little Boots - demean it at your own peril. The MSM had been hemorrhaging for decades now. Keep whistling past the graveyard!
Oh, honey. Oh, sweetie. It's not even worth it anymore. Okay, Pajamas Media is teh future. You win. You and anchor baby Malkin. And the whole zoo. Yes, I see it all now. It's true. And McCain is the bestest, most changeist, most awesome warest, ever. Blessings.
Freddie & others:
I don't know why you want to enter into a debate on whose fools are more foolish -- "the right's" or "the left's". There are no objective standards and you should certainly be smart enough to know that you aren't an objective observer.
Moreover, Megan's post was very clearly limited to the acts of this specific photogropher, not "the left" in general.
Little boots - there is an ideological war going on in the Democratic party right now between the Reagan "Bluedog" Democrats and the radical left wingers like you. What will end up happening is culturally conservative union guys are going to end up voting for McCain because they can't vote for an uber-Marcist, anti-American like Barack. The Democrats just went too far to the left. At a certain point, you won't get unity just because you agree that unions are good. Culture does matter.
Lehman is probably going under. Merrill was just sold. AIG might be next. And Megan is posting about some silly photo by a hack that never made it to the cover! There are more important things to be appalled over right now.
Moreover, Megan's post was very clearly limited to the acts of this specific photogropher, not "the left" in general.
Indeed. Luckily, bloggers don't write in a vacuum, but in the context of both other media and commenters, and as some of these comments show, some people do, in fact, think that the actions of this dope reflects poorly on liberalism.
There's a funny thing that happens in this space often.
1.Freddie says "conservatives say X".
2.Some conservative commenters say "what? You're mad Freddie! No conservatives say X".
3.Other conservative commenters say "X! X, by god!"
4.The first set of commenters continue to say "You're a fool, Freddie, and no conservatives say X," undaunted by the fact that many commenters in this self-same space are, indeed, saying X.
5.Freddie grows discouraged.
To see all the pictures that Greenberg has "constructed" from her manipulation of McCain and the Atlantic (and they are not safe for work or for children) go to:
Out-Takes: Behind The Atlantic's McCain Cover
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/the_atlantic_mo.php
Actually, here is what's happening Crusader. McCain tried for a bit to be a different kind of republican and discovered that the only way to win is to cave in completely to the Rove way of doing things. Everyone hates Republicans, and for good reason, but there is always the chance that they can be made to hate somebody else more, and then the Republican can slither in. Thus it has been for eons (in political terms).
Thus the ideological war, not among Dems, but among Repugs. And McCain was beaten back into the right side of that debate, and is now indistinguishable from George W. Bush, in terms of every single policy. There is no difference. I dare you: name one. And so the only choice, since everyone with two brain cells hates Bush with a passion, is to make Obama a monster. That's what gives this election all of its drama.
Thus endeth the lesson. You're welcome.
I've read most of the Goldberg piece, and I think 'McCain's View of War' would have been a better title. 'There's no truth in Pravda ('Truth' in Russian I believe),' a self effacing Russian salesman endeared himself to me in saying. Party members might operationally believe it. I think it's the same way with the liberal media. 'There's a yawning gulf between the speeches of Obama and the way he has acted,' Gerald Baker of the London Times points out. You wouldn't know it from our Pravdas. The picture is professionally appropriate for your slant.
So people understand that constantly comparing American liberals to Stalin, or American media to Pravda, demonstrates incredible disrespect to the victims of Stalin, right?
Hmmm, victims of GW Bush and Dick Cheney ... victims of American liberalism.
Who seem more like the victims of Stalinism? Let us consider. And pray upon it.
the article that greenberg took the photo for was written by jeffrey goldberg. jeffrey goldberg was hired by this magazine AFTER he wrote several articles in the New Yorker based on the rantings of an unhinged lunatic who was called unreliable by the CIA, as goldberg knew. but in 2002 2003 it was fashionable to be very "there are WMDs" so goldberg, a terrible reporter but a smart ass-kisser, did what he needed to do. 10,000 word pieces in the new yorker sell, and his boss david remnick was pro-iraq war.
then the atlantic, knowing all this, and knowing that this guy wrote some of the most risible bs leading up to the war of ANY journalist in america, they decided they should hire him. give him a raise. give his daughter a pony (if you think i'm kidding, do a bit of googling). so he was rewarded with a plum job for being a pathetic hack. and he has the balls on his comment-free blog to complain about greenberg, who did her job as asked and then used her copyrighted material to create political art?
that mcardle can't figure out any of this is no surprise. she's paid not to understand it. but the commenters on this board who know and understand nothing of it are just lame.
In a nice discussion on Solzhenitsyn at Volokh Conspiracy, the tongue in cheek comment was made "Why would I read this guy when I can read top-notch Pulitzer Proze winning work from Walter Duranty?" You reminded me Freddie. Who did he write for?
And if I read correctly, the "bad" photograph with the mean shadows wasn't even the one used.
Although not a photographer myself, my father, sister, and wife are, and I worked in publishing. Ultimately, this comes down to the photo editor and art director. its not like they were forced to use an image. Reshoots happen all the damn time. I'd also think that maybe a man of McCain's stature might even have veto power over the cover art.
The picture used isn't that mean. He's old, he's wrinkled, and he has a very asymmetrical face. That will show up no matter what. His yellow teeth and very pale skin are not showing up at all. There could be much worse pictures of him. It is "mean" in the sense that they didn't airbrush out every wrinkle and fold of skin like they do for his campaign photos. At worst, its a tad honest, but hardly even close to the real truth, which is that he is a very pale old man with lots of wrinkles and sagging skin.
Apparently it is now partisan to show the truth. Just like when the media points out McCain's lies, they are "partisan" and "unhinged leftists".
It is a crazy time when there ceases to be any objective truth or fact.
And yes, seriously Megan, with a blog name that references economics, aren't there certain financial topics that you should be writing about?
There's a whole lot of fingers to be pointed.
The McCain campaign could have asked the Atlantic what format they prefer photographs to be in and supplied the Atlantic with reams of them. They didn't have to take up the candidate's valuable time to have a cover photo. The Atlantic is an influential publication, they wanted the candidates picture on the cover.
The Atlantic wanted a unique photo to ***gasp*** help sell magazines. They could have used a stock photo but they didn't.
The photographer is noted for her striking and sometimes disturbing style. She does wonderful portraits, she also does things that can be disturbing. She wasn't hired just because she does extraordinary head shots. She did what she does, takes striking and sometimes disturbing photographs.
I have less of a problem with the photographer, who was doing what she is famous for, than I do with the campaign who could have refused to use her or the Atlantic who could have chosen a less controversial photographer.
uh...she's an artist. Artist do this stuff. Honestly, did everyone fall off the turnip truck this morning?
headline: artist does something to shock the proles.
My guess is McCain already has that "evil" picture mounted on a wall somewhere and paid good money for it.
That women is a fabulous artist, did you see her swarzenegger shots?
bunch of fucking prudes.
The media in this country is killing itself. The level of bias in the mainstream media is palpable.
Right, like the bias that presents McCain lying about Palin's support for earmarks as "ignoring the record", instead of the more accurate term "lying."
Oh, wait. You were talking about the hilarious myth of "liberal bias." That's because you're an idiot, I guess, and always have been.
I know people must be clamoring for it, but I could care less about some photographer. So let me add my voice in the other direction: I want to hear about Lehman Brothers!
Yeah, what could be biased about running with every single rumor about Palin they read on the Internet, up to and including the one about her "grandson" Trig? They do that for all politicians, left, right, whatever.
Appalled eh? Where was the outrage in 2004 with Bush's dirty tricks? Where is the outrage in 2008 with McCain's dirty tricks? Now you are appalled because an individual tried to make McCain look bad in a photoshoot and the magazine that set it up didn't use the picture. WTF? How about ads approved by McCain that suggest Obama wants to teach kids in kindergarten the ins and outs of the Kama Sutra?
I think this apology should be on the front page of your website for the magazine....I think both candidates are good choices for America and the magazine should do a public apologyon television as well- this is totally unacceptable.
I don't blame The Atlantic , so long as they did not use the pictures. However, the ghoulish photo aside, she also brags that she barely retouched the blemishes in any of the photos. I think where the magazine erred is that they accepted a photo which shows McCain with many, many wrinkles.
This would be fine if they had a policy of not retouching photos. However, they seem to retouch most other photos, so leaving in the especially unflattering photo does not seem evenhanded.
That being said, it is a very small trangression, in the big scheme of American media bias.
The most appropriate photo of McCain would have involved him mooning the camera and flashing his brown eye. It's his essence.
I don't blame The Atlantic , so long as they did not use the pictures. However, the ghoulish photo aside, she also brags that she barely retouched the blemishes in any of the photos. I think where the magazine erred is that they accepted a photo which shows McCain with many, many wrinkles.
This would be fine if they had a policy of not retouching photos. However, they seem to retouch most other photos, so leaving in the especially unflattering photo does not seem evenhanded.
That being said, it is a very small trangression, in the big scheme of American media bias.
I can't remember too much complaint from either Megan McArdle or Jeffrey Goldberg when a Senior Editor of the Atlantic, and one of their co-bloggers, titled a post "Barack Hitler Obama"
ndm writes: "I can't remember too much complaint from either Megan McArdle or Jeffrey Goldberg when a Senior Editor of the Atlantic, and one of their co-bloggers, titled a post "Barack Hitler Obama""
Or that the same "senior editor" links directly to the website of blatant white supremacist Steve Sailer and cites him approvingly often.
Maybe it should be called The Atklantic.
uh...she's an artist. Artist do this stuff. Honestly, did everyone fall off the turnip truck this morning?
headline: artist does something to shock the proles.
My guess is McCain already has that "evil" picture mounted on a wall somewhere and paid good money for it.
That women is a fabulous artist, did you see her swarzenegger shots?
bunch of fucking prudes.
Posted by UWSguy | September 15, 2008 12:44 AM
That's what we call super-clueless. If these photos were of Obama, you would be SCREAMING about the ghoulish one at the very least. You would be SCREAMING for GOP blood. Deny it.
I looked at Greenberg's crying child photos ...
whoever chose her at the Atlantic goes for the aesthetics of disgusts and should think about it how he/she could be taken in by the art babble of the day and think him/herself highly refined for being able to appreciate and enjoy that kind of art "open mindedly"
Artists who put a gloss on disgust and make it look exciting while keeping a cold dissecting look at the portrayed do that because they have that set of mind and approve of it and find it chic
it is especially the cold eye I object to -
the lack of Menschenfreundlichkeit (human kindness)
take for example Ernst Junger's writing about war -
oh how beautifully artistic n'est-ce pas -
but try to read it from the view point of the described victims and it is nothing but revolting
Clearly, the collapse of Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch makes it clear that the most important issue in this election is the fact that a photographer took an unflattering picture of John McCain.
Thanks brooksfoe for pointing it out.
One of the most historic, if not the most, days in financial history... people are talking about pictures. That being said, the coverage of this on all news outlets were absolutely pitiful. WHile the sky was falling, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, kept on their normal everyday presidential coverage. Bloomberg and CNBC had their prefab programming for Sundays. I wouldn't have known anything if my homepage wasn't dealbreaker.com.
1) The Atlantic employs a well-known Bush-hating psychological freak, who is presently demanding that Sarah Palin disclose the birth records of her son.
2) Jill Greenberg is notorious for being another such freak, who acquired her reputation by deceptively ushering parents out of the room, making their toddlers cry, and then using the pictures of the crying toddlers to illustrate how she feels living under the Bush administration.
3) AFTER she does this, and these antics are extremely well-publicised, the Atlantic hires her to take the picture of another Republican, McCain, during his presidential run.
4) The evidence indicates that the Atlantic is lying when it now pretends to be appalled and surprised by Greenberg's conduct.
The Atlantic knew what it was getting with Greenberg; that's why it hired her.
5) The Atlantic deserves the damage to its reputation caused by its own juvenile and hateful conduct.
Clearly, the collapse of Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch makes it clear that the most important issue in this election is the fact that a photographer took an unflattering picture of John McCain.
Clearly, there will be plenty of other blog threads available to discuss Lehman and Merrill Lynch. With respect to the McCain photo controversy, I thought ABCs editing out of large chucks of Sarah Palin's responses during the interview to try to make her seem like an uninformed warmonger was far worse--because the McCain photos were an obvious hatchet job, while the editing and splicing was largely invisible to the viewer:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
I wonder how Megan feels now that it turns out that her impression of Palin from that interview was intentionally created by ABC?
Megan can't be so naive or stupid that she thinks this woman's career will in any way suffer or any other magazine will refuse to hire her. Give me a break. If anything, this will make her career. She is now a "controversial" and "iconoclastic". She has real street creed with the major media now.
"Occasionally, writers like Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair, or photographers like Jill Greenberg, violate that trust."
Or Andrew Sullivan?
"But that isn't because the editors lack integrity, or endorse their reprehensible actions."
This statement is too broad. It does not prove the editors lack integrity or endorse their reprehensible actions. However, it is still possible that this is the case. It makes sense to look for other evidence to see if they deserve the benefit of the doubt. That bring me back too...
Andrew Sullivan.
Those who bet their own money on the elections results, and therefore try to predict results honestly, changed opinion drastically about outcome of elections compared to July (see www.intrade.com).
This sudden reverse of fortune drives Dems crazy.
Do you want to be this unstable crowd to be our next administration?
This Atlantic caper goes along with the ABC News "selective editing" of the Palin interview. And with Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" Bush memoes.
Mainstream equals lamestream and you're soaking in it, baby!
I think the question is whether this is an isolated incident or a pattern.
Throw in Sullivan's mad rantings and your owner's wife (Katherine Brittain Bradley) with her $28,500 in contributions to Obama supporting groups (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/donor.cfm?donor=20041) and it's hard to believe that The Atlantic's primary concern with this incident is not that it exposed their bias instead of allowing them plausible deniability.
One question. If she had told Goldberg privately what she had done and no one else, would Goldberg have been upset or done anything? I doubt it. Goldberg is not angry that she did it. He is angry that she made it public. I am sorry but any magazine that gives Sullivan a platform has no credibility on this matter.
Idiots like Greenberg are making McCain's job easy.
His campaign from now on should consist of nothing but letting the left embarrass itself.
This is the problem with having a hack like Andrew Sullivan as your major face: It deprives the entire publication of the benefit of the doubt. The Atlantic is now going to be seen like MSNBC as part of the Obama campaign.
More importantly, I think, is the use of the 'Is porn adultery' banner. Or am I getting paranoid.
"The Atlantic is, in fact, a center-right publication"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Maybe as viewed from the hills of Berkeley. And for other commenters: the phrase "Repuglican" is shorthand for "I'm an idiot and my opinions can safely be ignored."
Atlantic "didn't use the trick photo"???
The front cover appears clearly to be the result of heavy dragan method photoshopping.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.gentoo%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=TdZ&q=dragan+method+photography&btnG=Search
or read the retouching forum of http://www.dpreview.com
The method permits the user to introduce biases and distortions into the image.
What do you think made McCain look like that, lighting? There is no way he or his staff could have anticipated that cover, because McCain simply never looked that way in the studio. Only in the photoshop afterwork.
Megan, you and the magazine, I think, owe your readers a correction.
If she had told Goldberg privately what she had done and no one else, would Goldberg have been upset or done anything? I doubt it.
Which part, the inappropriate photo, or the bad photoshop stuff? If she had done these things for her personal amusement, maybe showed off her "art" at a cocktail party with 10 friends, the foul here would be minor... something akin to making a personal call on someone else's paid time.
The fact that she used those photos publicly, and that (as I think I read at one point) she was trying to sell these shots to others, is the real big league violation here.
My big surprise is in learning that it is not SOP that the magazine that pays for the shoot then owns the shots as a work for hire. That would be the most sensible way to handle this sort of junk.
If these photos were of Obama, you would be SCREAMING about the ghoulish one at the very least.
Crusader, I hereby boringly and ritually denounce what Greenberg did here. But Freddie was right, if you want to claim that celebration (or whatever) is par for the course, you need to come to the table with more than anonymous discussion board comments. We could farm discussion boards for disgusting comments all day (from any possible angle), and there will be no shortage of them. We'll just all end up feeling gross.
Incidentally, it is an oddity of this that all of the photos I've seen were linked by commenters with a clear rightward sympathy (to say the very least).
There is something comical about the "This is awful! Look! No, really, check this out!" thing that happens. Here, taste this. It's disgusting! It happens on both sides, of course, but I do wonder whether these pictures had much of an audience before everyone started ranting about how awful they are.
(In contrast, I don't have to wonder whether the Obama waffles that TNC discussed had an audience. They were at a vending booth at a convention, and the boxmakers got so far as a grip-n-grin with Lou Dobbs, Man of Unrelenting Good Taste).
"I'd also note that Moe Larry and Jesus delighted in her efforts and thought I was ridiculous and idiotic, as well as partisan, to think it inappropriate."
That's because it's always okay/special/different when they do it.
Didn't you do the reading? 1984? George Orwell?
"But some are more equal than others."
People like Jill Greenberg and MoeLarryandwhatever call for honesty, integrity, high-mindedness and fair play, but typically exempt themselves from those rules.
Sad. Hypocritical. Pathetic.
Serious question to the Sullivan critics on this thread - what specifically is he doing that you find so unethical? Are you denying the fact that McCain and Palin are liars? I don't get it.
Hmmmmm.
@ Megan McArdle
Sorry but trying to sweep this under the rug is frankly dishonest.
The onus is on YOU to ensure that all aspects are professional. If I'm working and someone on my team is acting unprofessional I don't get to say "no my yob" and go home.
Neither do you.
Hmmmm.
"Serious question to the Sullivan critics on this thread - what specifically is he doing that you find so unethical? Are you denying the fact that McCain and Palin are liars? I don't get it."
You must be joking because otherwise I'd have to conclude you are a complete idiot.
Remember Trig Palin? Sullivan tried pushing the idea that Sarah Palin wasn't Trig's mother but rather the **grandmother** and that Bristol Palin was Trig's mother.
Then he tried pushing the stupid idea that a pregnant woman cannot fly without injuring the fetus.
If you want to be partisan then BE partisan.
But try, please try, not to be a total dumbass.
Hmmmm.
Frankly I rarely visit this website and never bother to read the print edition. IMO the there are very few things of any value here worth my time. And it's pretty clear that the residual value is decreasing at a rapid rate.
No idea if I'll return. Sometimes I enjoy reading McArdle's blog, but that's pretty much the exception.
But credibility? You folks here at the Atlantic simply don't have any. Were I a Republican candidate I wouldn't allow you to bring a tape recorder to an interview. Instead all materials would belong to me and you'd have ask permission for everything.
That's what happens when what little credibility you have left gets burned on the front lawn.
"If you want to be partisan then BE partisan.
But try, please try, not to be a total dumbass."
THANK YOU!
I'm amazed at how many Liberals don't get this.
If you're going to go around telling everyone how much smarter you are than the rest of us, could you at least try to act like it?
Otherwise, it's just annoying.
Megan spends time defending The Atlantic because you can't follow writers and photographers around 24x7. Fair enough.
But I let my sub to TA lapse when the letter to the editor section, on multiple occasions, published letters from people who purported to be doctors and weighed in on George Bush's deteriorating mental ability. Real classy on the part of The Atlantic...
I don’t think it makes much difference, Every time before when Megan came up with a reason to support Obama that almost immediately evaporated – an economics advisor that got tossed under the bus for suggesting Obama wasn’t really going to try to renegotiate our trade deals, a corporate income tax cut that Obama didn’t come out for, etc. she’s pretty much fallen back on the “I just don’t like McCain” the reasons of which don’t seem to have any bearing on anything he’s actually done or any policy she thinks he would try to implement if he’s elected.
Sorry folks this thread has finally lost my interest.
Sorry folks this thread has finally lost my interest.
Are you kidding? Ritual Denunciations, Purity Tests, Confirmation Bias, Insulting Sweeping Generalizations... this thread has it all!
Hopefully Jill Greenberg will see a marked decline in corporate customers. Who in the world could ever trust this kook again? And they pick on McCains age... clearly Ms Greenberg is not aging very gracefully herself.
When you run with the dogs you get fleas! Atlantic now has a house full of fleas.
I was in Barnes and Noble before this whole thing came to light and saw the cover of the magazine. I'm an amateur photographer and my first reaction to the photo was "gee, why'd they pick that photo?". I could tell from a few feet away that it was unflattering, poorly lit (or at least not the great light I'm used to seeing in portraits), and unbalanced. When I compared the photo to a pic of McCain on a neighboring magazine it fell badly short.
Not saying that this is a reflection of my politics, or that I was somehow projecting my beliefs onto the mag ("the MSM is deliberately making him look bad!"). What I am saying, is that I noticed it wasn't a very good picture before any of this hit the news. From my own perspective it fell short of what I'm used to seeing on a professional magazine.
Once this all came out I remembered my observation and went "well....hmmmmm"
Just saying.
I'm sorry Megan, but that just won't fly. The Atlantic hired a photographer, not only known as a fanatic hater of conservatives, but who also made her name with an anti Bush composition that bordered on child abuse. You expected her to be fair? ( That you is plural, as in the Atlantic staff). If the Atlantic doesn't sue her to recover all photos that should by rights belong to the magazine and publicly apologize to the American people and Senator McCain for using such a nut case then you simply confirm what we all know, the the Atlantic is just a propaganda organ for Obama and the far left.
One would not hire a Klansman, no matter how talented a photographer to take pictures of Obama. Hiring a fanatic left winger to photograph McCain is equally appalling. And I don't even plan to vote for McCain.
Dozens of exceptionally stupid, hysterical wingnuts are babbling about this as though it's a real issue, and that's very funny.
Dear idiots - the comments by Greenberg were made AFTER THE SHOOT. It doesn't reflect badly on the Atlantic at all.
Besides, if she were truly trying to capture the essence of John McCain Greenberg should have trapped a rabid dog and taken a close-up shot of its rectum. Given the dignity and depth of his current campaign that would have been perfect.
Greenberg isn't even original, she stole the idea of the low light from Arnold Newman who was asked to take a photo of Alfried Krupp (German industrialist who used slave labor during WWII) and ended up with this shot. Newman was jewish IIRC and the magazine that hired him refused to use the shot.
And I doubt that any photo editor could be unaware of Greenbergs "tormenting toddlers for Bush" work which was a 30 day wonder (or disgrace) among photographers.
agesilaus writes: "Greenberg isn't even original, she stole the idea of the low light from Arnold Newman"
Ah, the "isn't even original" bit. Yes, folks, conservative nonsense is really abundant these days. What a silly criticism!
And she used a camera! How unoriginal!
What's unoriginal is the flood of Malkinites coming here to bitch like abused toddlers.
Michelle Malkin is a 4th rate Ann Coulter. And Coulter is a 4th rate wackaloon herself, so do the math.
Has anyone stopped to imagine this situation reversed?
Like, if a photographer with unhidden right-wing nut proclivities got a gig to shoot a major-magazine cover for Obama? Then used the pics to make him look evil or ridiculous? Then bragged about it?
Imagine.
This even should in no way reflect poorly on Obama, his campaign or, in fact, anyone besides Mrs. Greenberg.
However, this does demonstrate one thing: that anyone identifiably in the cultural elite should be presumed a Democrat partisan unless otherwise demonstrated. This means that everyone in the traditional news media is automatically assumed to be writing their stories to get Obama elected unless there is substantive evidence to the contrary.
The cover photo is absolutely brutal. Anyone who thinks McCain looks "good" in it needs an eye exam, stat.
I don't blame the Atlantic one bit for hiring Greenberg. Most people are willing and able to put their biases on the back burner in professional matters. I do think the Atlantic deserves some criticism for running the photo - although I'm sure it looked great compared to the rest of the batch.
I think you all should see how red Mccain looks on this site...
http://mccainpalinworld.com/
Jill Greenberg has insulted every military veteran in the USA with her damaging words about John McCain. Whay did she come to the USA. Send her back to Canada. Oh, I forgot to mention, John McCain protected people like jill when he was in the service. Thanks Jill for showing your thanks....get out of our country.......LEAVE
What a shame, she is doing Obama no favor. It is shocking to me what some of these Obama supporters will do. I am an independent, an independent that is starting to lean toward Mcain. There seem to be a complete lack of class on the side of the Obama supports, very confrontational and alittle scary. To treat McCain like that is just plain wrong. I wish I could say it will hurt her career, but it won't.
Everyday this poor country...my country just gets sadder and sadder.
"In cases like this, all a magazine can do is refuse to employ Ms. Greenberg again--a course that I suspect will be followed by any magazine with integrity."
In other words, she'll still get plenty of work.
When did McCain turn into the Koran and when did all the republicans turn into Islamists?
I am an independent, an independent that is starting to lean toward Mcain. There seem to be a complete lack of class on the side of the Obama supports, very confrontational and alittle scary
You gotta be kidding me.
Anyway, talked with my company's fairly left-wing Canadian on-staff photographer about this last night. He was really angry. "Unprofessional" was the chief word. The main result, he pointed out, is that it's now going to become just as impossibly frustrating to photograph politicians as it is to photograph celebrities -- laborious signings of complex releases, people from the campaign checking up on what the photographer is doing, all that. None of which is any good for free speech and public political discourse.
SHAME SHAME SHAME. Jill Greenberg's lack of professionalism should be a warning cry to all of us. If she were a lawyer she would be disbarred immediately. If she would of done this to an African American, Muslim or any other ethnic group she would of been hung by her neck to dry. I believe she is an immoral, dangerous leftist who manipulates her subjects so that she can take advantage of them in her photos. I believe the editorial board at Atlantic Monthly should turn in their resignation letters. Whom ever picked this Communist to take a picture should have their head checked. The editorial board needs to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.
Oh, I forgot to mention, John McCain protected people like jill when he was in the service.
From who, exactly? The Viet Cong? Who had no navy?
How, exactly, were they a threat to Americans? How were they even going to get here? Swim?
Sure, McCain's conduct under POW conditions was heroic. Very admirable. (It's that same heroic conduct that he's betrayed in his campaigning conduct.) But, unfortunately, it was entirely in the context of an unnecessary war of aggression.
She did a total dis-service to all photographers. The best quote I heard all day yesterday was “saying she shot political pornography is an insult to pornographers”, that about sums it up.
She's an awesome photographer. Because of this she WILL get tons of assignments.
Good for her.
That said Megan and Jeffery should fake an outrage. They know themselves what a great photographer Greensberg is!