mccain-lipstick.jpg

Charles says:

Much fuss about Greenberg's Photoshopped McCain out-takes on her web site. "Offensive" etc etc. I find them interesting because she's a respected photographer who was commissioned to photograph him for The Atlantic magazine cover. Also interesting in that the Photoshop work isn't that good.

Greenberg's web site is at www.manipulator.com. Because of her use of Flash, you can't deep-link to the individual pictures. From her home page you have to follow these onscreen options:

1. Click Enter Manipulator
2. Click Names
3. Scroll to John McCain and click his name
4. Click thumbnails at the bottom of the screen.

Jill Greenberg's Photoshopped McCain out-takes

89 Responses to “Jill Greenberg's Photoshopped McCain out-takes”

  1. dccarles says:

    The Atlantic is repudiating Greenberg. See
    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/editors-note.

    –Devin

  2. ill lich says:

    What I find annoying about this whole fiasco, is that McCain/GOP are demanding apologies from The Atlantic, and conservative blogs are harping about “your employees reflect your bias” etc. For years right-wingers have photoshopped Bill & Hillary, John Kerry (remember his photo with Jane Fonda), Obama, etc. etc., in demeaning ways, though usually in the anonymity of the internet. Here the GOP has found a way to trace it to a particular person at a particular publication and is demanding an apology. I understand that she may have violated a legality at the Atlantic, but it’s none of McCain’s business, he is just trying to score points with the electorate (mainly his conservative base) by attacking the media.

    I used to semi-admire McCain, but face it: he’s not really a “maverick” anymore, and the “straight talk express” is long gone: the amount of complete fabrication coming from his aides, his commercials, and himself is really, truly, no hyperbole, setting a new low in American political speech. The press used to love him because of his straight talk, so it’s not surprising he’s having problems with the press now– he’s trying to blame the press, but he’s the one who has changed, not the press.

  3. Mark Frauenfelder says:

    This is not about McCain. It’s about the photographer and what she did with the photos she took.

    “I’m a Canadian living in Germany so I have no personal stake in whatever happens in November.”

    You really think so?

  4. Kay the Complainer says:

    I like the vampire one.

    What would these be called, as a genre? They’re sort of the opposite of LOLcats.

    Suggestions?

  5. okiedokie says:

    There are questions about ethical violations of taking these pictures while she was supposed to be working for the magazine.

    Sleezy behavior on the photog’s part, no matter who you support.

  6. Brandon Abell says:

    Best thing ever.

    And @Big Ed: If a politician is so skilled at turning himself into a giant ass throughout his career, it only stands to reason that those skilled in kicking are going to take advantage of the situation. (basically what I’m trying to say is that he deserves it) Should we make up fake issues like the McCainiacs do about Obama just to ensure “balance”?

  7. PhiCancri says:

    @ Big Ed: You’re kidding right? Do you even realize what you’re saying? There’s a big reason that Boing Boing (along with many other blogs and publications) have not had nearly as many negative things to say about Obama than McCain. If you’re really not that aware of who McCain is and stands for, than that’s your business and the info is out there if you’re interested. But your comment about having no personal stake in the election couldn’t be further from the truth. What happens this November will ultimately effect all countries and their citizens across the entire world.

  8. lionelbrits says:

    #55 mdh: I’m sorry if I came across that way. I was just advocating for some tolerance towards the intolerable, but I’ve hijacked this thread enough already.

  9. brownsauce says:

    tht’s nt phtshp

    ths s phtshp:

    http://mg291.mgshck.s/mg291/361/npprprtvz5.jpg

    flthyrchmnd.blgspt

  10. tensafefrogs says:

    “Because of her use of Flash, you can’t deep-link to the individual pictures”

    This is not a Flash thing. You can deep link into flash websites just like you can deep link into ‘ajax’ websites. It’s just a [bad] choice by whomever created that website.

  11. ZippySpincycle says:

    I think that, regardless of party affiliation or political outlook, we can probably all agree on one thing: Greenberg’s website sucks.

  12. grimc says:

    Hi Troy!

    With the advent of the internet, I don’t need handlers telling me about ethics, because there are plenty of volunteers already doing that (cough cough).

    But McCain apparently needs his handlers to be told what their job is, because they dropped the ball here. You could even take my comment as friendly advice for the McCain campaign: Better get your media people into shape, because they failed. If they were paying attention–merely looking at all the Polaroids or a monitor with a knowledgeable eye–Greenberg probably wouldn’t have been able to do what she’s done.

  13. buddy66 says:

    ill lich,

    Good sensibile comment. Let’s hope the honeymoon is over and the press goes after him with all the anger of a rejected lover. I, too, semi-admired him; as I did his hero and idol, Barry Goldwater. He’s now just another liar.

  14. Vanderath says:

    British guy, living in the UK, and on the principle that whoever wins the election gets their hands on the big red reset switch, I’m of the opinion the election effects us all. I personally am hoping no one ever gets the chance to put a little label on it marked “press Here for The Rapture.”

    To the matter at hand: seems the contract returned the photo rights to her after a two week embargo on the photos. She was planning to sell at least one elsewhere.
    The magazine stands by the photo they chose for the cover.
    The ‘shopped versions are on her own site.

    Therefore I reckon as long as she waited those two weeks, she’s pretty much in the clear as far as a claim to getting paid goes…

    Here’s a tricky point though. Even if that time did not elapse, does the act of photoshopping make it a new art work? To be considered seperately from the originals?

    Not saying that using them in this way (or if I read this right, being so damn smug about it) was wise or proper. Given her views and this opportunity, it may have been more than enough to just release the unshopped photos.

    She has a past record of going to abnormal lengths to obtain photos to make a statement in criticism of the Republicans, so I’m kinda surprised the magazine chose her for such an assignment.

  15. WarEagle says:

    Hr’s ngtv thng bt bm. H’s sclst.

    McCn s fscst. pck yr psn.

  16. JakartaSlim says:

    Slly m… ll lng thght bngbng ws jst st tht pstd nt thngs frm tm t tm. nvr rlzd hw lft-lnng t ws. S b t.

    nywy, Grnbrg’s thcs r jst shmfl. Ths wh thnk ths s bg cp nd lgh rt shld b prprd fr sm krmc rtrbtn.

    f th sh ws n th thr ft nd sm rght-lnng phtgrphr dd ths t bm wld b K? Wld t stll b K f rght-wngrs prmtd t nd jstfd t bcs bm ld bt tkng pblc fnncng, r hs rltnshps wth Rzk, Wllm yrs, r whtvr?

    Sm f y flks shld srsly vlt yr wn thcs nd mrls.

  17. mgfarrelly says:

    I’m sorry, but the hand-wringing that these photos will “cost obama XX% in the polls” is simple nonsense.

    There’s this pervasive notion on the left that everyone should hold their tongues, keep quiet and try to maintain until progressive candidates are elected. In essence, put on “moderate” drag and don’t “freak the norms”.

    This fails on the most basic level, as it assumes that progressive politics are something to be ashamed of, something to be hidden from the public like vitamins amidst the candy. The notion that Obama is going to be derailed by this kind of thing is just panic talking.

    It’s juvenile satire that the right wing loves to engage in and simply cannot take when it is directed at them. These are people who will impugn and defame a woman like Michelle Obama with the vilest slanders about her character but will circle the wagons and cry “Sexism!” when Governor Palin’s record is questioned.

    Fear is all these people have left.

  18. Dread Pirate Robert says:

    There’s a gallery posted here that doesn’t require that many clicks…

    http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/75fe3a4650f53f809a541bbda6f05a1c/

  19. Spor says:

    She seems to be a better photographer than a photoshopper, she should have just posted the less than flattering images without altering them and left it up to the online masses to make their own versions.

    It seems to me that the real problem with this sort of stunt is that it could make life a bit more difficult for scores of other professional photographers who I’m sure would not appreciate candidates handlers vetting them due to their political views.

    cheers

  20. Mojave says:

    The tide is turning…..looking around the webs today, one gets a sense that the newness and “wow” factor over Palin is starting to wear off…Americans are waking up to the realization that there is no way in H-E-double hockey sticks is this woman fit or ready to be VP…and by McSame picking her, it says volumes about his ability to be President….COUGH*alzheimers*COUGH.

  21. Steaming Pile says:

    @BigEd – And I’m a Ferengi stationed at a starbase near the Neutral Zone selling tribble juice to Klingons.

  22. Mathleticism says:

    vryn shld gr whl-hrtdly wth bngbngs psts r thy wll b dsmvwlld. Ths s brdrln prpgnd nd nyn wh dsgrs wth bngbng wll b cnsrd. Ths s nt lbrl md, ts n thcl dbl stndrd. nly th “ys-mn” wll b hrd. Hp y cn rd ths wth n vwls.

  23. Righteous Bubba says:

    In that case — none of the mortgage banks are liable because all of the borrowers should have had better advice from their own people.

    This is a mean photoshop, not a chain of financial catastrophes that will misery to disparate people across the globe.

  24. CS Loser says:

    @Big Ed, Here are some ways you have a personal stake:

    1. Global warming is global. McCain’s solution is to drill for more oil.
    2. Germany & Canada are both in NATO. If McCain fabricates an attack by Iran on US forces to start a war, you’ll be at war too.
    3. If McCain (continues to) drives the economy into a ditch, that will have global ripple effects.
    4. You may want to visit the US at some point, and may not like the body cavity search McCain would like to conduct. (To stop terrorists of course.)
    5. Your internet traffic probably passes through the united states, where McCain wants to read your email and forward the juicy stuff to your own government. Like if you’re planning a political protest, for example.
    6. Sarah Palin thinks people speaking in tongues are speaking the word of god. That being the case I would feel uncomfortable with her controlling 10,000 nuclear warheads.

  25. prentiz says:

    As UKer I share some of Big Ed Dunkel’s dismay about BB’s partisanship – if for no other reason than it makes the McCain stories less credible and harder for those of us who are non-USian to evaluate.

    In this case, I hope the magazine sues the photographer for everything she’s got. This is a crappy breach of ethics on her part, which will make the job of every other photographer doing this kind of work that much harder. If she had a problem with the assignment, she should have behaved ethically and refused it. The last thing any of us in the West need is journalists having even less access to our politicians.

  26. ZippySpincycle says:

    This is a pretty amateurish excuse for satire. A monkey pooping on McCain’s head? It’s a bit more scatologically explicit than a “Peeing Calvin,” but doesn’t say much more.

    And for Big Ed: A far more effective photoshopped satire that happens to be against Obama.

  27. mlc2475 says:

    Seriously? How is this different than the McCain campaign itself (not a private party) constructing the idea that Obama is a meaningless dilettante no more qualified to run the country than Paris Hilton?

    Greenberg is an artist who is making a statement. She has a right to do so. The magazine only pays for her time and purchases the images they use.

    What we’re all responding to is the fact that she distilled her reactions down to a strong campaign and executed them beautifully.

    What gets me is that people are already making a bigger fuss over this than they did when the New Yorker sanctioned and published a slanderous cover with Obama depicted as a muslim extremist. Our bipartisan campaign tactics are so one-sided that we’re not used to such vitriol coming from the left.

    Bottom line; get over it.

  28. FloydT says:

    So Greenberg’s actions are OK because McCain’s handlers — (100% agreed) dropped the ball? That’s a pretty dangerous line of thinking. In that case — none of the mortgage banks are liable because all of the borrowers should have had better advice from their own people.

  29. WarEagle says:

    @20, i disagree. She was hired and given access to McCain to do a specific job. The article says she even refused to retouch the photos!

    My problem is why in the world Atlantic hired her and trusted her to produce after things like this in her past:

    http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/0,,1830504,00.html

  30. jantz says:

    Silly question of the discussion…did anyone verify that Jill Greenberg put these images on the web-site and that it was not hacked?

    If it turns out that Jill did do these images, then it would be very poor judgment on her part, as it will greatly damage her career.

  31. lionelbrits says:

    Trigger happy much? The fact that #13′s post got censored is disconcerting. I’ve been reading boingboing more frequently lately and have had the chance of seeing posts before they get disemvoweled. I can see the point of it, but some of the more fickle uses remind me of someone sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “la la la la la”. Maybe there’s something we can learn from/about others we don’t necessarily agree with, even if we find them offensive. Maybe there would be a lot less bullshit in the world if people stopped closing their shutters to viewpoints we don’t agree with or understand.

    The left is guilty as sin in this regard. We’re not going to convert any gun toting hicks as long as we keep thinking of them as gun toting hicks.

  32. charlesplatt says:

    I see this degenerating into yet another stupid comparison between two candidates. This is not relevant. The issue is, Should *any* candidate for US president deserve special respect or politeness from the media? The answer is, absolutely not. These people are seeking power by selling stories about themselves. They are ingrates and liars who crave the authority to manipulate our lives. Anyone who exercises restraint and politeness toward these lowlifes is merely an enabler. Legislators should be reminded as often as possible and as forcibly as possible that they serve the people, not the other way around. We the people have every right to treat them as disrespectfully as we choose.

    That’s why I was so happy to advise BB of the link to the site showing the McCain photos. In my unrealistic utopia, those photos would be on the nightly news and McCain would be asked repeatedly if it’s true that he referred to his wife using probably the most offensive and degrading four-letter word in the English language, in front of journalists; and the journalists would be asked why they are such spineless toadying weasels, they couldn’t bring themselves to report it.

  33. Righteous Bubba says:

    It is simply awful that someone has so little respect for a Republican. When things at home and abroad have gone so wonderfully well it is hard to understand what the motivation for such nastiness is.

  34. Raj77 says:

    Now that was a fair disemvowelling. Obama was not, and is not, a Muslim. Besides which:

    i) Even if he had been, he is now by far the more vocally Christian of the two candidates

    ii) Why would it matter?

    Not that there’s any point arguing with a racist fuck or astroturfer, whichever you might be.

  35. Doug Nelson says:

    I have to wonder why she took the gig to begin with, unless it was to have the images to play with.

    Remember, Greenberg lives on publicity, she’s the one that photographed crying babies by taking away their candy.

    Her website seems to be down, probably due to overload.

  36. Raj77 says:

    And would a lie about having been a non-practising member of a non-Christian faith not be less immoral than a conspiracy leading to the invasion of a sovereign country and the deaths of half a million civilians?

  37. charlesplatt says:

    “I have to wonder why she took the gig to begin with, unless it was to have the images to play with.”

    She got paid. She got an opportunity to photograph a man she seems to hate. She got a magazine cover. Why would she NOT take the gig? I certainly would have.

    As for why she “endangered her career” by Photoshopping the images, she probably relished the opportunity to make a statement which the rest of the media are not making, presumably because aging journalists fear losing their jobs in a tightening market. More power to her.

  38. error404 says:

    #41 Antinous

    “Hurling epithets like socialist”

    Hmmm, socialist isn’t an epithet.

    I’m a socialist, a big Scottish Socialist.

    Acrually I hadve an old frined who had dinner with Lenin and Stalin.

    No really.

    Maybe that’s where I causght the evil of Socialism?

    I got off lightly getting Socialism, old Harry got full blown Marxism.

    Odd how americans use the word Socialist like it was infectious.

  39. Andrew W says:

    “So many people on the left are furious when Coulter comes out with a blatantly sensationalist statement meant to rake in profits while degrading the national debate. Please, remember that there are people like her on your side too, and in my opinion, Greenberg is absolutely one of them.”

    I must have missed the part where the photographer called McCain supporters traitors, and called for them to be hanged or shot in order to remind them that they could be killed.

    Oh, she didn’t?

    Not really the same thing at all, then.

  40. mdh says:

    Lionel @ 63 – no worries mate. Just checkin’ ya.

  41. torgeaux says:

    Idiots like Greenberg shift the debate, and allow the Republicans to point at this and say that all criticism is of this ilk.

    She’s a bad person. There, I’ve said it. A prior poster said she makes babies cry by taking away their candy – true, but not the whole story. She also has their parents openly leave them, alone and scared, so she can take the pictures in their absence. She’s a bad person. This is just another example of a self-centered, self-important person making an ass of themselves.

  42. Nightbird says:

    “A Bit of Good News on the Jill Greenberg Front”

    The Atlantic is saying that Greenberg will not be paid for her work.

    http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/a_bit_of_good_news_on_the_jill.php

  43. Nixar says:

    Yh, tht ws vry nprfssnl f hr. Bt y knw wht? Smtm nprfssnl s th rght thng t b. nlk ths S rmy sldrs n b Ghrb, r th BlckWtr Wrldwd nc. mplys, wh r vry prfssnnlly kllng chldrn.
    Thy gt pd hndsmly. Tht’s bcs thy’r prs.

  44. Nixar says:

    “The left is guilty as sin in this regard. We’re not going to convert any gun toting hicks as long as we keep thinking of them as gun toting hicks.”

    Your concern is duly noted.

  45. lofarabia says:

    #69: I don’t think the issue here is whether McCain is a good person, but whether or not Greenberg was acting legitimately. In that sense, although it’s essential to force people to remember the true cost of this war, it’s not truly “applicable.” I don’t think it’s any better to drape yourself in foreign casualties than it is to drape yourself in the flag. Which is to say, here, the argument just functions as an excuse, and that’s disrespectful to the tragedies themselves.

    #78: I wouldn’t say Greenberg is as frequently sensationalistic as Coulter, but if the tables were turned – if Coulter had taken pictures of crying babies and labeled them “treachery,” or if she had photoshopped intentionally poorly-lit Obama pictures to give him bleeding, gnarled teeth, would it have sounded so out of character? Defamation is defamation, and while I doubt (luckily) that anybody can stoop to Coulter’s uniquely vile level, we should be careful about hanging our hats on the folks who get pretty damn close.

  46. jamesgyre says:

    @wareagle…

    apology accepted… your feeble mind will absorb nuance the more it is shattered.

    “tiss an ill wind that blows no minds”

    @everyone else

    this is a great coup… kudos to jill greenberg. a couple of reactions to common points.

    1. “she jeopardized her career”

    she didn’t… she’s only gained notoriety this way and is very successful already.

    2. “she misled poor little john mccain”

    fuck him. he’s a war-mongerer, woman-hater and a danger to the whole planet. if he can’t handle cultural barbs, imagine him handling russia.

    3. “that shark picture is just too much”

    tell that to an iraqi child with his arms and legs blown off or a parent who just lost all their children. remember john mccain on september 12, 2001 saying we had to invade iraq… remember how there wasn’t any evidence that ever turned up… and you people are up in arms about PHOTOSHOP?

    privileged people crying foul…

    also, i have a direct gallery of the shots here, a detailed post about the story here and a very useful list of john mcSHAME’s lies and insanities here

  47. grimc says:

    @67
    So Greenberg’s actions are OK because McCain’s handlers — (100% agreed) dropped the ball?

    Are you making that argument? ‘Cause I sure didn’t, nor would I.

  48. monstrinho_do_biscoito says:

    as a professional, she should just have refused the job, but it is damn funny.

  49. rrsafety says:

    Greenberg just cost Obama another .5% in the polls.

    Keep it up, Jill!

  50. error404 says:

    The earlier post from the aptly named WAREAGLE.

    Decrying Obama as a Socialist and McCain as a Fascist.

    Actually the USA doesn#t have a socialist/left wing.

    You might think you do, but you don’t you have a centre right and an extreme right wing.

    They only differ on how much of a f*cking they want to give the people.

    Aside from that, one of the pics on G’bergs site has McC saying

    “I called my wife a c*nt in front of reporters”

    When did that happen… and how come it’s not on you tube.

  51. TiwazTyrsfist says:

    H H H, tht’s S fnny.

    Nw, n th ntrst f frnss, why dn’t y mk nc bg pstr bt hw Brck bm hs cnsstntly ld bt th fct tht fr th frst 16 yrs f hs lf h ws sht mslm, nd hs hlf-brthr nd frst csn r tryng t vrthrw th dmcrtc gvrnmnt f Kny nd mps Mslm Shr Lw?

    Wht, yr nt gng t d tht?
    h, srry, frgt yr bs.

  52. FloydT says:

    Grimc… not to you — I guess just a general question to those who seem to support her –whatever that was she calls it.

    I agree his handlers screwed the pooch as it were — every kid with a flashlight and a bathroom has noticed the demonic affect.

  53. Raj77 says:

    There’s a tremendous arrogance in the Democratic meme that one’s candidate should bear every right-wing smear without going on the offensive. It’s one of the reasons that recent candidates have been viewed as aloof or elitist, regardless of facts. It’s complacent in the extreme to maintain the smug moral high ground, and giving the Bush administration endless by-balls because of politeness. Not attacking the perpetrators of atrocity makes you complicit, whether you like it or not.

  54. Raj77 says:

    From “The Real McCain” by Cliff Schecter.

    “Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.”

  55. Antinous says:

    Moderation concerns can be posted in the Moderation Policy thread.

  56. WarEagle says:

    “The tide is turning…..looking around the webs today, one gets a sense that the newness and “wow” factor over Obama is starting to wear off…Americans are waking up to the realization that there is no way in H-E-double hockey sticks is this man fit or ready to be P…”

    I only changed 3 words. will this be disemvowled as well?

  57. Gigolo says:

    KUDOS TO JILL!

    Fuck that magazine and the NY Post anyway!

  58. baconner says:

    As a Democrat this campaign season I’ve had a growing sense of dread that we are doing our party a great disservice in many of our attacks (fair or not) on Mccain. Certainly the photographer here is not doing Obama any good. I’m making the presumption that the staff of boingboing is left-leaning and doesn’t want to hurt the Obama campaign. Supposing that’s correct I hope you will give what I have to say consideration.

    We have a candidate that has bet his campaign on principals like hope, positive change, ethical behavior, and honesty. At the end of the day it’s a character debate as much as it’s an issue debate. It’s fair to say that his campaign has not always lived up to those standards and certainly the official GOP content has gone further in a negative direction, but here’s my issue.

    Mean personal attacks like this, true or not, are only being used against Obama in the character debate. It’s easy to reframe such messages as evidence of Obama’s deceitful personality in the character debate. When liberals attack Mccain and Palin personally (or link to such attacks imo without calling them out on it) those attacks are wrapped up and presented to the public as if they are coming right from Obama. This undercuts his honesty message. It undercuts his ethics message. It makes undecided voters question the truth of his words. And at the end of the day there are a lot of voters out there who vote on the perceived character of the candidates. After all what good are policy promises if you don’t trust what the candidate is telling you?

    Don’t get me wrong I’m certainly not putting all this on boingboing. It’s not like you took the pictures, but I hope you’ll consider the effects of giving mudslinging like this momentum.

  59. 5000! says:

    As UKer I share some of Big Ed Dunkel’s dismay about BB’s partisanship

    BB is a privately owned and operated entity and has no obligation to be non-partisan, nor have they ever cliamed to be. In fact, Cory has written in detail in the past why he has and will continue to post things that reflect his liberal political views. It’s not as if the internet and corporate media aren’t offering bountiful options for either more non-partisan or, more likely, more conservative takes on the subject.

  60. mlc2475 says:

    @24 IMHO is right.

    Neither candidate deserves special treatment. But anyone who is keeping up with what the candidates are saying knows that McCain’s statements are lacking veracity at best. At worst, they’re outright lies. Greenbergs points, whether you agree with their format or not, have to be respected as truthful. He DID say that, and DID do that.

    Were her actions professional? Well, considering this was a personal thing she did, I don’t think they have to be. #31 is right. Now that she’s not getting paid, she’s in the clear to do whatever she wants.

    Did she stoop to the same mudslinging as the right wing? yes.

    Did she hurt the ticket? No. I think she helped it. The midwest swing-voters are influenced by statement and we can all agree that Greenberg certainly made one.

  61. lionelbrits says:

    #28, Antinous: I guess what is considered “contentless shrieking” is a matter of taste, but this is an internet discussion forum, and pretending that it’s a budget meeting only leads to madness. I think I explained this fairly well in my post, but like I said, it’s an ideological thing, so I won’t fault you for not really reading it.

    #32, Nixar: I hope I can sleep soundly tonight knowing that your comment wasn’t sarcastic :)

  62. Righteous Bubba says:

    The Atlantic is saying that Greenberg will not be paid for her work.

    That’s interesting since she owns it and they used it to sell magazines. Let’s see what happens.

  63. Mojave says:

    #34….doubt you will be disemvowelled, but thanks for helping me to make my point. Most people who read BB are smart enough to realize my original statement is based in reality and your feeble attempt is wishful thinking.

  64. lofarabia says:

    I understand sympathizing with her politically in a very broad sense, but to say “more power to her” when she performed a stunt like this… it feels like buying into just another hate machine.

    First of all, my stance is the same for Democrats and Republicans: sex scandals, out-of-context offensive quotes, etc., all of those should be equally OUT of bounds, not equally IN bounds. Why do any of those things actually matter?

    And it’s not that the photographer insulted McCain. He’s a public figure and lampooning him is fair game. (Although honestly, juxtaposing a smile with an embarrassing personal fact and then a poorly-done monster mouth? That’s childish no matter how you slice it and doesn’t earn the label of satire, in my opinion) What she insulted was the news institution that hired her. She willfully used an ostensibly objective outlet as a soapbox from which to paint brain-dead smears, and that’s not at all alright.

    So many people on the left are furious when Coulter comes out with a blatantly sensationalist statement meant to rake in profits while degrading the national debate. Please, remember that there are people like her on your side too, and in my opinion, Greenberg is absolutely one of them.

  65. John Coulthart says:

    did anyone verify that Jill Greenberg put these images on the web-site and that it was not hacked?

    She talks about the photos here:

    http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html

    Regarding the outrage: polite satire is weak and ineffectual satire. The Guardian’s Steve Bell has spent the past seven years depicting George Bush as an imbecilic knuckle-dragging ape; I doubt any of those cartoons will be going in the future Presidential library. We don’t remember the work of James Gillray, John Heartfield, Gerald Scarfe (Sixties and Seventies vintage) and Ralph Steadman for the flattery of their cartoons or montages, do we?

  66. scherbis says:

    #39 – It will be interesting. She may have been free to use outakes from the session to do with what she will. She provided a photograph for the cover of the magazine and it looks like they will use it.

    I wonder what the contract she signed with the magazine says..

    There is also a saying that any publicity is good publicity, so from her point of view, this may be worth it.

  67. WarEagle says:

    They are both true statements in my eyes. Palin scares me. Obama scares me. McCain scares me. Our torn and completely partisan country scares me. battle lines are drawn. either way we are all losing.

    but i’m young. maybe this truly is the politcal process.

    anyway i just like to participate. sorry you have to put up with my feeble mind

  68. Yep says:

    Personally, I think the Greenberg is the one who comes off looking scuzzy on this one. Not to mention ham handed. She’s to political commentary what Rupert Pupkin is to comedy.

  69. Nightbird says:

    On further reading…

    “Editors’ Note

    We stand by the respectful image of John McCain that we used on our cover, and we expect to be judged by it.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/editors-note

    If the cover photo has been approved by the editors of the magazine, then the photographer should be paid for her work. What the photographer does on her own site, however childish, is none of the magazine’s business.

  70. lofarabia says:

    On this issue of being paid, she did use magazine resources for a personal project. There are sticky legal issues on either side, right?

    Or wrong. It just seems like it could go either way, but I’m no lawyer.

  71. Mathleticism says:

    @36
    Thts ll fn nd dndy, bt f BB s cnsrng htrs fr th sm rsns tht thy ccs rght-wng pltcns f (shdng th fll pctr t mk thmslvs lk gd), thn thy r cntrdctng hg thcl cd tht lbrls clm t bs thr blfs n. thnk thts why s mny ppl r cllng thm t n th fct.

  72. jetsetsc says:

    OK that’s it. Boing Boing comment threads used to be a delightfully broad mix of wide ranging opinions, rants, and intelligent discussion. They still are, but the rampant disemvowelling adds zero and subtracts quite a lot. It’s your site, and you’re free to do as you like. I am choosing to quit reading it.

    Censoring posts that are somewhat offensive but still pertinent to the discussion makes this a bland and over-polite echo chamber. That’s not the internet I know and love. See ya.

  73. mlc2475 says:

    Aren’t we really debating the quality of punditry?

    If a picture is worth 1,000 words, all of which pan out to be anti-McCain, how is this image different from an article written in the Huffington Post, or NYT’s Paul Krugman?

  74. prentiz says:

    <>BB s prvtly wnd nd prtd ntty nd hs n blgtn t b nn-prtsn ddn’t sy tht thy hd n blgtn – nly tht ws dsmyd tht, n wbst vry mch lk rdng, thr ws nd t b s prtsn, nd tht fnd t nfrtnt. Cry hs th bslt rght t d wht h lks wth th st – bt tht dsn’t stp m hvng n pnn bt t.

  75. buddy66 says:

    Greenberg’s an amateur at satire and smears. You want really savage satire? Something really smarmy? McCain porn? Click it & weep:

    http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/mcbush_huggiebear28.jpg

  76. Antinous says:

    What part of my comment at #33 is hard to understand?

  77. grimc says:

    @48

    Depends on the language in the contract. I don’t negotiate contracts with photographers in my job, but I do work with them, and I know that agreements can range from complete buyouts (the client owns everything) to limited use agreements (you can use these pictures for this time period). Since professional photographers need to keep building their portfolio, an agreement that allowed her to keep and use at least some of the shots would be standard.

    In the end, the Atlantic’s editors were obviously satisfied with her work, having chosen a photo to put on the cover, so I doubt (depending on the actual language in the contract) they can simply not pay her.

    What I’m wondering is where the Atlantic’s art director and McCain’s media handlers were during the shoot? Anybody who’s ever held a flashlight under their chin would know what kind of result is produced with a strobe placed at the subject’s feet.

  78. mdh says:

    Lionel Brits, can you explain to me how your withering petulance in #33 helps make your point in @23 at all? From here it looks like your asking everyone to be better than you yourself are. Thanks

  79. Garwood says:

    Smn nds t trn ths grl psd dwn nd drg hr rnd lk sx pck tll sh ndrstnds th hrm sh hs brght hr trd.

  80. 5000! says:

    The Atlantic is saying that Greenberg will not be paid for her work.

    As a creative professional with very outspoken political views, I’d be very interested to know what the terms are the she supposedly violated to justify non-payment. Unless it was created as a work-for-hire (which I seriously doubt), she more than likely owns anything that the magazine didn’t use.

    And while what she’s done is arguably unethical, so is using the work she produced for you and not paying her for it.

  81. Troy says:

    Hy Mrk… wy t pmp dshnst phtg. Stdy thcs mch?

    Btwn yr dbnkd Srh Pln bk bnnng vrls nd th dnsr crp nd thn ths — t’s dsgstng. D pltcs hnstly r pls stck t th stff y gys d fntstclly (nd tht’s lt). Grnbrg wldn’t b bl t d stff lk ths wtht th McCn’s f th wrld fghtng n hr bhlf.

    t’s clld grttd — gt sm.

    Nt t mntn th shm n hr prfssn sh’s brght.

    GRMC — thcs dsn’t tk nt ccnt ths thngs. Lnd G. s dshnst. f y nd hndlr t tll y tht thn fl srry fr y.

  82. zootboing says:

    Okay-
    REALLY unprofessional….but VERY apropos.
    Except for the monkey one–that’s just childish.

    Wish i could afford to print these out and guerrilla post them all over the city!

    And Big Ed Dunkel-
    He is a greedy, mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, bad-tempered man who has made a career of betraying everyone in his personal and professional lives that would serve him to do so.

    (And then glossing over those betrayals to portray himself as a veteran’s advocate and “family man”.)

    These glaring deficiencies of loyalty and decency are SO pronounced that even his co-workers in the Senate have publicly commented on it, and the uber-conservative “Economist” agrees that to have him in the lead on foreign policy would be disastrous.

    The Palin nomination is the last-ditch effort of their campaign to distract from all his deficiencies.

    And, well, while I’m afraid that it’s hurt her career, I have to laud Greenberg for this.

    Bush succeeded because too many of us did too little before. Good for her for standing up and resisting.

  83. Secret_Life_of_Plants says:

    I’m sorry, I am too stupid to navigate her site…I see one “out-take” upon launching her page, (Roe v. Wade) but then, once “inside” the website, clicking on the only image I see of McCain just links me to a bunch of her other covers. Can anyone tell me where I am supposed to click to see the actual “out-takes” ?

    I really wonder about these slick sites that are beautiful to look at but fail to take actual human cognition into consideration when designing navigation…

  84. Secret_Life_of_Plants says:

    Nevermind…I clicked on the website before I saw that you actually added instruction for getting there.

    But I think the fact that you had to give instructions just proves my point…

  85. Righteous Bubba says:

    Unless it was created as a work-for-hire (which I seriously doubt), she more than likely owns anything that the magazine didn’t use.

    Her husband posts around sites I read and he says there’s nothing in her contract that would justify non-payment and that she owns the work.

    As far as I can tell this is about a magazine of opinion wanting to withhold payment because of an opinion.

  86. Big Ed Dunkel says:

    I’m really disappointed with BB’s one-sided hits on McCain. I’m a Canadian living in Germany so I have no personal stake in whatever happens in November. But jeez, how about something served up against Obama?

Leave a Reply