The Atlantic should have Googled Jill Greenberg before hiring her

Michelle Malkin.com ^ | September 15, 2008 | Michelle Malkin

[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.”

[dr_who]

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

[Darnright]

>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.

[ozarkgirl]

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/

[MozarkDawg]

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]

[dennisw]

Did it but no pictures of her

[dennisw]

Did it but no pictures of her

[MozarkDawg]

for from whom they WANT votes

[DeusLeVeult]

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

[null and void]

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.

[CarryaBigStick]

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.

[Darnright]

>how are we going to get payback on her?<

Her client list:
Phillip Morris
Proctor & Gamble
Kraft Foods
Target
Microsoft
RCA
Epson
Polaroid
Dow JOnes
Paramount Pictures
MGM
Sony Pictures
HBO
Showtime
Disney
Miller Beer
Annheuser Busch
Pepsi
Coca Cola
Burger King
Frito Lay
Allied Domecq/Beefeater
Seagrams
Bacardi
L’Oreal
MTV
Time
Newsweek
Wired Q
Outside

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

the issue is that she betrayed accurately portrayed this magazine, and disgraced her professiongave away the game.

[dennisw]

Her work is hideous and anti-human. Exactly what I don’t like about many of today’s artistes. Very warped minds

[dennisw]

My take is she bamboozled the Atlantic editors.....Now the sicko is crowing about it

[bootless]

I think the blog you’re thinking about is this one:

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html

I’d say it’s easily 4 to 1 against her from the other pros. They’re fairly ticked off at her, saying her lack of professionalism will hurt them all. Interesting reading.

[Carley]

If she hadn’t been caught gloating about her misdeed they would all be gloating.

[FormerACLUmember]

This is how vicious child abuser Jill Greenberg tortures innocent children. She belong in jail. Seriously.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

yOU GOT IT!

it is Narcissism unhinged!