None of these magazines would ever depict Obama that way.
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 ...
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 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.
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.
I agree
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!
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.