Liberal “art”: Is that what it’s called these days?
UPDATE: The Atlantic is considering a lawsuit against Jill Greenberg and refusing to pay for the photos she took of McCain and the editor says he will apologize to John McCain for the incident.
Scott Johnson reminds us that it is more than just Jill Greenberg for which they need to apologize.
* * * * * * *
I find this quote of Greenberg’s via Photo District News interesting:
“It’s definitely exciting to shoot someone who is in the limelight like that. I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.”
Now, this is an adult, at least in years. It isn’t her fault that she did something like this but, rather, it is The Atlantic‘s fault. I expect to see behavior like this out of my children who may try to shift blame to someone else. But, an adult? And, she has kids of her own. 😯
But, what about the actual photo used on the cover of The Atlantic? Greenberg gave some insight into that too with PDN.
She delivered the image the magazine asked for—a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic. Greenberg is well known for her highly retouched images of bears and crying babies. But she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says.
If you just really want to see what Greenberg did with the other images, you can check them out at her site. Look by “name” and then “John McCain” from her lists to get to them. Or, go to American Digest and see the captures there.
Is The Atlantic innocent in all of this? Probably not. After all, this is the same magazine that employees Andrew Sullivan and has had some issues with McCain in the past. Is no one at The Atlantic smart enough to Google “Jill Greenberg?” And, it can’t be too good, when you’re PR department is having to push out releases on a Sunday, can it?
What did Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the actual article in The Atlantic, have to say about Jill Greenberg’s photos?
I don’t know Greenberg (I count this as a blessing) and I can add nothing to what James Bennet told the Post except to say that Greenberg is quite obviously an indecent person who should not be working in magazine journalism. Every so often, journalists become deranged at the sight of certain candidates, and lose their bearings. Why, this has even happened in the case of John McCain once or twice. What I find truly astonishing is the blithe way in which she has tried to hurt this magazine.
Oh. He did also say “her ‘art’ is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive.”
* * *
Others posting on this topic: Riggword Weblog, Swamp Hermit’s *QUICK* Bits, PAWaterCooler.com, The View from Alexandria, IUSB Vision Weblog, The Pink Elephant, Hillary or Bust, Little Miss Attila, Jules Crittenden, Radio Vice Online, FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog, Maggie’s Farm, Newsbusters