Smiling Assassin27
09-16-2008, 08:14 AM
MAG HAS BLOOD ON ITS HANDS
When you lie down with Bush-hating photographers, you get up with public-relations nightmares.
So learned The Atlantic magazine after hiring celebrity lenswoman Jill Greenberg to take portrait shots of John McCain.
As The Post reported Sunday, Greenberg gloated to an industry Web site, Photo District News, last week that she had tricked McCain during the magazine photo shoot into standing over a strobe light to create ugly shadows on his face: "He had no idea he was being lit from below," she sneered. "I guess they're not very sophisticated."
Greenberg is Glenn Close to The Atlantic's Michael Douglas in this real-life, photo-journalistic adaptation of "Fatal Attraction." And her McCain imagery was the rabbit in the deranged Greenberg's boiling pot. "I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she cackled.
And that's not all. She took the pictures she captured for The Atlantic and defaced them on her own personal Web site with crude, vulgar captions and Photoshopping. One featured McCain with fangs and blood dripping down his mouth - with the Greenberg-added words, "I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer (sic)."
Another piece of her "art" showed an ape (a favorite Greenberg subject) defecating on McCain's head. Because, you know, manipulating images of animals relieving themselves on political candidates you hate is the sophisticated way of expressing disapproval.
Trying to quell the backlash over the weekend, Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg, whose cover story was tainted by Greenberg's work, wrote: "Suffice it to say that her 'art' is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive. This is not the issue, of course; the issue is that she betrayed this magazine, and disgraced her profession."
The Atlantic said yesterday it will offer McCain an apology. Editors also say they'll refuse to pay for the photos and may consider a lawsuit against Greenberg.
But perhaps they should consider their own negligence - because Jill Greenberg disgraced her profession long before The Atlantic hired her.
A simple Google search would have turned up my blog report and several other blog posts by professional photographers disgusted by what she did in 2004 and put on exhibit in 2006.
This woman deliberately terrorized children in concerted attempts to make children who were not cooperating cry - all so she could caption photos of the kids with anti-Bush slogans like "Grand Old Party," "Four More Years" and "Apocalypse Now."
The abuse included stripping the children and ordering parents to "step out of the studio for a couple minutes." She also gave the kids candy and then took it away. Greenberg even used her own daughter for her propaganda.
When one photographer sharply criticized her unethical behavior, Greenberg and her husband harassed them on the Internet. The child-abuse-for-art debacle garnered international headlines and became part of her professional biography.
Greenberg's Web site is named "Manipulator" - and the entry page features one of the sick photos of the children she taunted and provoked for her anti-Bush exhibit.
Greenberg's by-any-means-necessary anti-Bush zealotry was infamous in her industry. If she was willing to manipulate children to bash Republicans, why would any responsible editor trust her to maintain her sanity during an assignment involving the GOP presidential candidate?
Who recommended her to The Atlantic? Who vetted her? The editors purport to be shocked and disgusted.
Yet this is the same magazine that captioned a photo of McCain "McCain loser" just five months ago on its Web site. And now they say they were "blind-sided?"
The Atlantic has no one but itself to blame for its bad exposure
The hate and hostility that comes with being a Democrat these days isn't brave, it isn't patriotic, it's just downright ugly. It's quite an insight into how these folks deal with adversity. You want to beat the Republicans? Then treat those who disagree with you with some dignity, self respect, and this...:kiss:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09162008/news/columnists/mag_has_blood_on_its_hands_129369.htm
When you lie down with Bush-hating photographers, you get up with public-relations nightmares.
So learned The Atlantic magazine after hiring celebrity lenswoman Jill Greenberg to take portrait shots of John McCain.
As The Post reported Sunday, Greenberg gloated to an industry Web site, Photo District News, last week that she had tricked McCain during the magazine photo shoot into standing over a strobe light to create ugly shadows on his face: "He had no idea he was being lit from below," she sneered. "I guess they're not very sophisticated."
Greenberg is Glenn Close to The Atlantic's Michael Douglas in this real-life, photo-journalistic adaptation of "Fatal Attraction." And her McCain imagery was the rabbit in the deranged Greenberg's boiling pot. "I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she cackled.
And that's not all. She took the pictures she captured for The Atlantic and defaced them on her own personal Web site with crude, vulgar captions and Photoshopping. One featured McCain with fangs and blood dripping down his mouth - with the Greenberg-added words, "I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer (sic)."
Another piece of her "art" showed an ape (a favorite Greenberg subject) defecating on McCain's head. Because, you know, manipulating images of animals relieving themselves on political candidates you hate is the sophisticated way of expressing disapproval.
Trying to quell the backlash over the weekend, Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg, whose cover story was tainted by Greenberg's work, wrote: "Suffice it to say that her 'art' is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive. This is not the issue, of course; the issue is that she betrayed this magazine, and disgraced her profession."
The Atlantic said yesterday it will offer McCain an apology. Editors also say they'll refuse to pay for the photos and may consider a lawsuit against Greenberg.
But perhaps they should consider their own negligence - because Jill Greenberg disgraced her profession long before The Atlantic hired her.
A simple Google search would have turned up my blog report and several other blog posts by professional photographers disgusted by what she did in 2004 and put on exhibit in 2006.
This woman deliberately terrorized children in concerted attempts to make children who were not cooperating cry - all so she could caption photos of the kids with anti-Bush slogans like "Grand Old Party," "Four More Years" and "Apocalypse Now."
The abuse included stripping the children and ordering parents to "step out of the studio for a couple minutes." She also gave the kids candy and then took it away. Greenberg even used her own daughter for her propaganda.
When one photographer sharply criticized her unethical behavior, Greenberg and her husband harassed them on the Internet. The child-abuse-for-art debacle garnered international headlines and became part of her professional biography.
Greenberg's Web site is named "Manipulator" - and the entry page features one of the sick photos of the children she taunted and provoked for her anti-Bush exhibit.
Greenberg's by-any-means-necessary anti-Bush zealotry was infamous in her industry. If she was willing to manipulate children to bash Republicans, why would any responsible editor trust her to maintain her sanity during an assignment involving the GOP presidential candidate?
Who recommended her to The Atlantic? Who vetted her? The editors purport to be shocked and disgusted.
Yet this is the same magazine that captioned a photo of McCain "McCain loser" just five months ago on its Web site. And now they say they were "blind-sided?"
The Atlantic has no one but itself to blame for its bad exposure
The hate and hostility that comes with being a Democrat these days isn't brave, it isn't patriotic, it's just downright ugly. It's quite an insight into how these folks deal with adversity. You want to beat the Republicans? Then treat those who disagree with you with some dignity, self respect, and this...:kiss:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09162008/news/columnists/mag_has_blood_on_its_hands_129369.htm