[Leica] screaming children meet john

[kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour)]

On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Peter Klein wrote:

> The cover photo is not the issue.
>
> Ms. Greenberg actually delivered a good cover photo.  McCain looks  
> tough, weathered, a "don't mess with the U.S" kinda guy with his  
> history written on his face.  I subscribe to the Atlantic, and I  
> remember thinking that the photo was striking.  I paid much more  
> attention to the article than to the photo.  The article explores  
> how McCain's wartime experiences have affected his psychology and  
> world view.  It's a good article.  The image fits the content.
>
> What is at issue is that Greenberg used the same photo session to  
> take some stealth pictures with Hollywood horror lighting and  
> angles.  She didn't take them for the Atlantic, she took them to  
> embarrass and lampoon McCain.  She then Photoshopped the pictures,  
> adding bloody shark's teeth to one of McCain's images, and added a  
> monkey defecating on the Senator in another.  And so forth.  She  
> then posted these on her Web site, commenting gleefully how she  
> hated McCain and had pulled a fast one on him and his people by  
> taking her additional pictures.
>
> I've thought Ms. Greenberg had highly questionable ethics since the  
> "crying children" affair.  This episode only reinforces this.  Her  
> actions were stupid, juvenile and even counterproductive to her own  
> political aims. She's given the right-wing pundits and bloggers  
> something else to rant about, to divert attention from the real  
> issues.  The Atlantic now has egg on its face. It has to grovel and  
> apologize. The integrity of a thoughtful publication has been  
> tainted, and the substance of the article has been lost in the  
> controversy.
>
> Yes, that the Atlantic didn't "vet" her is their mistake, and their  
> own fault. But at that level of the profession, the idea that a  
> photographer would pull such a stunt may simply not have occurred to  
> them.
>
> If you're hired by a respected national magazine to take a picture  
> of a candidate you don't like during a highly charged national  
> campaign, you have a choice.  You do the job, and stay out of the  
> politics.  Or you refuse the job, and play the politics all you  
> want.  You can't do both at the same time and maintain your own or  
> your client's integrity. And by extension, the integrity of all your  
> fellow photographers.
>
> Ms. Greenburg's manipulated images were in such poor taste that I  
> don't think they would persuade anyone of anything.  They belong in  
> junior high school, or perhaps in a bad Yippie publication from the  
> 60s.  For this, and a few minutes of fame, she has done some real  
> damage to a good magazine, her profession, and probably to the cause  
> she espouses in the bargain.
>
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.

welll thought out and written Peter,

what was she thinking?

what was the Atlantic thinking?

sounds like they knew Ms Greenberg about as well as McCain knew Palin...

vetting...everyone wants to know what it means...

(it means nothing...)


Steve

>
>
> --Peter
>
>
>> On Sep 16, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
>>
>> >  Jill Greenberg deliberately used unflattering lighting and  
>> editing,
>> > even adding a monkey to a photo, to portray McCain in a biased way.
>> > If she wants to do that for "art", that's her prerogative, but it
>> > has no place on the cover of the Atlantic Monthly unless they are
>> > covering her art exhibit.  It's certainly not photojournalism.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information