Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Atlantic should have Googled Jill Greenberg before hiring her
Michelle Malkin.com ^ | September 15, 2008 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 09/15/2008 8:06:08 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia

I don’t feel sorry for The Atlantic magazine.

They are quite upset after discovering that Jill Greenberg, the left-wing photographer they hired to take photos of John McCain, is a deranged lunatic who manipulated pictures of the candidate to put him in a bad light — and then posted hateful photoshops of the images on her personal website and gloated about it to the Photo District News website.

Sample of her unhinged defacing of McCain’s pics, which looks like something straight out of a Democratic Underground thread: (See article for photos)

Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg, whose cover story was tainted by Greenberg’s work, writes: “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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: atlantic; jillgreenberg; mccain; mccainpalin; propagandawingofdnc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 09/15/2008 8:08:00 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Sorry Michelle, but who says they didn’t?

Who says they didn’t want exactly what they got?


2 posted on 09/15/2008 8:10:10 AM PDT by Petronski (Please pray for the success of McCain and Palin. Every day, whenever you pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

What I don’t understand is, if she was contracted by the magazine to take photos, and the magazine had the subject (McCain) appear for the shoot, then why don’t the photos belong to the magazine?


3 posted on 09/15/2008 8:10:33 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia
"They say they are quite upset after discovering that Jill Greenberg, the left-wing photographer they hired to take photos of John McCain, is a deranged lunatic who manipulated pictures of the candidate to put him in a bad light..."

There. Fixed.

4 posted on 09/15/2008 8:11:06 AM PDT by null and void (When you bang your forehead on the ground five times a day, you get brain damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Nice work, Jill. What a low life.

5 posted on 09/15/2008 8:11:37 AM PDT by DogBarkTree (That sharp pain to the LibRat's groin is called the Palin Effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Goldberg’s complaints ring hollow to me.

It sounds more like they’re sorry her childishness got bad reviews, rather than good.


6 posted on 09/15/2008 8:11:47 AM PDT by Petronski (Please pray for the success of McCain and Palin. Every day, whenever you pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

McCain will speak to any issue.

That the left is unhinged and acting badly only helps McCain/Palin.

I don’t fault McCain for interviewing with this magazine.


7 posted on 09/15/2008 8:12:10 AM PDT by Carley (she's all out of caribou.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

8 posted on 09/15/2008 8:13:13 AM PDT by null and void (When you bang your forehead on the ground five times a day, you get brain damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Not only the magazine but other professional photographers are slamming Greenberg.

I saw it online during the weekend but perhaps it was on Newsbusters. It’s worth reading.

This has backfired big time.


9 posted on 09/15/2008 8:13:34 AM PDT by Carley (she's all out of caribou.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

As the Left start to realize that they are History’s losers, all sorts of hatred, pettiness and spite will spew out. It helps fill up the emptiness of their lives.


10 posted on 09/15/2008 8:15:27 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (It's beginning to smell a lot like victory around here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Megan Kelly was hammering the editor of Atlantic about this very issue an hour before Michelle wrote this article.


11 posted on 09/15/2008 8:16:43 AM PDT by Doug TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

So today we talk about the McCain pictures in Atlantic.

When do we get to talk about what Barak Obama wants to do when he is President?

How about Obama’s association with David Geffen and George Soros. If Obama is elected President will George Soros become Emperator?

This is all distraction. McCain needs to force Obama to talk about the issues.


12 posted on 09/15/2008 8:17:33 AM PDT by InABunkerUnderSF (Illegal Immigration is not about the immigration. Gun control is not about the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

You’re right. The Atlantic got EXACTLY what they wanted when they hired this woman.


13 posted on 09/15/2008 8:18:21 AM PDT by PeterFinn ("I will stand with the Muslims" - Barack Hussein Obama p. 261 "Audacity of Hope")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
What I don’t understand is, if she was contracted by the magazine to take photos, and the magazine had the subject (McCain) appear for the shoot, then why don’t the photos belong to the magazine?

It depends on the contract. Generally speaking, if a publisher doesn't make a specific contractual request to own the copyright, a free-lance photographer owns the copyright to their own work, and sells the rights to use the work for a specified use and a specified number of reproductions. The magazine would own the photos only if the photographer were on staff.

14 posted on 09/15/2008 8:20:20 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (The Word of God is powerful. That's why so many people are afraid to read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: InABunkerUnderSF

Patience, grasshopper....


15 posted on 09/15/2008 8:21:41 AM PDT by JusPasenThru (The only thing Obama's been running for 4 years is his mouth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

The crazier and more unhinged the media becomes, the better McCain’s chances. A large and increasing number of people no longer trust the Mainstream Media. They Distort, They Deride. But they are no longer able to control and spin the news in a manner acceptable to their Democrat puppet-masters, because fewer people are staying around to watch their performance when there are much more enlightening shows available elsewhere.


16 posted on 09/15/2008 8:22:03 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Somewhere in Illinois, a community is missing its organizer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Nice gig, then. Get paid to take photos, have the subject delivered to you on a platter, and keep the photos to sell later.


17 posted on 09/15/2008 8:22:17 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
You’re right. The Atlantic got EXACTLY what they wanted when they hired this woman.

Agreed. She's the journalistic equivalent of a suicide bomber; expected to take one for the team and go out with a bang.

18 posted on 09/15/2008 8:22:21 AM PDT by kittycatonline.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

I LIKE the picture of Senator McCain on the cover of Atlantic Monthly. It makes him look tough and an islamofacist’s worst nightmare. The bimbette may have thought she was harming McCain, but I think the joke is on her.


19 posted on 09/15/2008 8:24:33 AM PDT by publana (Go McCain/Palin 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh
when there are much more enlightening shows available elsewhere.

...like re-runs of Andy Griffith...

20 posted on 09/15/2008 8:25:42 AM PDT by null and void (When you bang your forehead on the ground five times a day, you get brain damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

WARMONGERER?....She's also an idiot dumbass, apparently.....

21 posted on 09/15/2008 8:28:06 AM PDT by Red Badger (If you're not part of the solution, then you must be part of the government............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; rightwingintelligentsia
Are they upset about what happened?

Or that it was discovered?

Or that it was discovered AND published?

Or that it was discovered AND published AND embarrassed the Atlantic Magazine?

22 posted on 09/15/2008 8:28:19 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Where’s a photo of this Jill Greenberg sack o shit? I want to see what she looks like

She’s a model for deranged moonbats worldwide


23 posted on 09/15/2008 8:32:52 AM PDT by dennisw (Never bet on a false prophet! ::::::|::::: Never bet on Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publana
I LIKE the picture of Senator McCain on the cover of Atlantic Monthly. It makes him look tough and an islamofacist’s worst nightmare. The bimbette may have thought she was harming McCain, but I think the joke is on her.

Correct and this is the photo everyone will see.
Not the altered photos

Just when you thought these commie artistes couldn't sink any lower. Totally devoid of ethics. She hurt her cause all in all, so good

24 posted on 09/15/2008 8:35:58 AM PDT by dennisw (Never bet on a false prophet! ::::::|::::: Never bet on Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia; All

Thanks for posting. Hooray Michelle! Interesting thread. Thanks to every poster.


25 posted on 09/15/2008 8:36:10 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Hey, don’t dis old Andy. He knew how to keep things running smoothly down there in Mayberry, how to keep Aunt Bea happy and Barney out of trouble. If many people in our news media today suddenly had to find another line of work, they’d be lost.


26 posted on 09/15/2008 8:37:44 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Somewhere in Illinois, a community is missing its organizer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

What are they whinig about? don’t they have editorial control over what they put in their own damn magazine?

they could have rejected the work, couldn’t they?


27 posted on 09/15/2008 8:39:50 AM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
*** What I don’t understand is, if she was contracted by the magazine to take photos, and the magazine had the subject (McCain) appear for the shoot, then why don’t the photos belong to the magazine? ****

In cases like this all photographs belong to the photographer - period. There is an implied copyright the moment that shutter clicks. The photographer then 'loans' the pictures to the magazine for publishing.

Now if the photographer works for the magazine, or a newspaper (on the payroll) that's different as he's acting as an agent of them.

In the olden days we had 'Model Release Forms', but in reality they were just a formality/courtesy. I think I still have some in one of my old camera bags, they're polly all yellow and brittle by now.

28 posted on 09/15/2008 8:40:28 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
*** What are they whinig about? don’t they have editorial control over what they put in their own damn magazine? they could have rejected the work, couldn’t they? ***

Yes. They could have rejected the photos. Apparently they liked what they saw. (the pigs)

29 posted on 09/15/2008 8:43:58 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

Sorry Andy, didn’t realize it was you...


30 posted on 09/15/2008 8:44:01 AM PDT by null and void (When you bang your forehead on the ground five times a day, you get brain damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

For a little thrill LiveSearch or google images of “Jill Greenberg”.

Do it.

Really.


31 posted on 09/15/2008 8:47:54 AM PDT by null and void (When you bang your forehead on the ground five times a day, you get brain damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: null and void

LOL. I’m a bit too young to be him, but obviously old enough to remember 1st run black-and-white shows on TV...


32 posted on 09/15/2008 8:51:28 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Somewhere in Illinois, a community is missing its organizer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: publana

The joke is on her:

The Atlantic gets a cover that makes McCain look like the kind of tough old codger who can snap your neck without setting down his scotch neat, and McCain gets the benefit of the backlash against her petty little drawings.

It works out okay.


33 posted on 09/15/2008 9:00:43 AM PDT by Petronski (Please pray for the success of McCain and Palin. Every day, whenever you pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: publana
Sorry, I meant to say:

The Atlantic runs a cover that . . .

34 posted on 09/15/2008 9:02:24 AM PDT by Petronski (Please pray for the success of McCain and Palin. Every day, whenever you pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Nice gig, then. Get paid to take photos, have the subject delivered to you on a platter, and keep the photos to sell later.

Yep. Think of the photo exhibits you see by famous photographers like Annie Leibowitz or Steven Meisel. The only way a free-lancer can keep going is to have full rights to his or her own portfolio of work, and be able to show it to prospective clients. Free-lance artists have to generate their own income stream, pay their own benefits, manage their business and still do the artistic work that makes them worth their fees.

That's why artistic integrity is important, and why even other photographers are slamming Jill Greenberg. Their livelihoods depend on good will and trust that the images will not be used to defame the people they photograph. Artists often live hand-to-mouth, and work hard to keep good relations with clients and potential clients. It is appalling to dread that the expense of lawyers and ironclad contracts would have to enter every photo transaction to keep things like this from happening again. She is a traitor to the profession.

35 posted on 09/15/2008 9:12:28 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (The Word of God is powerful. That's why so many people are afraid to read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Maybe her problem is that no one would ..err..”google” her..


36 posted on 09/15/2008 9:16:47 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Maybe her problem is that no one would ..err..”google” her..


37 posted on 09/15/2008 9:16:56 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia


Jill Greenberg. Have some fun at her expense. If anyone has other pictures of her (good old YouTube), there's no limit to what you can do!
38 posted on 09/15/2008 9:26:04 AM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia

Jill Greenberg is just an enabler for the Atlantic. The Atlantic isn’t the least bit sorry about her pictures.


39 posted on 09/15/2008 9:28:04 AM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_who

No, that photo is not retouched. Kind of like Hillary’s picture.

Yeah right!!!


40 posted on 09/15/2008 9:28:44 AM PDT by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gathersnomoss
Apparently, that's Greenberg's claim to fame. She should have worked for Stalin


41 posted on 09/15/2008 9:43:41 AM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Carley

>Not only the magazine but other professional photographers are slamming Greenberg.<

As they should. When a politician or anyone who is in the public eye sits for a photographer, they are trusting that individual. Greenberg boasts she was able to get those shots, in essence photographically raping McCain, because he and his staff were too unsophisticated not to know she was tweaking her lights. In other words, McCain was too unsophisticated in trusting a person posing as a professional. What a bitch.

In the future, there will most likely be pressure and suspicion put on all professional photographers because Greenberg is an immature, unprofessional, downright nasty leftist.


42 posted on 09/15/2008 9:51:28 AM PDT by Darnright (A penny saved is a government oversight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia
Editor James Bennet said Greenberg behaved improperly and will not be paid for the session. He said the magazine is also considering a lawsuit.

She might have bitten off a little more than she can chew. From Fox new article. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/atlantic-monthly-editor-to-offer-apology-to-mccain-for-photogs-doctored-pics/

43 posted on 09/15/2008 9:53:34 AM PDT by ozarkgirl (Sarah Palin: pro-life, pro-guns, pro-family, anti-government corruption!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
Greenberg boasts she was able to get those shots, in essence photographically raping McCain, because he and his staff were too unsophisticated not to know she was tweaking her lights. In other words, McCain was too unsophisticated in trusting a person posing as a professional.

I want to say this properly, not have it misunderstood -- the part that makes this whole thing so stoopid is that it was totally unnecessary to use bad lighting, trickery to make McCain look old, harsh if you will. He's not a young man, he's not as photogenic as he once was, SO? Those of us who will be voting for him will do so based on substance and character, not on superficiality. What he stands for, not what he looks like.

She tried to make him look hard and evil ... anyone who is a thinking, reasoning person can see the distortion, the phoniness of that picture. As with the campaign ad mocking McCain's disability due to war injury, these photos are targeted toward voters who are in the 0bama camp anyway, all they do is offend, tick off people for whom they WANT votes, ie., older voters. Good move, that.

And 0bama says he's qualified to be president because he has experience running this campaign. Oh, this helps, this is making the case for you, Barry. [/sarc]

44 posted on 09/15/2008 10:05:31 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Did it but no pictures of her


45 posted on 09/15/2008 10:06:45 AM PDT by dennisw (Never bet on a false prophet! ::::::|::::: Never bet on Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Did it but no pictures of her


46 posted on 09/15/2008 10:06:45 AM PDT by dennisw (Never bet on a false prophet! ::::::|::::: Never bet on Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg
for from whom they WANT votes
47 posted on 09/15/2008 10:08:31 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Darnright

I agree. When this is all said and done, how are we going to get payback on her?


48 posted on 09/15/2008 10:11:20 AM PDT by DeusLeVeult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Yes.

Now would you describe any of those images of her work as 'flattering' or even neutral?

The Atlantic simply had to know what to expect from her.

Either that, or they are too stupid to be allows in public by themselves.

49 posted on 09/15/2008 10:15:10 AM PDT by null and void (When you bang your forehead on the ground five times a day, you get brain damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia
Even the photo selected for the magazine cover was very poorly done, or purposely lit in a very unflattering way to accentuate McCains' jowls.

If I was the magazines photo editor I would have ordered a reshoot and/or found another photographer.

50 posted on 09/15/2008 10:25:06 AM PDT by CarryaBigStick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson