I noted on yesterday’s Tammy Radio Jill Greenberg’s assault on McCain via some photos she posted on her site after having done a shoot for the cover of Atlantic Monthly. Her ‘work’ on McCain is nothing less than political pornography and depraved at its core. The woman is obviously troubled. Here’s the follow up, via Newsbusters.
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.
Considering Greenberg’s body of work, I find it a little disingenuous to suggest that people who chose her because of her work had no idea she might be inclined to do this to McCain. Perhaps she can use some of the money she got for this shoot for a good psychiatrist.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I saw these pictures last night and was disgusted. She, Jill Greenberg, said it was irresponsible of the Atlantic Monthly to hire her knowing she was a hard core democrat. I don’t know of any hard core Republicans who would do something as childish as she did.
The Atlantic says they expected her to act professionally.
Yeah right. Her website address is manipulator.com
She was also involved in a scandal just 2 years ago in which she forced over 25 toddlers to cry so she could take pictures of them.
The Atlantic knew exactly what they were doing.
Apology accepted! Now, can we get back to lipstick/pig issue.
OK. Back to the pig and the lipstick.
It only figures that the guy who’s trying to sell us a pig-in-a-poke would try to make mileage out of lipstick. Giving off airs, as he does what does he think about perfume. Chanel, Stinkey?
Apology not accepted.
Or, let me put it this way: Would you hire Leni Riefenstahl to do your photographic work in, say, 1940? And then you say “Oh, we didn’t know?”
GMAN has it exactly right.
You must log in to post a comment.