[Greenberg's] Web site now features a series of Photoshopped pics of McCain in some highly unflattering poses - including one that has a monkey squirting dung onto the Republican candidate's head.
Another one reads "I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer," with McCain retouched to have needle-sharp shark teeth and a vicious grin, while licking blood-smeared lips.
Ugh. And part of my disgust relates to the fact that "warmongerer," like "mongerer," isn't a word. But it is funny that Greenberg broadcast -- she might say "broadcasted" -- that she's pretty dumb.
Posts
76 comments:
Hey, I too just blogged about Ace of Spades' riff on Greenburg's photo!
She thought, hah, I got him now. He resembles Warren Christopher's older, creepier brother!
Instead, he looks like something only Central Casting could dream up, as Commander-in-Chief:
Putin Just Pooped A Little
As an Ace commenter put it:
Ya know, I sorta like the idea of having a president who can look that fucking awesome without even trying.
Y-YYYES!
Greenburg is both dihonest AND dumb - not a great combination as anyone will tell you. And my guess is she will be losing clients big time now which is appropriate.
That said, I agree with Ace and vbspurs - McCain looks like a man who means business. That's who I want for President. And, according to the polls, so do more and more Americans every day.
The photographer is never supposed to become the story.
Quite right, Ruth Anne. But have you noticed they always do?
Leibovitz. Mapplethorpe. Armstrong-Jones. Arbus. Joe Rosenthal.
They're every bit as part of the photograph, as the subject.
Vics: I believe there's a difference with a photographer-as-artist and a commercial photographer. The question is how does Greenburg market herself?
The backlit photo was supposed to make him look frightening. It did, but 'you say that like it's a bad thing' comes to mind.
The other photos are excretory, one literally so.
Greenburg is acting like a teenaged hacker or graffitti vandal. in addition, she is violating contracts and shaming her employers.
But I suspect that the Democratic Party-owned media (i.e. all venues except Fox, the Free Press, and the Washington Times) wil hide her somewhere doing work that isn't so obvious. But she won't be shunned.
Hell, she'll be given parties. Look at Michael Moore.
Don't know if she is dumb, I assume she speaks, but she is not intelligent, based on what she says and how she says it.
But the left is smart and anyone to the right of Karl Marx is stupid, right? Riiiiiiiight...
Greenburg is both dihonest AND dumb - not a great combination as anyone will tell you.
And yet it seems that Republicans like that combination in a president, based on their support for the current Commander-in-Chief.
She's a skillful photographer and the Atlantic cover photo is terrific.
Blaming Democrats and/or the media for her website is just foolish.
And the more damaging work was in fact more subtle:
"she submitted photos of the Arizona senator to the mag while barely airbrushing them.
"I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she boasted. "
Although The Atlantic 'stands by' the picture they did run on our cover, calling it a "a respectful portrait," in comparison to the Obama artsy cover of 12/07 it makes Mccain look slightly off, a bit unwell.
Which was, in fact, the purpose.
So we can see another magazine not only in the tank for Obama, but actually operating as a mere arm for the Democratic Party. But the Atlantic is running at a $5 million per year loss, so they can't be doing too well as another anti-GOP rag.
So whom can we trust in the media Now?
That's my girl!
And yet it seems that Republicans like that combination in a president, based on their support for the current Commander-in-Chief.
And yet, I'd wager by any real measure he's more intelligent than 90+% of the people who call him dumb. Many people have an inflated opinion of their own intelligence.
Sure, he isn't articulate but neither is Obama when he's away from a teleprompter.
And my guess is she will be losing clients big time now which is appropriate.
Unfortunately this won't be the case. Most in the media will think what she did was ballsy and cool, instead of irresponsible and mean. Her anti-Bush views probably got the her Atlantic cover to begin with. Sadly, being an outspoken leftist--especially if you can somehow combine it with shock value-- well, that can make you a star in the art world.
Anyway, just add this stunt to the long list of things the media has done lately to piss people off--by "people" I mean anyone who's not blindly in the tank for Obama. And Obama needs those votes.
Most of the commenters I've seen so far (not here) seem to be missing the point that Greenburg traded on the magazine's good will and reputation to gain access to McCain. The Atlantic undoubtedly chose Greenburg because they wanted an unusual, striking set of photos -- not necessarily, though possibly, an unflattering photos; and even if they wanted unflattering photos, that's their prerogative; they're not a news magazine.
But I doubt very much they were hoping for this debacle. It's going to be harder for them to get interviews and posed photographs of political candidates in the future because of what Greenburg's done. I hope they've learned their lesson: hire professionals who act like professionals. You can't tell me that if you want an artist you have to settle for a whiny, cheating partisan.
And I really hope Ann comments on this subject more as an artist and a photographer herself. Please do, Ann.
But it is funny that Greenburg broadcast -- she might say "broadcasted" -- that she's pretty dumb.
But she is sophisticated. Hah hah hah. She would probably argue about not being dumb too. I'll bet she went to college and everything and that proves she is smart. Hee hee hee.
Living proof that education is not a benefit for all people.
"We feel totally blind-sided," he said. "Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional."
From the same folks who bring us Andrew Sullivan.
She will lose clients -- at least the high profile ones. If you're a freelancer, rule number one is to never, ever, screw with your client.
Oh, sure, maybe Mother Jones will hire her. But she's not going to be doing work for a national glossy any time soon.
It is amusing that the Atalantic claims they do not vet photographers based on politics.
Vetting was not needed.
They got what they paid for; a well known, controversial photoggrapher with strong anti-conservative views.
As to her losing clients, she will probaly gain more. She has the awards to prove her talent.
The purpose of the cover is to sell copies at newsstand and, in doing so, to reflect the magazine's contents. I thought it was an excellent cover. The photo makes him, McSatan, look strong and handsome. Interestingly, his eye level is above the viewers which makes him look more commanding. The 'sell' line": 'Why War is His Answer' actually reflects the gist of the story. It's a good tease.
This otherwise tiresome magazine is for older wealthy liberal executives and deep-think types, and was recently retooled to increase political coverage. (Man, if the ads aren't for oil companies and investment banks, they're for Cunard cruises, rocking chairs, and bow ties.) "The Atlantic’s print advertising revenue is up only slightly this year (the magazine was up 2.9 percent in ad pages through June, accounting for $15 million), the magazine has seen a 15 percent increase in overall revenue, including online and events."
Here's what's inside: The Pentagon's strategy is to fight Long Wars—"vast military enterprise[s] undertaken on a global scale and likely to last decades"...mixed-race kids have more sex/violence/drug problems than other kids...movie stars are jerks...middle-class people buy luxury crap to show off...basketball coaches who played the game are better than those who did not...bars attract violence...Pakistani cops are corrupt..brain-computer interfaces research will enable the military to remote-control soldiers with brain implants...Catholic schools are good...there's more wind in the midwest than on the coasts...liberals use the web better than Republicans and is one reason why Obama will win...we need to do big-big-time community development in Afghanistan; this means 200 district based teams each with 100 people, including veterinarians, hydrologists, agricultural experts, engineers, and medics....The Vietnam War affected McCain's perception of the world. He believes we can win in Iraq. Wars need to be fought to win for a bunch of reasons. Shocking! That's the whole cover story!...Some rich Chinese guys are transforming its horrid remote western areas...Unitas, Gifford, Nelson, Moore, and Berry could all play pro today (This from a pro-coach's analysis of their 1958 championship game. Best article in the issue.)....we need to be more realistic and adult about porno and abandon our sense of decency...something about white people...something about some museum...a new Philip Roth book that no one will read even though it contains hot 'n' spicy bits about "underwear pogroms" and slitting open animals in a butcher shop...the Anne of Green Gables vacation..something about bread...contest about words in which the prize is a book.
I agree with bearing, the Atlantic may suffer, but I still don't think Greenburg will. For all the publications who may decide not to hire her, there will be more who seek her out for this, especially in venues where politics is not the subject matter.
Also, no Guy Billout in the issue.
He was the Roy Doty of the intellectual set.
Sure, he isn't articulate but neither is Obama when he's away from a teleprompter
Yup. Democrats think Bush is stupid because he doesn't speak well in public. That says more about their intelligence than his.
And its funny how easily they become enamored of a Saruman.
Perhaps that explains why Himmler was so effective.
Greenburg traded on the magazine's good will and reputation to gain access to McCain.
Echo. The Atlantic wasn't even on my radar until this. Now I associate them with the hacks at Newsweek.
Fen said...
And its funny how easily they become enamored of a Saruman.
Remember, those old, creaky, slow thinking, slow talking, slow deciding, slow moving- did I mention old- Ents stopped him in the end. Those quaint little Hobbits finished him off.
Looks like Jill Greenburg is certifiably doyled.
The bigger issue: this whole episode helps McCain. Greenburg contributes to the narrative that the media is out to hurt McCain. Because of her actions, it is easier to portray liberals as pathetic, nasty, and petty. In a week when Obama hoped to focus on issues, the culture wars are front and center.
I guess Greenburg is not very sophisticated.
Pogo @ 6:57 -- the mosaic cover of Obama hardly does him any favors. It is not a masculine image.
The cover photo of McCain is a good one, and it doesn't much matter if Greenburg thinks it isn't.
The response of the press to charges of bias is reminiscent of the Catholic Church's handling of the child abuse scandals. Their first response is to deny its existence, then cover up its existence, and then to re-assign the most blatant offenders. Like the Catholic Church, the media seems willing to write off the good will and trust of all but its most fervent believers. The Catholic Church feels that there was nothing about their basic distrust of human sexuality that has caused so many men of damaged sexuality to become priests. The liberal press feels that there is nothing about their basic distrust of core American values that has caused so many of its members to be caught on the wrong side of so many stories.....I was raised as a Catholic. I felt betrayed by the scandals and angry at the way they handled them. I never felt my salvation depended on the NYT, but these various scandals have affected me in a similar way. It's not their obvious lack of objectivity that bothers me so much as the attitude that they will be judge of what is objectivity....One wants to pray in a church whose clergy are worthy of respect. One wants to read a newspaper whose reporters have respect for the ideal of objectivity.
"It is not a masculine image."
It's not meant to be.
For the Democrats, 'masculine'='bad'
They were doing Obama a favor.
Pogo, I'll concede that in the primary race vs. Clinton, a feminized portrait of Obama is helpful. In the short-term only.
With myopic friends, who needs enemies?
I love Ace's campaign poster with the "bad" photo, LOL!
This photog is a real sicko too in other ways: Making Babies Cry=Art
Jesus, when are the Republicans going to stop playing the victim. The Atlantic cover features a terrific photo of McCain and yet the still GOP whines.
If McCain and his staff can be fooled so easily by a "creepy" and "dumb" photographer, how can we expect McCain and his administration to deal successfully with America's enemies?
Oh for pete's sake, krylovite. Even the author of the article for which those photos were used, no fan of McCain, gets it. This is not a whiney complaint on the part of partisans. This is a legitimate case of unprofessionalism.
krylovite, try to imagine your response if Obama had been photoshopped like that by a photographer who had been given the job of taking his protrait.
Greenburg is unhinged, and she hurts Obama and his supporters with her actions.
mcg,
Read the comments above. Are you telling me you don't see any republican whining about The Atlantic or the media in general? Are you oblivious to the sound of republican whining?
Where's the republican concern about the failure of McCain's staff to check Greenburg's background before the photo session? Isn't that failure an indication of incompetence on the part of McCain's campaign team?
The photo on the Atlantic cover is terrific. The photoshopped images on Greenburg's website are silly and inconsequential. What harm has been done other than to Greenburg's reputation? What damage has been done to McCain to justify the republican whining?
No, it's not the McCain campaign's business to vet freelance photogs who are sent by reputable magazines. McCain and the magazine have every right to expect professional conduct on the part of a professional photographer. Greenburg will have a hard time getting editorial work here on out.
It's difficult to believe that The Atlantic didn't have an Art Director (or associate) on location during the McCain shoot. Surely the magazine's representative would have been "sophisticated" enough to notice the floor strobe and other lighting irregularities.
Oh to have been a fly-on-the-wall at HQ when the photos arrived for review. What versions did they receive? What were the 'top ten' cover candidates? What were the editor's thoughts on quality and inherent narrative?
I mean, you don't hire a Jill Greenburg if you aren't looking for a narrative, right? Her photographic style is narrative.
Greenburg says she left McCain's skin looking bad and his eyes red. Did The Atlantic think the work was simply sloppy? Or did they understand what Greenburg was about, but felt she had gone a smidge beyond plausible deniability?
From the comments I've been reading, professional photographers and lighting experts say that *they* wouldn't necessarily have noticed the lighting peculiarities. There's lots of lights flashing, after all.
I also read a quote from the photographer that she was going to do her worst to McCain but hopefully not quite enough to go over the line and get audited if he wins the election...
McCain isn't going to send an *auditor*. He's going to send a thank you note.
And while I agree that this woman isn't going to suffer for her taking advantage of access to McCain that she'd have never had otherwise (and that the cover photo was at least good enough that the Atlantic couldn't have made a case that she didn't fulfill her contract) other photographers are going to find their lives more difficult thanks to her.
It's right and good that the Atlantic does not vet employees for their politics but, thank you note or not, McCain and Obama and anyone else are going to be more cautious and the lawyers on their staffs are going to do whatever they can possibly do to prevent a recurrence.
This is bad for OBAMA and his ability to assume professional behavior from professionals. Now he's got to second guess access to himself more than ever. It's bad for magazines who want access to candidates or personalities who now have no reason whatsoever to believe assurances of fair treatment. It's doubly bad for photographers who ought to expect to own the copyright to their own work... will artists be forced to "work for hire" contracts where they don't own their own negatives?
One of the editors of the Atlantic was on Fox this morning. He said he didn't know that Greenberg was this far to the left, or that she would do what she did. He said that she wasn't going to get paid, and that they were thinking about suing her, as well.
The Fox commentator (a blond woman whose name I can't recall either) was just furious, but managed to maintain her cool, and said that if anybody uses Jill Greenberg in any capacity for news, in the future, they should know what they are getting.
The editor at the Atlantic said he thought the picture on the cover wasn't too bad, and that the article inside is rather favorable to McCain.
bearing,
"And I really hope Ann comments on this subject more as an artist and a photographer herself. Please do, Ann."
In case Ann is too busy, I can fill in her response:
"The photographer should never have done this; it shows a terrible disrespect toward the client, the subject, and toward the art and craft of photography itself. UNLESS the subject was a man wearing shorts; in that case, anything goes--the harsher the better."
Have you been watching the McCain ads? McCain's "I approved this message" picture is creepy all on its own. It makes him look like he has a massive tumor on his left jaw.
try to imagine your response if Obama had been photoshopped like that by a photographer who had been given the job of taking his protrait.
It wouldn't matter at all to me. McCain ended up with a terrific magazine cover photo. Why should I care if someone photoshops his image for an insignificant website? That sort of thing happens all the time on the internet and is completely inconsequential, except to whiners and people looking for reasons to play the victim.
Greenburg is unhinged, and she hurts Obama and his supporters with her actions.
Greenberg doesn't represent Obama or his supporters. Greenberg represents Greenberg.
No, it's not the McCain campaign's business to vet freelance photogs who are sent by reputable magazines. McCain and the magazine have every right to expect professional conduct on the part of a professional photographer. Greenburg will have a hard time getting editorial work here on out.
What a joke! Prior to an interview, McCain will be prepped by his staff, and part of that preparation involves research by staff on the interviewer. Similarly, for the photo session McCain will have been carefully dressed and groomed in consultation with his staff. His staff will (or should have) spoken with Greenburg prior to the session to get information about photographic backdrops, etc..., and someone on McCain's staff would have (or should have) done basic research on Greenburg to understand her photographic style. Basic research (e.g., one minute using google) would have quickly uncovered her animosity towards Bush and rightwing politics.
Presidential candidates are carefully scripted and prepared. Little or nothing is left to chance. But somehow McCain and his campaign staff were outsmarted by a "dumb" photographer.
Everyone should hope for professional and ethical behavior from a professional offering a service. It doesn't always happen that way though. A presidential campaign staff should be on alert to protect a candidate from any sort of potential problem, particularly from the media. In this case, McCain's staff fell asleep on the job.
It wouldn't matter at all to me.
ding-ding-ding. Bullshit of the Day Award.
It's unfortunate for Obama that the voices of more sensible democrats like Peter Hoh are being drowned out those of people like Greenberg and krylovite. Even when one of their own tries to tell them they're hurting the cause they just can't shut up.
Greenberg doesn't represent Obama or his supporters. Greenberg represents Greenberg.
You just keep telling yourself that.
I love althouse, but...Greenbergs work is fabulous. She's obviously a "smarter" artist than Althouse which is why althouse had to fail into Law.
I'm sure if greenberg started as a law student she would have failed into art. Have you seen her work? Her swarzenegger photo shoot is amazing.
I'm actually suprised ann is comming down against the artist here...uh..duh she's an artist and is getting noticed.
Ann Althouse making fun of Jill Greenberg's writing skills is like Jill Greenberg making fun of Ann Althouses mediocre pencil sketches.
see what I did there?
...Greenbergs work is fabulous.
Yeah, especially the ones where she teases and taunts little babies until they cry. Then she snaps their pic and photoshops it into a diatribe against Bush.
Effin' genius!!1!
Fab.U.Lous.
How does The Atlantic think it is going to get away with not paying the photographer for her work?
The magazine commissioned her to do the shoot. It accepted her work. It published her work.
Did her contract grant her the right to repurpose unused images during the period in which the magazine was on sale?
Even if it did not, does the contract contemplate not paying her in that event?
(As an fyi, publications typically only purchase 'first-serial rights' to images...the right to use them in one issue only.)
...Greenbergs work is fabulous.
I especially like the monkey shitting on McCain's head.
That is troo art.
henry said:
She will lose clients -- at least the high profile ones.
She will lose clients -- at least the dependable paying ones. Of course that will leave Greenburg oodles of free time to pursue her more artistic endeavors.
I'm voting for McCain and I liked the cover photo. It was different and he comes off strong and resilient.
Not that it matter, few people read The Atlantic or even care. As for Greenberg, as Henry says, you don't screw over your client.
Magazine editors don't like writing open letters like the following:
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.
You just keep telling yourself that.
Greenberg doesn't represent Democrats. Does she work for the Democratic Party? No. Is she a registered Democrat? Probably not. Is she even a citizen of the US? Doubtful.
Greenberg represents Greenberg, Limbaugh represents Limbaugh and Savage represents Savage. These people have opinions, not political party positions. Learn the difference, dumbshit.
Misappropriation of materials & gross public unprofessionalism should be grounds for breach of contract unless the Atlantic's standard contract is so utterly deficient as to be grounds for malpractice in and of itself.
She's obviously a "smarter" artist than Althouse which is why althouse had to fail into Law.
Wow, this is almost Maxine territory. WTF, man.
I'd love to hear what Rick Lee has to say. Ruth Anne has access to another photographer who might have a useful perspective.
I'm surprised that Poynter.org doesn't have a column up from a photojournalist.
Here's some standard photog./magazine contract boilerplate...
Rights in the Works. Contributor grants to Magazine the following rights in each Article: (a) the exclusive right to publish the Article and related photography in any issue of Magazine and on Magazineï¾’s Web sites and/or in e-magazine format, before it is published in any other form by any other party. For one year after publication in Magazine or on Magazineï¾’s Web site, Magazine has the exclusive right to publish or reprint the Article and related photography in any other media, including, but not limited to print, electronic, optical, and wireless and the non- exclusive right to do so thereafter; (b) the right to authorize republication of the Article and related photography in all media throughout the world directly or through a syndication company; (c) the right to authorize publication of the Article and related photography in any foreign edition of Magazine, whether electronic, online, or in print, and the right to authorize translation of the Article to the appropriate languages for foreign editions of Magazine; (d) the right to reprint and photocopy the Article and related photography, and the right to authorize third parties to reprint and photocopy the Article and related photography; (e) the right to republish, transmit and/or reproduce the Article and related photography, in whole or in part, one or more times on or by means of any electronic, computer-based, digital, optical, wireless or online media, methods or means now known or hereafter invented, including the Internet, World Wide Web, and any method of electronic storage and retrieval; (f) the right to publish and use the Article and related photography in any publication or book of Magazine, or in any other magazine or other publication published or distributed, in print, online, by the Publisher. "
Even though the contract says what it says, the magazine won't sue, and it will pay the lady her not unsubstantial expenses and fee.
Why?
1) It's not worth the expense;
2) It's standard practice for photographers and illustrators to publish things that have been commissioned on their own websites for self-promotion.
3) The whole event has been good publicity for the magazine which has been shifting its focus to more cutting edge political stuff as it migrates its business to the web. It is read mostly by wealthy left-of-center intellectual types. The old readers will understand this was an aberration; new readers will be put off if the magazine caves.
4) Not paying her and/or suing will upset the entire photographer/illustrator community and the art director will have such a fit and probably quit or at least leave early for the day;
K**lov**e-
K love makes some good arguments, except for the dumbshit and asshole parts. Mark my words, she will be a star when she matures.
Real women such as K love doesn't need the feminist umbrella for protection. K love for governor. Be like Hillary and pick your state, baby. I'm with you.
Pick a state where it's warm and goes right-to-work. Anyone who chooses to live in AK or be a union member can't be too smart.
"Did her contract grant her the right to repurpose unused images during the period in which the magazine was on sale?"
If photography is anything like writing, I expect that contracts come in two flavors.
One, where the client buys a limited right to publish and the author retains all rights to his or her work... and the sort where the author is paid and all work belongs permanently to the client.
From the artists point of view the first is obviously better.
As for McCain and his lousy advisers...
... we're talking about his sort of thing in relation to Obama's "getting tough" efforts...
... whining about the photographer... waa, waa, I don't wanna have her take my picture, she might be mean to me... like a baby... is going to sound like just that.
So what to do?
You get normal reassurances and go with it. If the photographer behaves professionally, super. If the photographer pulls something like this...
... you send her a thank-you note for getting you elected.
And it doesn't matter that she doesn't represent the Democrats. She represents the MEDIA.
Duh.
How does The Atlantic think it is going to get away with not paying the photographer for her work? The magazine commissioned her to do the shoot. It accepted her work. It published her work.
Their reasoning may be that since she came out and admitted she deliberately produced inferior work, she is in violation of her contract with them. That's just speculation, though.
Revenant- do you read Bernard Cornwall?
I mean Cornwell?
Peter Hoh wrote: Ruth Anne has access to another photographer who might have a useful perspective.
I asked my photog brother if there's a code akin to the Hyppocratic Oath in medicine. My brother directed me to his friend's blog post.
Essentially, what Greenberg did was be the jerk with the camera.
It's all bullshit, McCain probably has that photo framed and hanging in his office already.
So far everyone complains about "intent". Intent nothing, the photos all look bad-ass including the "trick" photos.
She wasn't trying to make a bad photo, that is against her self-interest.
Hell, I can take a bad photo of anyone in this thread, even if my intention is "good" that does change the nature of the photos.
I was just suprised to see Ms. Althouse come down in this direction, I really expected her not to buy the "disrespectful" meme being put out by mccain, christ on NPR today they had a campaign surrogate call questions about his age....wait for it....disrespectful...
Carli Fiorini actually was pushing that line.
Revenant- do you read Bernard Cornwall
If you mean the guy who writes (wrote?) the Sharpe books then no, I don't, but they're on my list.
Well, Rev, The Atlantic accepted inferior work and thought it was good enough at the time. No backsies allowed.
Also, for those who think the lady is evil because of her crying baby photos...what about this one? The baby was well paid for her (or his) performance, and besides, if you've ever had one (or more of them), they, the babies, cry all the time. Constantly. They love to cry. For them it's fun.
Anyone who thinks any of those photos are representative of "inferior" work needs to go take an art appreciation class.
Getting paid is the least of Greenberg's problems. She will have to pay her attorney out of her own pocket while the magazine has an on-staff attorney who lives for these kind of disagreements.
Plus being blackballed by a fellow liberal magazine won't give her sympathetic victim status.
Well, Rev, The Atlantic accepted inferior work and thought it was good enough at the time. No backsies allowed.
Depends on what's in the contract.
obvious viral marketing ploy is obvious.
Some tidbits about The Atlantic from WashPost in August 2007.
Politically, Bradley [the publisher] considers himself a centrist...Also owns National Journal and Hotline... In the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries he donated $4,300 to Hillary Clinton and $2,300 each to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney....He interned in the Nixon White House...Bradley looks to his writers for policy guidance. He was, he says, "a neocon guy" who was "dead certain about the rightness" of invading Iraq. He argued about this with his national correspondent, James Fallows, who wrote skeptically about the war, and now concedes Fallows was right.
Here's the Atlantic's Nov 2007 cover photomontage of Obama.
Also, "Jason Treat is the art director for The Atlantic Monthly magazine and is based in Washington, D.C. While he would be hard-pressed to call The Atlantic "alternative," he is a devoted reader of alt-weeklies."
Sounds like a Commie to me.
I don't see what the fuss is about. The Atlantic must have known she was anti-McCain, but she gave them a photo they found satisfactory. If she abused McCain afterward (presumably, she didn't to his face), at least we know where she stands, unlike the "objective" reporters. Probably 90% of professional photographers in NYC hate Republicans. If the Atlantic had asked for an unflattering portrait, they'd have more to apologize for.
I blogged a few years ago about Jill Greenburg, when she was touting a series of photos of babies crying after a lollipop had been taken away from them. The point was to illustrate how the babies would feel if they knew how much George Bush had ruined the planet.
She was hired because she was a trendy photog, but all her pix are the same -- very kitschy, colorful portraits of famous people. She hasn't grown as an artist, however. Her style seems about played out now. The Atlantic is the least trendy magazine published, so I would assume this was her last stop before oblivion.
The Atlantic is the least trendy magazine published
Less trendy than The New Republic? Ouch!
McCain is the new Koran and the Republicans are angry muslims.
How many will die if I put that issue of the atlantic in the toilet?
Post a Comment