[Brookhaven]

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.)

[RDTF]

I agree

[fullchroma]

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.

[Jacquerie]

. . . the magazine was taken advantage of by the photographer.

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.

[Pearls Before Swine]

IMHO, the magazine is not at fault here, but they are doing the right thing by apologizing to McCain (and reprimanding the photographer.)

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.