Skip to comments.Atlantic Monthly Editor to Offer Apology to McCain for Photog’s Doctored Pics
Posted on 09/15/2008 12:40:53 PM PDT by Alouette
The editor of The Atlantic Monthly said Monday he is sending a letter of apology to John McCain after a woman the magazine hired to photograph the Republican presidential nominee posted manipulated pictures from the photo shoot on her Web site.
Photographer Jill Greenberg, who is vehemently anti-Republican and expressed glee that the photos would stir up conservative ire, took pictures of McCain for the cover of The Atlantics October issue.
During the shoot, she took several other backlit pictures, which she then doctored and posted to her site. In one photo, she added blood oozing from McCains shark-toothed mouth and labeled it with the caption I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer. In another, a caption over McCains head says, I will have my girl kill Roe v. Wade, an obvious reference to his running mate Sarah Palins anti-abortion positions.
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.foxnews.com ...
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
If he is serious, that’s gotta sting.
Or will she be paid as a “consultant”?????
This is so bogus. Do the damage and slander in public, apologize in private.
So the Atlantic monthly gets a free distorted uncomplimentary cover photo of the McCain. Win-Win for Mr Goldberg.
None of these magazines would ever depict Obama that way.
Forget the apology. Find and publish Obama’s college transcript if you are a real journalist!
Sorry, as a full time photographer I don’t buy this story. I can’t imagine any publication accepting a photo or photos sight unseen and then throwing one of the cover of a major magazine. The shooter doesn’t send a photo labeled “cover art” that has to be used unquestioned. A photo ends up on the cover of a publication because the editors thought it tells the story they want conveyed.
Personally I didn’t think the picture was all that bad. My Mom used to remind us that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you hate McCain then you see thing in that picture. If you don’t then you probably have an entirely different take on it. I thought it made him look like a very serious, determined man with grit in his eye. Exactly the kind of man I want as CIC.
Truth is, that picture was exactly what the editors and publisher wanted. Period. If not, it would never have been there.
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 politicsinstead, 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.
Flimsy damage control -- not displayed prominently enough on their website, imho. "Respectful image" my #ss.
I'm cancelling and telling them why.
Can we not at least give credit where credit is due?
Like McCain, the magazine was taken advantage of by the photographer. They hired her to do a specific job, she used the job for her own purposes.
IMHO, the magazine is not at fault here, but they are doing the right thing by apologizing to McCain (and reprimanding the photographer.)
I enjoy reading that magazine. Too bad.
The left loses again on this.
I would much rather have a battle-scarred veteran leading our country than a metrosexual fairy.
Pink-eyed, unflattering photo aside, what’s with the headline on the cover: WHY WAR IS HIS ANSWER
Pure, deliberate one-dimensional hit-piece.
I’ll give grudging credit where due. At least they apologized. That’s more than what a lot of mags would do.
Jill Greenberg is also the photographer who made an album of toddlers crying, by giving them candy and then snatching it away.
How evil is that?
Dude, the doctored pics were posted on her personal website, not the mag cover.
Oh come on...
During one of the most contentious runs for the White House, ever, one can reasonably expect the editors to have made themselves aware of this photographer’s well-known anti-Republican, anti-war photographic work and, then, selected a less controversial hack for the OCTOBER 2008 cover.
The original article I saw was questioning the picture that was on the cover too. I see from the latest round of news that the ones on her site were the real problem, but yesterday’s first release of the story talked about how they had used a very unflattering picture of McCain.
Sorry if I wasn’t too clear. I’m getting old and my fingers don’t follow my brain in explaining things as well as they did at one time!
And who gave her the opportunity to take those pictures and then deface them? The Atlantic Monthly. Have you seen them? The monkey defecating on McCain's head?
I don’t know how it works but I assume the photog takes the pics and then the publication does the airbrushing/enhancments if they desire.
I agree that the difference in the stark McCain cover and the airbrushed “superman” pose of Obamas indicates a lack of balance in their propaganda efforts. But I don’t think you can place the lack of airbrushing of McCains photo at the feet of the photog. That was an editorial decision.
Rush discussed this vile and evil pos today.
The Atlantic Monthly just showed its reality and whom it is in bed with.
I think next time they need to grey Bambam’s hair and add some worry lines to give him the air of an experienced executive used to the burden of making weighty decisions.
I might be a bit off base though since, as a previous poster pointed out, it's the pictures on her website that are causing the uproar. I took it from the first posting yesterday that they were unhappy with the cover art.
The whole thing is pretty refreshing though since for years, a century or more, publications have felt free to use their cover art to help make or break a public figure. This is the first time I can remember them taking so much heat for the art or the text on a cover. Look at the last week's brouhaha on the cover with Sarah Palin and the misleading copy.
I think for the first time in their publishing lives they are beginning to have to pay attention to their work. Time was they just blasted away and there was nothing an unhappy reader could do. Seems to me like these days enough people react to a cover or article to make it worth the publisher's time to think about it before running it.
Isn't that what liberals do?
There are people on extremes of both sides of the political spectrem that, when hired as a professional to perform a job, actually perform the job in a professional manner.
That is the norm that should be expected of everyone.
What is sad (and dismaying) is she seems to not understand what it means to be a professional.
The photographer was too much even for the left-leaning Atlantic.
It would be nice however if this woman never got another gig as a photographer.
Atlantic Monthly is hedging their Presidential bets.
I suspect the Atlantic was taken advantage of in a way similar to the way Bill Burkett took advantage of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I bet she enjoyed making them cry.
She says she created that series to express her frustration with Republicans and Christian fundamentalism. This is one hostile woman.
They're either liars or lazy and stoopid, or all three -- all you had to do to vet her was google the beotch to find out what her history is.
I would like to leave her a message.
She’ll now be the darling of the left. I used to be in charge of Photo shoots for SHOWTIME/THE MOVIE CHANNEL back in the 1980’s...I’m surprised she gets to keep the rights to these photos...Seems to me that was a big screw up on their part. Or maybe things have changed in the industry.
“...When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don’t vet them for their politicsinstead, we assess their professional track records....”
Perhaps. When the magazine gets verbal copy, they edit it. Doesn't anyone look at the photos and recognize the tricks such as backlighting or bad makeup? Or a halo around Obama, or making OJ's skin look extra dark? There's got to be some editorial responsibility for photos.
That said, if the apology is less public than the slander, there is net damage, which was my point.
Was there an attendant story about Bush taking candy away from children?
I would like to leave her a message.
Another reason we can be thankful for the internet and what I call back fence reporting. We are all neighbors now. The old media are no longer gods and kings to be worshiped for their "knowledge".
I'll not bore with detail after detail, but I am so thankful to have lived in that time and now in this time. My grandmother was born in 1891 and died in 1978. She remembered seeing her first airplane, etc. And she lived to see men walking on the moon. I'm a generation or two too late for that, but I am amazed daily at what the Internet brings to our lives!
Hey, stand-up guy here. Applause.
I have a different take on this I guess. Why the hell can’t McCain’s campaign do a 30-second google search to vet this photographer? Yes, Atlantic could have done the same search, but McCain is smeared and Atlantic will lose 5 readers. The damage is done. The MSM and anyone that works for them will never give Republicans a fair shake, especially this close to an election. Wake up, McCain. It’s not paranoia, they really are out to get you.
Good point. Most magazines get all the rights. I knew a writer years ago who would only sell first North American rights - but that's unusual. It seems Atlantic Monthly would have a standard contract. You might be on to something here.
I think some photographers of note get to negotiate that into their contracts. I have a funny story about that. When I was working at SHOWTIME, we were airing the “Lost Episodes of the Honeymooners.” It was a big thing. We were doing an interview with Jackie Gleason to be done at his home in Connecticut..or something. Well, I wanted to play the bigshot and hired an old high-school friend I had a bit of a crush on... He was an up and coming photographer and I just wanted to show off. So I hired him and let him have the rights to the shoot. Turns out this was the last interview and photo shoot Gleason ever did as he died soon after... and this guy still owns the rights! Oh well...
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.