Strobist.com / Discuss

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

I don't think just because she made McCain look bad because of Red and blue stance on her part...we (here at strobist) don't need to make this a political debate.

Stronger ethics are at play for her for decieving and having a hidden agenda on images she was hired to produce.....and then sell them to the highest bidder.

That's wrong in my book but is it legal?
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Wink of an Eye Digital Media edited this topic 45 months ago.

strobist    says:

Wink-

I think there is no question that she did it out of a hatred of McCain (/Bush). Why else?

But I am with you on the wrong-but-is-it-illegal part. My personal opinion is that she has exposed herself on her website with the picture of him smiling, saying "It was really fun to cheat on my car-injury-disabled first wife."

[ www.manipulator.com ] Click on enter, then names, then scroll to McCain for all of her McCain photos.

Libel law says you have to show actual malice in a libel claim when a public person is involved. And it is indeed possible to libel someone visually, as anyone who has taken basic MassComm law will know.

Beyond all of that, I am guessing that she has either marginalized the rest of her career. Or maybe it will skyrocket. Who knows, in this day and age.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
strobist edited this topic 45 months ago.

spiky247    says:

Without going into politics, I think the Atlantic brought this on to them selves. After all you don't hire someone like Greenberg (regardless of her political views) to give you an accurate portrayal of her subjects, and that is what is so interesting about her style.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

strobist    says:

That is a valid point. If you give a six-year-old an Uzi and he shoots someone, who bears responsibility. I wonder if Atlantic is regretting their choice, or will soon be wallowing in free publicity.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

spiky247    says:

I'm not familiar with publications in the States, but most publications in the UK have a political agenda. I wonder is the Atlantic has it's own political agenda...
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

maxcaven says:

I am a staunch liberal, sometimes I feel like a leftist, but this is still wrong. There has to be some level of respect/integrity and Jill tossed that all out the window. It's sad and disgusting.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Charlie Brown Photography says:

i think more importantly...what do you think her lighting set up was??


maybe im the only one?
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

jonstarsphoto [deleted] says:

wow.

i'd like to take a picture of her.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Erik ♦ D says:

wow. just wow.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

metzgarpaul says:

Well, I always think an artist view will be portrayed in an image. Part of art is the rendering of a subject from the creator's view. I think The Atlantic shouldn't have chosen someone that allows her political view to be shown in such an extreme manner. After reading the PDN article I can't help but think of Greenburg as even less professional than I had thought of here previously!

"Greenberg asked McCain to “please come over here” for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. “That’s what he thought he was being lit by,” Greenberg says. “But that wasn’t firing.”
What was firing was a strobe positioned below him, which cast the horror movie shadows across his face and on the wall right behind him. “He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg says. And his handlers didn’t seem to notice it either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she adds."

Photographers are usually able to gain the trust of their subjects. For her to take that trust and use him is just a whole new level of disrespect. Go to her website and refresh several times to see all the opening images... I can't believe them!

If someone had been so disrespectful to Obama, I would also be upset. Not agreeing with someone's political view does not excuse you from giving them the respect they deserve.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

.marlon. [deleted] says:

LoL @ Charlie.


I think this is going to be a dangerous precedent, because there are many factors involved. The problem here is that someone used a business proposition as their own artistic endeavor. But then that brings up the question, "are photographers artists, or business people?"

The problem is we're both. We want to use our artistic abilities to make money. Some of us lean more than one way or the other. If I was doing this shot, I'd try my best regardless of my feelings because I'm looking to feed my family - not raise feathers. Also, if I did happen to piss someone off... that could be the end of my career.

Jill Greenberg can say/do what she wants because she's already made a name for herself. Doing what she did might increase her appeal to another audience.

Personally, I thought it was pompous of her to name her crying baby set "Four More Years", and I think this was even more pretentious. I sincerely doubt she told McCain to his face what she thought of him when she met him... which makes her just as two-faced as the politicians she loves to criticize.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

jonstarsphoto [deleted] says:

to anyone who uses MM on here, ever seen a thread like this,

"photographer tried to turn artistic nude shoot into porn film; has this happened to you"

i bet McCain is posting right now in a politiical forum, something along the lines of that.

jill greenberg, scumball gwc?
yes.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Hani Amir    says:

Kind of (for the lack of a better word) mean and hypocritical in my opinion.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

Pretty hard to show malice on political public...we here in USA are proud of our character assinations of our leaders using political editorals in photo and writings.

But McCain didn't buy and pay for this when he sat for Atlantic I bet.

Nixon wouldn't let me in the door as I had way to long of hair in the 70's. This setup (pun intended) was deceitful.

Does anyone remember the Lazlo Toth letter writing book of the 70"s? Now that was legal and funny look at Republican's in the whitehouse!

Jill could see that little blinking light in the side of her eye with a shorter carreer or it could put her in the orbit with the elite.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Wink of an Eye Digital Media edited this topic 45 months ago.

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

It is an interesting discussion. I remember Alfred Eisenstaadt's portraits of one of Hitler's inner circle, propaganda minister for the Nazi party, Herman Goerring. It ran in life magazine just before WW2. It was very biased and showed the sitter in a very bad light. While we were engaged in the war all of America praised the photo and denounced the propaganda chief of Germany. No one questioned the photographers morals or his ethics for purposefully showing Herman Goerring in a bad light. Manipulated or otherwise. The same reaction by the press and the public continued when Arnold Newman photographically ambushed Nazi sympathizer, Alfred Krupp for a later issue of LIfe magazine.

It is disturbing to see that we as a society consider photo assassination okay when it is done to Bill Clinton by Platon or Nazi war criminals by Eisenstadt but the turn around to the other party isn't considered fair play. It is also important to remember that there is a difference between magazine editorial that is offered as commentary, with an acknowledged point of view, and the responsibilities of a newspaper where the ethics include not manipulating images. Satire and satiric images have a long tradition in opinion magazines. It's two different things. Just as a novel doesn't need to be fact checked but a non-fiction work does. And countless magazines on the left and the right have commissioned illustrations to showcase their leanings as well as thousands of manipulated photos on covers (Think Anne Richard's head retouched onto a black leather wearing model astride a Harley...).

I think the ambush lighting is okay but even I would draw the line at the bloody mouth and the shark's teeth. That was infantile. And pretty cheesy. But why hold that photographer to a higher code of ethics than those adhered to by her victim? McCain is misrepresenting his opponents, he's distorting his running mates record and misleading voters. Jill Greenberg will suffer some censure for her work. McCain's distortions have the potential to change many millions or billions of lives. McCain has many avenues to dispense his point of view, outside the web photographers are relatively powerless to change the discussion. Jill was obviously acting out of frustration. Striking out as it were. It's sad. But it is also sad that the little people have very little voice while the priveleged have a plethora of soapboxes with wide reach and we have little ability to censor them when they step over the line. Jill also stepped over the line.

None of the disturbing images appeared in the magazine and there's much worse stuff sitting uncensored on millions of other websites.

The attack on Greenberg by some reminds me of the scene in the movie Casablanca where Inspector Renault is charged with shutting down Rick's Bar. He says, "I am shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!!!" Then he pockets his winnings.

Photographer gone out of bounds, multiplied by the "outrage" of the right.....

And for the record, I am not a "raving, looney leftist." I just want to pick my own religion, breathe clean air and have the freedom to photograph what I want.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Ed Roper says:

wow. i hope she's saved her money. this will probably cost her some business.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

PhotoInspirations says:

Would that setup be considered putting McCain in a false light?
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

bill mcallen    says:

I agree with DH but I feel that Mc Cain and company knows in advance what is what and who is who and where they stand.

They are all big boys and girls and each has different motivations.

Jill Greenberg wants to ruin him using a camera and Mc Cain is willing to let her take her best shot for some print space in the Atlantic.

The more we write about it the more they all get out of it.

I'm surprised she didn't feature the big scar on the left side of his face.
I know broadcast interviews they down play the scar the way he sits.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
bill mcallen edited this topic 45 months ago.

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

Every one is saying that this will cost JIll, that Jill will be censured. That Jill better save up. Huh? Haven't I heard for years that all of the media is controlled by radical leftists out to control the press? If all the mags and newpapers are controlled by the "radical" left won't they want to reward Jill for reinforcing their message? And as a surrogate that they can disclaim? Can't have it both ways.

I wonder if it was a battery operated strobe or a studio strobe?

Finally, why is it that movie stars have agents who write contracts giving them veto power over the images taken by photographers on some magazine assignments but presidential candidates don't have the same clout? Is it the market economy at work?

Kirk
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Elessar    says:

I see two parts to this situation. First, she was contracted to provide an image of John McCain for the Atlantic. She did that. The second part was obtaining the images she used for her web site. For me, this second part slides into an area of ethics. I believe that it is unethical to allow your subject to think you are taking more photos for the primary objective (the cover shot for the magazine) when in fact you are capturing images so that you can advance your own political beliefs. Would John McCain have posed for the "final" images had he known that she was going to turn them into an attack?

Ultimately, I think this will have a big negative effect on her. Would you want to be her next subject? What might she do to your image if she doesn't agree with your politics. In the end, I'm sorry to see that she chose to do this because it reflects badly on the profession.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

jonstarsphoto [deleted] says:

i dont think it has anything to do with her not retouching to her standards, or the fact that she used bad light at the end. it's the fact that she misled him, then used the artifacts of it to create shitty artwork.

platon never put up photos of clinton that said i lied under oath. he took a picture that was interpreted that way. if she posted the photo without the words it would have just been a bad picture of mccain, nothing more, nothing less.

i'm sure greenberg wouldn't be happy if someone photographed her and photoshopped say, devil horns on her, and put the text i lie to fulfill my own agendas over her head.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

btw David, I noticed your name has come up in the comments section of PDN and not in a nice way.

I don't entirely agree with you.

For one, the editors picked a not-so-bad photo for the cover despite Greenberg's other shots.

Secondly, if you see the cover, you can see that it's accompanying an article that probably isn't so nice to McCain -- at least from reading the cover headline. You can bet that they would have picked a not-so-nice photo of McCain from any selection given to them. As it is, they picked Greenberg as the photographer. Not an innocent choice.

Since when is the Atlantic a straight news magazine anyway? At least in the time I've been reading it, It has always been an opinion / commentary magazine. We live in an era of Fox news parading as an unbiased news source.

Whether it was wise for Greenberg to talk so openly about her methods it is clear she doesn't care as her politics appear to be already well known. She may be audited, she may never get invited to a Republican soiree, but it appears she is willing to chance that.

If it had been Obama portrayed so negatively in a right-wing magazine, I would not be surprised in the least. I can't speak for his campaign, but my answer to that is: 'that's politics'. You run for President, expect the warts to come out.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Airchinapilot edited this topic 45 months ago.

CotswoldPhoto    says:

I guess this may turn out to be a lesson for some of us.

IF she breached trust, who will trust her?

DH, you used the phrase 'vitriolic hate'. That's a strong thing to have inside a person. I have a sense of sadness, being somewhat detached especially from American politics, but politics in general, and thinking more of what quality of life an individual has with such a strong negative feeling inside them.

I am sure John McCain can look after himself, so I doubt he will be much upset. In fact, this may be a way to measure his worth. Like when Obama said of Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy that the media and all should leave off her personal life. Good for him I thought.

Has McCain said anything? If he has any sense, he will say, 'I forgive her, and if she wants another shoot to get it right, come on down.'
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

@kirk
"McCain has many avenues to dispense his point of view, outside the web photographers are relatively powerless to change the discussion. Jill was obviously acting out of frustration. Striking out as it were. It's sad"

Well she hit the political button as a photograper with this one ey?

Your writings on the life mag photo shows how political tastes allows for bad pictures (ambush) to be allowed to prove an editorial view of the times. I agree with your thoughts

If this is the same thing? McCain posed for these and probaly ok'd the Atlantic one......but Jill took this out of a shoot she was paid to do.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

strobist    says:

Kirk-

FWIW, I felt that Platon's photo of Clinton was very disrespectful, (as was Matt Mahurin illustration of OJ, in more of a racism thing) but did not think it was anywhere near what JB was doing with the Photochop work and added quotes.

I would hope to try to keep this away from a who-likes-Obama and who-likes-McCain thread. They are both choosing their words very carefully (at the very least) these days. But maybe that is impossible to avoid in September of an election year...

Granted, Atlantic is not unbiased. Few publications are. But Greenberg hijacked the shoot in a way that has far leapfrogged anything that has been done thus far.

I am starting to wonder if this may be less about politics and more about a pathological need for attention.

@Photoinspiration - touché!
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Paulo Rodrigues (London UK)    says:

Pretty lame if you ask me. She should have just refused the job. Or at least shut up about what she was up to.

I can't see how its going to affect McCain's campaign one bit. PJs and their editors are much better placed to make politicians look shifty.

I think its going to make things much more difficult for photographers in terms of licencing

--
http://paulophotoblog.blogspot.com
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

josh.r says:

I think the stuff on her website is over line but there is nothing wrong with lighting him one way for the Atlantic and then doing alternate setups for later sale to other publications. Just smart business. As for the retouching for the Atlantic if it was good enough for their art director/editor then it's a non issue.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

strobist    says:

Kirk-

I think you just hit the nail on the head about approved photogs and edit rights on exclusive cover shoots. I think JB may have single-handedly screwed the pooch for high-value political shoots in the same way that the celebs control them now.

Difference is, there is way less potential harm done by Tom Cruise's handlers when they get editing rights.

I think that is my biggest worry, and the biggest downside, from this stunt.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

Jill is allowed to have bad taste in America. The market will judge her. I disagree with the bloody mouth and the shark teeth. I disagree with the propaganda she put on the image.

The Atlantic is blameless. They used the photograph they wanted. They have no more control over Jill after the fact than any vendor.

I think normal people are frustrated by the way politics has been working in our country. Many feel that the last elections were rigged by the Diebold Co. and the Republican Party. I think Jill's desperate act showcases the frustration that many feel when the traditional remedies are sabotaged. That doesn't make what she did correct but it also doesn't make it actionable. Were it done to a private citizen then the libel laws might apply but I'm old enough to remember how some in editorial savaged Ted Kennedy about the whole Chappaquidick episode. The libel issue doesn't even come into play.

Best, Kirk
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

The more I think of this the more this comes down to a clash between art and journalism worlds. The touched up photograph on Greenberg's site wouldn't provoke more than a shrug from me if it appears in an art mag. How many times have I see Bush portrayed in that manner? Hundreds of times. The nyah nyah nature of it amuses me. It is childish but I would bet it is consciously so.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

strobist    says:

Kirk-

I think you are pretty close. I think it comes down to whether or not she is judged to be putting words in his mouth on the hospital-bed affair thing.

I agree that The Atlantic is blameless. And that the McCain's hospital bed thing is reprehensible. (Somehow, it has never stuck to him in the context of the POW character thing. No idea why not.)

I really think her stunt may well prove to be more powerful as right-wing ammo than as editorial statement. And I do think it will marginalize her career.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Paulo Rodrigues (London UK)    says:

I was lucky enough to find a copy of Platon's Republic a bargain basement prices recently. At the end of the book he has handwritten notes about each shot and my interpretation of his comments is that he makes a personal connection with his sitters and doesn't disrespect them at all.

Here is what he says about Clinton.


"This was Clinton's last official portrait as President and my first American presidential sitting - shot for the cover of esquire. He was loving every minute + I was like a deer in the headlights. They closed down a 200 room hotel so we could do this picture. was given 8 minutes to do the shoot then we talked for twenty minutes about the beatles. He knew of my local cinema in north London where thirty years earlier while studying at Oxford he had seen the film "Let it Be" It was like meeting Elvis, an almost religious experience. Clinton has a charisma like no other human being I've ever met. He was surrounded by whitehouse staff and secret service. I found it very hard to get focused and intimate with all the people in the room so I said, "Mr President, will you show me the love" He knew what I wanted. He placed his hands on his knees and smiled. Thats the Clinton Magic. A contemporary portrait of a contemporary president."


--
http://paulophotoblog.blogspot.com
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

hipporage    says:

Jill Greenberg "MAKES" some fantastic pictures. I don't know what pictures actually made it into the magazine but if you look @ it from an artistic point of view, then shes simply an artist with her opinion. I don't believe you can ever knock a person for having something to say. Because YOU HAVE THE SAME FREEDOM. It maybe no different from a glorified caricature (with the high-end camera, lighting, Photoshop,etc...) or political cartoon expressing an OPINION.
That's why you have to put your "objective thinking glasses" on when you receive any mass media message. EVERYONE has an agenda. Whether it be as blatant an attack as JB's or the subtle fallacies found on network television.
It was pretty sneaky of her and it will probably have big repercussions on the industry.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

7tenths    says:

Politicians in the public eye are fair game, period (in answer to the original question). Just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Libel ? Not sure, I don't know enough of the litigation process (although, give me a few more years and we will have the same system here in the UK).

I think the likely effects for her are that her career will not suffer one bit, such is the 'here today, forgotten tomorrow' nature of the world in which we live.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Brandon D. says:

Bottom line, it was totally unprofessional. And she took advantage of McCain for her own political pleasure. Regardless of whether or not McCain or The Atlantic knew Greenberg's political stance, this doesn't seem normal in this business. Even if they knew she was a left-wing advocate, you don't count on someone pulling this sort of stunt. Most photographers get hired based upon their talent as opposed to their political stance, and I think Greenberg took advantage of that in this situation. I used to think that there were standards and lines that were not to be crossed. I thought that part of being a professional photographer was acting professional.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

nee70 says:

kirkinaustin

I am one of those independents but you phrasing makes me want to know your political leanings? Just like the wondering of the photographer's motives.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

Signed,
The "Pathetic, Jealous Loser"

LOL

Dave.... remind me to watch your backside if we go out for beers someday as if you run into Mr Hasabrain in a bar I'll have to make sure no one jumps in while you give your viewpoint to him first hand.

Well said in your response on PDN and I think your point about making it harder for the industry is probable
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

hatch1921 says:

I'm going to agree with Brandon D..... couple posts up. Be a professional... if you take the assignment... leave your baggage at the door.

Hatch
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

eduardo_frances says:

If you don't like the project because it goes against your feeling of an issue you have two options

Option 1) If you accept, shoot it like you would shoot your other assignments it isn't professional to fuck up a photoshoot, much less is professional to be an assh%Le with your client.

Or

Option 2) Say no and decline the offer.

You can have an opinion on political/religious/economics/etc issues but in no way should stick a boomstick in the arse of your client -in this case the magazine- it is simply not nice, because refusing to take the photo is statement enough to let them know what you think of that person.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

strobist    says:

Wink-

On a related note, the thing I am most proud about with my seven year-old son this year, is that he has learned that the most annoying thing you can possibly do to someone who is descending into personal attacks (or, in his case, bullying) is to refrain from being brought down to his emotional level.

He has gotten to the point where he takes much pleasure in remaining above the trailer park level, and watching the other kid self-destruct to the point of catching crap from the adults.

I have actually caught the occasional smile as he maintains his standard. That might cause him to catch one to the jaw one day, but I am exceedingly proud of him for it.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
strobist edited this topic 45 months ago.

The Red Giant says:

Wow. She seems mature (sarcasm). She should get some counselling. Pathetic, something a 10 year old would do. Hell, on that subject, isn't she the creep who strips kids naked and mocks them till they cry?

I'm as far off republican as can be, but hell, why bother?

If she goes any further up her own arse, she'll implode. I think she'll hate any administration that isn't run by her anyway.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
The Red Giant edited this topic 45 months ago.

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

In response to newbe70 above:

I worked in a governor's office in Texas in the early 1980's, worked on campaigns as a writer for several in city and state government and I don't think you really want to know my opinion about politiicians from either side of the aisle.........

Most people who have not been directly involved with politics seem to have a pretty optimistic view of politicians in general. As long as those politicians are members of the same party..... Those who've worked on the plane, in the office and next to the "great" men and women have a generally pessimistic view.

There's an old saying among the professional political class, "Cash in or get out."

My general rule is, "Follow the money."

None of this really has anything to do with photography and every thing to do with politics. Jill's naive lashing out is better solved on a therapist's couch and not in a political arena.

The money always wins. Truth? Justice? Only if it's profitable.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
kirkinaustin edited this topic 45 months ago.

Jan Luursema    says:

Well, she obviously did this on purpose to create another controversy and generate large amounts of attention for herself. I see she has an exhibition coming up in a couple of weeks, coincidence or not?

This has less to do with politics or photography than with Jill Greenberg, I think.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

The Red Giant says:

Agreed.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

strobist    says:

Yup.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

ChrisVPhoto says:

How is this any different from political cartoonists? How is this different from politicos jumping on so and so's actions on the boob tube, or the NY Times?

How is this different from CNN absolutely torpedoing Howard Dean's primary race? The fact that one mic caught him cheering along with the crowd as opposed to the ambient noise blending it out?

How about Stephan Colbert's show? The Daily Show? What about almost anything on CNN or Fox News?

I fail to see how character assasination is something that should be limited to those mediums, when it's been a time honored tradition. And also, I'm sure Atlantic had NO idea of Jill Greenberg's political stance. At all. None. Sure, ok, here's a bridge I'd like to sell you...
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

"Shocked. Shocked to hear that gambling is going on....."
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Carnival Hearts says:

I certainly disagree that the Atlantic is blameless. If anything, I think they carry most of the blame for publishing the photo at all. Jill Greenberg is not "the media." No contracted photographer is "the media." The media are the editors who decide what goes into their publications. Writers and photographers generate the content, but it's on the editors to sift through, correct, and decide what goes out.

Do contracts mandate that photos or articles MUST be published as-is with no editorial oversight? No way! A standard of quality must be met, otherwise you get a reshoot/rewrite or go with a different photographer/writer. The fact that they published the photo means either they're incompetent or they didn't mind the bias.

No question the ethics were reprehensible and the act downright childish, BUT I can appreciate her candor in admitting her intentions openly. As a result I think the debate will die quickly. As for whether it's libel, that's a stretch; legal precedent allows for a LOT more crap towards politicians and celebrities than regular folks. This borders more on satire than character assassination.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Brandon D. says:

@ acesnines:

Greenberg wasn't hired to do political cartoons for The Atlantic.

The Altantic didn't say that they hired Greenberg for her political slant on McCain. I'm sure there are a dozen strobists who know how to shoot a decent cover shot while not pissing anyone off in the process. You'd expect most "professionals" to be able to do that regardless of their political stance.

The difference between this and Colbert and the Daily Show is that people know what to expect with them on a professional level. I think they're both funny, but the people who go on their shows know what to expect by know. I doubt that the Atlantic expected "trickery" out of Greenberg when they hired her. I don't think there is any magazine out there who expects a photographer to stoop for that level.

As I said above, even if the Atlantic knew Greenberg's stance, there is no way that they knew she would stoop to such a level of unprofessionalism. She took advantage of McCain, and she "tricked" him. Where on her web site does it say that that's what to be expected during her shoots? I'm sure she's not the only pro-left photographer who has had to shoot politicians, and never has anything like what she did happened before as far as I know.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

Dear Carnival Hearts,

I think you're a bit mixed up on this. The Atlantic cover was a straight forward, heroic shot of John McCain. No argument from anyone on that. It was second set of images that are entirely different but were taken in the same session, manipulated and then festooned with a headline that have got people's knickers in a twist. These images were not commissioned or published by the magazine. At all. Ever.

So, I'm not sure that the magazine is at all to blame for the emotional response that people are having to one independent vendor who posted images on her own personal website.

No argument from me that the website images were over the top.

Best, Kirk
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Kidona (aka perl_monger)    says:

Reading some of these comments makes me realize that some people will rationalize anything as long as it fits their agenda. This 'frustration' argument over a supposedly 'rigged' election is probably the most lame justification I have ever heard. It's time to get out the tin foil hats.

Jill Greenberg did herself, her client, and the profession a disservice. The consequences to her I can live with - she can probably say goodbye to advertising and future editorial work. The Atlantic hired her so I guess that is their choice. But the impact on the profession is the one I can't stomach. JG is one of those very selfish people who feel there is no obligation to anything or anyone other than themselves.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Kidona (aka perl_monger) edited this topic 45 months ago.

Brian D Reed (Ah-Some Photography) says:

strobist wrote

Wink-

On a related note, the thing I am most proud about with my seven year-old son this year, is that he has learned that the most annoying thing you can possibly do to someone who is descending into personal attacks (or, in his case, bullying) is to refrain from being brought down to his emotional level.

He has gotten to the point where he takes much pleasure in remaining above the trailer park level, and watching the other kid self-destruct to the point of catching crap from the adults.

I have actually caught the occasional smile as he maintains his standard. That might cause him to catch one to the jaw one day, but I am exceedingly proud of him for it.

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

Brandon,

I would venture that the Atlantic, which is a liberal magazine, could have had a complete discussion with Ms. Greenberg about her intentions as they related to the actual cover shot before gave her the nod. In my experience it is rare for an editor to just say, "Go out and be creative". Most have a very specific brief that they want the photographer to cover for the cover.

They may love the cover. It is the out takes that are causing the outrage.

And you are correct. It happens all the time.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

VibrantPhotographs says:

I dunno where to start...... I think the teeth are too far but it's her right to say it and I personally have no real issue nor would I if she did it to the other side. Neither side has the right to claim the high ground and everything is fair in politics (only most things are fair in war).

I doubt it will have much negative affect on her clients - outside the red side in this campaign anyway :-) [they will not care next time]. She no doubt has far more work then she can handle anyway and there really is no such thing as bad publicity - and that is the saddest comment if you think about it.

Anyway.... Interesting conversation......
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

kirkinaustin [deleted] says:

Perl_monger,

I find it a bit silly that you are ready to dismiss the idea of a rigged vote count when there are public declarations by Mr. Diebold, the CEO of the company that made the voting booths, to the effect that he would, "do anything to get GW Bush elected." Also, milliions of dollars were spent on both sides trying to prove or disprove the assertions about the election fraud. To denigrate the assertion and label it as "tin foil hat" fodder is wrong. We often send delegations to other countries to observe elections. We American's are also just human and have shown time and time again, in the highest offices, (NIxon, Enron, etc.) that some people will break laws with impunity to get what they want.
Like it on not areas in the U.S. perpertrated voter fraud (and it is documented) for decades against women, blacks and hispanics.
To disregard history is a painful thing.

Save the tin foil hat comments for the times when I post talking about the incredible damage that cell phones are doing all over the world as brain cancer becomes epidemic. Tell me to put on that tin foil hat when I say that cellphones are the new cigarettes, Not when I ask:

"Why do dead people always vote republican?"
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

nee70 says:

kirkinaustin
Thanks for the Reply; noted and filed.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Carnival Hearts says:

Whoops! I gotcha now. So the debate is to the ethics of taking advantage of the photoshoot opportunity to take unflattering shots that she wouldn't have otherwise had the opportunity to take.

Sneaky? Yes. Unethical? Probably. Entirely unexpected in the realm of modern politics? Ehh...

The only point of debate for me is whether we should see Jill as merely a contracted photographer, or a photojournalist in her own right. And journalists should take opportunities as they find them, especially when it can be next to impossible to find such opportunities with political figures. Political interactions are so tightly controlled nowadays it's practically censorship. (No doubt this incident will restrict access even further.) Seen from an altered perspective you could even view Jill as a hero for breaching the wall. (Not that I do.)

PS: That being said, I still see it as "satire."
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Carnival Hearts edited this topic 45 months ago.

Kidona (aka perl_monger)    says:

My point was that there is no excuse for unethical behavior. This behavior was not the shots for the Atlantic, although to be fair that client will be called into question because of the actions of a paid professional. It cheapens the role of the photographer to appropriate images in this manner. But even beyond that, there is a responsibility to protect your client, to not use work for that client in a way that could cause them harm.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Kidona (aka perl_monger) edited this topic 45 months ago.

reg gordon photo says:

This is a topic that Ill need to dedicate and afternoon to reading and I think ist a great testament to this group that altho there are a lot of different opinions here none of it has descended to mudslinging or pushing an agenda.
My opinion is that all she did was serve herself and her career.
I am slightly left of centre and am not a fan of either McDonalds or Coke.
I have worked for both in the last year and provided images that they both were happy with because I am a professional
My logic was thus: If I didnt do it someone else will.
What I did then was donated a certain amount the money I made to charities that seek to undo the damage that these type of companies do.
For some reason I dont think miss Greenberg will be donating her fee or the profit she hopes to make to the Democrats, or War victims.
For shame jill greenberg for shame
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Carnival Hearts says:

There's one thing I don't understand. If she was hired by The Atlantic to take these photos, then aren't they owned by The Atlantic? How did she obtain the rights to publish them on her own site? She can't simply state "I took them with a different camera at the same time," can she? The Atlantic paid for the shots, the session, and the time, so since she was shooting on their time, doesn't that makes them their shots? Unless they gave her permission...

No?
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

jameshamiltonphotography says:

After looking at the site, laughing and then discussing with my wife we do feel the altered images were in bad taste and will do more harm than good both for photographers and for people that do not support him.

This is art for Greenberg's sake and nothing else. The baby crying series got her all sorts of press both good and bad but it did help her career a lot IMO. In doing this I can see her thinking she will promote her agenda and will reap the bennies of good and bad press just like before. Unfortunately I do not think it will work out that way this time. When talking about politics you can't help but think about dirty backstabbing propaganda because unfortunately that is part of the game. This mess up will further confuse the public in this election year. I am getting really tired of the politics in this country...

I see this as something similar to the Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake superbowl stunt. What was thought of as a smart publicity stunt has turned off live broadcasting for the rest of our lives. Now another thing in our country is overly monitored. Now shoots will have too many hands making the choices and the photographer will just be the person who presses the button.

I do not look forward to seeing how the smart folks at the Republican party take this one. They are not really the people to mess with when it comes to propaganda and switching things up.

I appreciate you pointing this potentially explosive set of images and think the responses so far have been well thought out and with respect to all taking part.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
jameshamiltonphotography edited this topic 45 months ago.

reg gordon photo says:

Carnival Hearts:
When hired as a freelancer you have complete ownership of all images. The client licences them off you
Photographers such as HCB and Robert Capa fought for photographers to retain control over their negatives when hired for work and won.
Jill greenberg might have undone a bit of that, and at the least she will ensure that contracts will be a lot more legal from now on
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

josh.r says:

please people, follow the links and read the relevant article on PDN before posting. The cover for the atlantic was completed as requested albeit with slightly less retouching than usual but still to their standards.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Carnival Hearts says:

Thanks very much for the clarification, regicide. That info should come in handy in the future.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

reg gordon photo says:

josh,
absolutely and Im sure she got her fee but dont you think its just a bit........cheap and nasty?
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Brandon D. says:

Kirk:

I understand all of that. What I was pointing out out in my previous post was that there was no way for The Atlantic to expect her to trick McCain (for the out takes) even if they vetted her. Unless Greenberg told the Atlantic (or the McCain group) about her intentions for the out takes, why would anyone expect this sort of behavior from her, even if she was obviously left leaning?
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

.marlon. [deleted] says:

The difference between this and Colbert and the Daily Show is that people know what to expect with them on a professional level.

That's the whole point. Most political cartoonists wouldn't be in a room with John McCain saying, "I'm going to draw your portrait" and then the next day it's in the paper making fun of said politician.

Greenberg was in the same room as McCain... she probably shook his hand, and shot-the-shit with him etc. She purposely deceived him. Had she manipulated other pictures of John McCain to look/say those things... that is her artistic license. However, she took these pictures under false pretenses.

I love the hypocrisy of Greenberg. She's against the war, and the Republicans... but when something benefits Jillian it's OK. She doesn't mind making babies cry to reach her goals, and Bush doesn't mind sending troops to go to war to reach his. Babies cry... soldiers die. That's life (Personally, I liked the set of the babies, it's not like she tortured them). She said in the article that McCain is deceiving the American people... but it's OK for Jillian to deceive McCain to slander him?

Something's not kosher here... Methinks Jillian has some serious atonement to go through this Yom Kippur season.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

josh.r says:

a member of the tribe? :).

Regecide: I said my piece above but as I was reading the rss feed later I noticed that there were more than a few people that clearly had no idea of the facts involved. I like people to have all kinds of informed opinions. I can't stand it when people mouth off about stuff and don't bother reading.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
josh.r edited this topic 45 months ago.

Titanfan    says:

McCain's people are as much to blame as anyone. His people signed the contract and should have been on their toes for what was going on. It's his image they're paid to look after. They dropped the ball there. Greenberg's views are easy to find and figure out. McCain's people should have watched for this and been ready to prevent it.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

reg gordon photo says:

Josh,
sorry, didnt see your first post. But as regards smart business sense........
: )
Tinfan,
No one is to blame. Jill Greenberg sold both her client and her subject a lemon.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
reg gordon photo edited this topic 45 months ago.

josh.r says:

Just my opinion. 2 sales from 1 session seems smart.

And just to revise my earlier post. It's my personal opinion that I would not have posted those type of images on my site but if that's how she rolls... so be it. Plus [I am trying not to get political] if she thinks that him cheating on his disabled wife or calling his wife a cunt are things that the public needs to know about why wouldn't she use her public forum to do so. Personally I think that if she hadn't yellowed his teeth and didn't do the shark image it would been a stronger message but it's her forum to do as she wishes.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
josh.r edited this topic 45 months ago.

GarethDix    says:

ok politics aside (i don't want to start ranting)

was it professional? No
was it funny? Yes
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Bill Millios says:

I no longer respect Jill Greenburg as a photographer.

The same way I do not respect Dr. Josef Mengele as a physician.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

Bill......

That was just a little molatov for me!

As I think the debate surrounds the sleaze factor of Jills pictures of McCain. I go with Daves reply about kinda keeping a higher voice.

Make a point and respect others.....but I'll be behind you in the bar!

Bill you know I love you man!

Don WINKLER
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

strobe2go says:

Let me add some far off (european) points:

From the statements I read in this thread I assume the headlines on the pictures are a) common knowledge and b) true.

And you are discussing a beauty dish not firing?

It seems I have no clue about politics...
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

Stobe2go....If fhis was a cactus misfire this would not be a issue.
Jill alleges to have done this on purpose.

The debate (with me) is about ethical behaviour when one is hired to do a job.

Makes for mistrust in the entire photo business

JMHO
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Wink of an Eye Digital Media edited this topic 45 months ago.

jim@jmp says:

David, Political views aside, I spent a half hour of my life that I'll never get back, reading how adults act when they can hide behind a keyboard, "JohnnyIdon't have a brain" along with the anti-jewish remark are two examples of how name calling and mud slinging is what it's all about, never mind the people out or work, or the kids in the razor wire in Haiti because there is no food, home foreclosures, and the list goes on. It's come down to the moron mentality that they can call names and act stupid because they are shielded.
I have to agreed with your first post there. I would love to see the contract between these parties. I think everyone in their hurry to
express their political beliefs missed the point or didn't see the photos in question.
If you would help me to understand, she was hired by Atlantic, then she used the images on her site in a distasteful way for her own agenda. I don't even think this falls under funny when you use/trick someone. I wonder is someone used the same pretense and put her photo on girls gone wild. Unless you are a foul mouthed college kid, it's over the line.
In answer to your questions:
Was this fair game? No, not unless all parties knew of her intentions.
Is she exposed to libel by some of the things she has posted on her site? I would talk to Senator Mcain and Atlantic's attorneys. Maybe everyone knew and John McCain endorsed it.
What are the likely effects, going forward, because of this stunt? This like the Janet Jackson thing referred will probably effect the way journalist are treated. I sure every politicial will be lining up for there photo.
Sorry for the non- political rant I'll go back to reading about off camera lighting and macro shots.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:

chiming in way late on this one:

In short, this is why I'm embarrassed of my party.

There were so many different ways to interpret this opportunity and Greenberg chose to lower herself to, essentially, crap-flinging. There is so much more power in the subtle nuances of light and suggestions and this just proves how much of her look relies on shock (be it shocking light, post-production or titles.)

I've always been on the fence about her work with the kids and all that but this really disappoints me as a supporter of someone who isnt McCain as well as a photographer.

Great chance to do something interesting, what a shame.

This will mos-def limit access to future photographers looking to be responsible when given opportunities to cross parties to shoot.

All together:

"Thanks a bunch, Jill."
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Brandon D. says:

"She said in the article that McCain is deceiving the American people... but it's OK for Jillian to deceive McCain to slander him?"

Two wrongs DO make a RIGHT, I guess...

:-)
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

ChrisVPhoto says:

At least Jill Greenberg doesn't hit on her models.


Or use a meter.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Brandon D. says:

"Entirely unexpected in the realm of modern politics? Ehh..."

And I think that's the core issue when it comes to the downside(s) of politics in modern America. Politics is becoming more and more about one's emotions, about one's hate of others, and about vilifying those who disagree or choose a different view.

I can't wait for Americans to calm down, to start drinking decaf, and to let others have a different view/preference of politics without being rabid or insulting. Very rarely does it seem like a right-winger and a left-winger can sit down and have a well articulated discussion together in a civil manner.

I think we need higher standards as a people...
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

Hey let me segway to a light problem and solve.

I wish I had a Ringlight this day!

flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157606546794893/?sea...


LOL kirk see what I have to do to get replys to this disscussion. LMAO

Just to bring a pause to the discussion.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

budrowilson    says:

What she did was morally wrong. Violating the trust of her subject (and publication) won't be forgotten easily. However, looking at the big picture, it illustrates something that I love about American politics--We fight tooth and nail using words and propaganda. In some societies, they kill those whose political views differ from their own. You may see some low blows every now and then, but we're still a democratic society that holds regular elections giving its citizens the chance to change those in power (in a non-violent manner) if they so choose.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

jeffroque says:

"At least Jill Greenberg doesn't hit on her models. "

I think she tried hitting on the Chimp once. j/k

-----------

Well, yeah. This was really unprofessional on her part. She should know better not to mix work with her own beliefs.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
jeffroque edited this topic 45 months ago.

Bill Millios says:

Wink - I think you think I disagree with you, and I don't. I also agree with keeping the bar high, as proposed by David.

I honestly sat and looked at the keyboard for a good several minutes. I decided I could not add anything significant that had not already been said. Unfortunately, I could not leave without expressing my disgust at what she'd done. Thus the Mengele comment. That was the only thing I could think of that showed how low she'd sunk. (Yes, it was a molotov!)

I'd be disgusted if she did this to Obama, as well.

What struck me was that my reaction would be very different if it had been Hitler. Unfortunately, I could not explain why.

I then drove off to pick up a Ledo's pizza, thinking about the entire situation. I arrived back, and still could not explain my reaction very well.

Perhaps because there is a difference between "doing something wrong" and "doing something with malice." One can be attributed to ignorance, or a momentary lack of foresight of the ramifications of your actions. What she did shows pure malice.

Interesting thing just happened here ... Since David bragged on his kid, I get to brag on mine.

I just asked my kids to come over to the screen, and I showed them the Atlantic cover, explained what the photographer did, and then showed the vampire picture of McCain.

I then asked if they thought what she did was right. Both vehemently said, "No."

I think my daughter (12 going on 21) said it best, "That's wrong. Even if you don't like someone, you still should show respect."
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

duckgrabber says:

Currently much of our media seems to be run by fanatics. There are some on both sides. I really detest these people. They are haters, and that is very scary. Such hate-filled people should NOT be given such easy access to our media as it only fans the flames of hatred even more. On the fanatical website DailyKos the level of hatred encouraged there has not been seen in this country since the KKK rallies of the 1920s.

Not only do photographers/journalists like the two you mentioned do a tremendous harm to our society, they are also destroying the publications they work for, and even the media' credibility in general. Who really sees the NYT as a credible source any more? No one I know.

The press has an obilgation to give us straight information. I believe it's also a moral duty. When they use their positions to foment hatred and extremist viewpoints they are clearly wrong and should be taken off the publication. Legitimate publications will do that. Propaganda pamphlets won't, of course.

As for presidential choices, I won't say if I'm voting for Obama or McCain, but I will say I find it highly exciting that a woman from a small town who is not wealthy, not a Harvard elite is on a presidential ticket. There's never been a "regular" person on a ticket in my life time.

No matter who is elected, there will be the haters out there trying to profit from it. I think Obama is a decent sincere guy, but there is no way I will vote for him. (I think he's another naive "Jimmy Carter.") However, I certainly don't hate him, and I won't be tuning in to the shows run by the haters. If enough of us complain, don't watch, don't buy the crap, it will go away.

Thanks for brining this to my attention, and thanks for keeping Strobist politic free.


Kent in SD
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Corey Ward    says:

I've read the original post but no more, to be up front.

I think that what she has done is exactly what most fine-art photographers do. They don't shoot to create a look that the client wants; they shoot to create what they see and they share it. Often times what they create is obscene, shocking, or offensive, but it is what it is. They often aim to create this sort of tension in the viewer.

These photos do just that. On that level, I don't think she's gone too far. I might be a bit biased as I'm really not a fan of McCain, but maybe not since I think she's a bit over the top with it. I understand why though...when you feel strongly about a person that has a 50/50 chance at running your country and you have a chance to stop it, well, you do what you can. That leads me to the next point.

In regards to her assignment, she probably didn't make the client too happy. She risked her career. I don't think most photographers would have risked their career over creating photos such as these, but that was and is her to risk and she took it. I think that while The Atlantic isn't too excited about the outtakes, they took a risk by hiring her when she's publicly known to dislike the Bush Administration, and they sort of had it coming.

As much as I think the photos are hilarious, McCain got a sour deal. There wasn't really anyway he could know what would happen at this seemingly typical photo shoot.

Morally, I think the only person Jill Greenberg wronged was McCain. I think that she had a duty to fulfill her clients wishes but her personal stance on who would be the next person to run our country prevailed over that duty. Morally I think that our duty to our country should always prevail over that of our duty to our employers, though, and in this regard she is a role model, albeit a bit of an extreme one.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

meandchi    says:

@kent:

As for presidential choices, I won't say if I'm voting for Obama or McCain....I think Obama is a decent sincere guy, but there is no way I will vote for him.

If there was a third choice, there might still be some lingering ambiguity, but alas...

=c)
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
meandchi edited this topic 45 months ago.

fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:

"our country should always prevail over that of our duty to our employers"

:shiver:

Just another quick one, I don't think anyone should be prevented from exercising bad taste in professional decision-making. This freedom is what makes our country great. If we start yanking people out for taking bad photos, what's next? Where do ya stop?
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

.marlon. [deleted] says:

along with the anti-jewish remark

Huh? Because I said she had to atone on Yom Kippur? I hope you're not calling me anti-Jewish... one... I said nothing negative about any Hebrews or Shebrews. Two... go to my profile... my name's written in Hebrew. Three... look at some of the groups I belong to.


Anyways...
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

jeffroque says:

There is no problem expressing one's thoughts or political beliefs. The problem with this is that she dishonored her client after getting paid to do a job - a straight out betrayal on her part. She should have just refused doing the shoot if she felt uneasy about her client. It's not like she's desperate for work that she can't refuse this particular job.

This is no different than having your medical doctor or personal lawyer using information againts you after you paid them for a consultation.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
jeffroque edited this topic 45 months ago.

Carnival Hearts says:

I've come to a personal decision on this issue: I don't think it's a big deal.

See, when josh.r said people should read the article before commenting, I assumed he was partially referring to me. That's okay, I could see why he might have thought I was just spouting off. I appreciate that Kirk understood I had just gotten confused.

The reason I got confused, though, was because I thought the Atlantic cover was far worse than The Manipulator photos. I'm well aware of how the Nixon-Kennedy debates changed political marketing forever and how they relate to this issue. Shark teeth are satire; bad lighting is sin.

But as far as I'm concerned, taking unflattering photos is irrelevant in the Photoshop Age. She could have just as easily taken any official, Republican-sanctioned photos and manipulated them. Frankly, I don't understand why she went to the trouble of taking the photos herself. I guess for the personal glory.

Did she violate some professional ethic? You have to have ethics before you can violate them. I honestly don't think it'll matter among the rational crowd. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if politicians are among them... ;)
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

josh.r says:

jeffroque: you do realize she met the brief right?

Marlon: maybe they meant me for saying something about the tribe? who knows.

carnivalhearts: I wasn't referring to you. There were a few comments that made it seem as if the people hadn't read. As far as the shot not being as good I kind of agree but someone signed off on it so it would seem it met their standards.
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
josh.r edited this topic 45 months ago.

Scott Hargis    says:

"...and thanks for keeping Strobist politic free.

Kent in SD "

And thanks to you, Kent, for a post that was entirely political. Way to stay on topic.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

foxpony~CS Art photography    says:

I hate politics !! she showed very BAD TASTE.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Wink of an Eye Digital Media    says:

Can someone put to me the anti jewish remark....I had not seen that
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Brysterman says:

And thanks to you, Scott, for trivializing the first half of a fairly on topic post.

The argument that the media is begining to turn into a one-sided political monster is the core of this entire problem. Being a Democratic Republican Moderate, it really heats my kettle to even watch 5 minutes of the 6 o'clock news, or to read a newspaper front to back.

In a perverted way, though, JG actually followed a contemporary media standard and produced a sensationalized image. Granted it was a manufactured image, but the idea has been and always will be how to get do-hickey A (in this case, a politcal agenda) into the hands of Johnny-go-whatever B. It's the reason news outlets devote 90% of their coverage to negative things. It's the same reason this devious photochop act is going to get blown way out of proportion.

In no way am I arguing it was a commendable or even acceptable thing to do, but how many of us would be upset if modern-day villians got the negative limelight pointed on them. Less-than-positive depictions of Osama Bin-Laden or Kim Jong Il would be applauded by the majority of the world. (Clearly there are a few that are applauding the crafty depiction of McCain as well.) Of course all that does is illustrate the ethics of those character assassination fans.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, people will argue a point no matter how wrong they are. As much as we would like to believe in people, there will always be that small minority working to undermine somebody's credibility.

In short, money is the bottom line in our capitalist society, and as much as it sucks, I wouldn't have it any other way.

...man, I don't think I've sucked at rant-writing this much in a while. Anyway, I think JG should have gobo'd her noot with a reflector to keep the specular highlights out of McCain's teeth.

...wait?
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

www.ian.ca    says:

WOW,... I can't believe that someone at this level could stoop to some juvenile antics like photoshoping teeth on an outtake.

We're in the middle of an election up here in Canada. Let's hope this trend stays south of the border.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)

Brysterman says:

...99
Originally posted 45 months ago. (permalink)
Brysterman edited this topic 45 months ago.

badlands99 says:

Wow.
I'd been away for a couple days and just saw this for the first time.
That was a horrible thing to do, without regard to what side you're on.
I guess when you get that much notoriety you no longer have to even pretend to be professional?

A couple of thoughts:

1. I never thought of Platon's portrait of Clinton as unflattering. "Whimsical" and distorted, but not necessarily unflattering, and certainly not malicious.

2. I'm amazed that people still cling to the idea that elections were rigged in 2000. I just hope there is a clear margin of victory this year, whichever way it goes. I think that re-re-recount stuff was the genesis of much of the divisiveness we are seeing today.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Greenberg will encounter at least SOME consequences for this. We'll all pay a price, though, even if she doesn't.
Posted 45 months ago. (permalink)