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 Atlantic’s 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 McCain’s shark-toothed mouth and labeled it with the caption “I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer.” In another, a caption over McCain’s head says, “I will have my girl kill Roe v. Wade,” an obvious reference to his running mate Sarah Palin’s anti-abortion positions.
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.foxnews.com ...
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 politics—instead, 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.
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.