Jill Greenberg & McCain
I made an important note to myself when starting this blog: never go after anyone, or attack anyone on this blog – my grandmother used to say: “If you don’t have anything good to say about something – don’t say anything.” So I’m not going to make any comments on what I personally think about this – I’ll let the following quotes speak for themselves. A routine Google search to the responses to this will lead you to what other people think – and are doing as a result of these statements.
These are quotes I’ve found from a PDN Article, and other sites here, here and here
N.B. – I am not vouching for any of the views or opinions expressed in any of the linked articles – I’m just giving you links.
“He thought he was being lit by a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. But that wasn’t firing. He had no idea he was being lit from below.”
“I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad.”
“Good. I want to stir stuff up, but not to the point where I get audited if he becomes president.”
–Atlantic photographer, Jill Greenberg, on her technique for getting photos of McCain for the magazine’s cover story.
and some responses I found listed on John Harrington’s site:
Greenberg’s client has weighed in (via the New York Post):
“We stand by the picture we are running on our cover,” said Atlantic editor James Bennet. “We feel it’s a respectful portrait. We hope we’ll be judged by that picture.”
But Bennet was appalled by Greenberg saying she tried to portray McCain in an unflattering way.
“We feel totally blind-sided,” he said. “Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional.”
The author of the story weighs in here:
“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.”
And the PR Agency for the magazine issued yet another statement by the editor:
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. Based on the portraits she had done of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger and her work for publications like Time, Wired, and Portfolio, we expected Jill Greenberg, 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.”
UPDATE: Here’s a great discussion of this as well on Mark Tucker’s Blog.
______________________________________________________________________________
I will say one thing – and the following statement is the impetus behind this post: regardless of my opinion on Greenberg – what is terrible is the impact that this will have on every single photographer that ever takes a portrait or photo from hereon out – you can expect PR people to be more viligent than ever, hold the media back with even tighter leashes, and as a result often kill our chance towards original photography.
Some general comments I’d like to make:
If you are an “artist” stay an artist – do not engage in journalism without playing by journalism’s “rules” and codes of professional conduct. I’m not saying that artists shouldn’t engage in journalism- just read the prior statement again if you’re reading this as such.
Human beings have thoughts and opinions- and that’s wonderful and we should welcome those thoughts no matter how “off” or “right on” they may be – as professionals, especially if you’re a professional working in the “media business” – there are some thoughts that you should never, ever be caught saying in a public forum.
Thanks so much for highlighting the actions of Jill Greenberg. As a professional photographer she really did show the world HER true colors… and they are dispicable. She disgraces the profession. sad so very sad.
That’s quite flattering. He looks like he could live another 15 years, or months, maybe. It’s not flattering, but it’s his own fault he looks like that. Bit of a stitch up, but well deserved. Nice lighting!
Personally, I can’t stand the guy but when I am hired to shoot a portrait of a major party’s nominee for President of our country I feel I:
a. have to show myself to be the professional I am and deliver the best quality product within my ability.
b. cut the guy some slack. you don’t want him to be elected? Put a yard sign in front of your home and help register people to vote for the candidate you support; that’s what I’m doing.
Geez.
The guy at PDN certainly allowed his subject to hang both herself (and that’s her right) and to, basically, hang the rest of his presumed audience/target market as well. Unfortunately, we didn’t get to vote on the issue of client relationships, manners, ethics and the very meaning of the word “professional”. I guess now we have to tell our clients to “trust us, we’re here to help them” and, like Fox, we’re “Fair and Balanced”…
Crap!!!!
Should an arranged photo shoot ever be considered “journalism?” While most journalism is editorial in nature, not all editorial work is journalistic.
Personally, I would hope that all professionals act in an ethical and trustworthy manner. It’s sad if she acted in a deceitful manner, and it may have been a bit more decent of her to reject the assignment. On the other hand, I don’t believe the magazine for one second that they don’t consider the photographer’s politics when shooting an assignment. If they hired Michael Moore to shoot a documentary piece for their website, would they be shocked by his politics?
Given that Jill Greenberg’s website is “www.manipulator.com” with a title of “Manipulator” I would hardly consider her a journalist by any stretch of the imagination.
It was totally worth it. Artists need to have the courage to tell the truth if journalist’s won’t. Journalism is supposed to be objective. Art is supposed to stir emotion. I’m proud of people like Jill Greenberg.
I wonder if there is indeed such a thing as “bad” publicity. It used to be if you wanted people to notice you got you book banned in Boston. Now you can have it done on the internet.
Some things less said is better.
@daniel above.
As much as I wouldn’t accept a job with the intention of ‘tanking’ it, I don’t think this is necessarily PR for Ms. Greenberg at all.
Her goal might be different than we assume it to be.
I can’t say for sure, but I’m betting that Atlantic pays peanuts compared to her work for clients like Discovery Channel (Shark Week campaign, if I recall) and her gallery presence.
See, I don’t think Ms. Greenberg has any interest at all in working in the editorial/photojournalism market anymore.
This may have been a way for her to say goodbye to that part of the business, make her own political statement, get her name out there even more, and drive up her ‘value’ in some circles.
We’re looking at her ‘giving up’ something that a lot of us would love to have; but assuming that she wants to have it at all.
I’m personally afraid to make mention of politics outside of the circle of journos I work with/around for the sake of driving off news clients if I speak too loudly and make it appear that I can’t do my job without bias.
Relative to Ms. Greenberg, I’m a lot further behind in my career. I’m still pretty low on the totem pole, but knowing how hard it is out there (and close-knit/gossipy to boot) even from my vantage point, I can’t believe that she has come so far in her career and doesn’t know exactly what she’s doing in this situation.
Maybe I’m wrong, but who intentionally stinks up a room so much with no purpose in mind?
Another site that explores the ramifications of how this will affect commercial photographers in the future:
http://tinyurl.com/5w49tz
I think she should stick to abusing children. It seems to suit her mentality.
She better get her ass out registering Democrat voters. If McCain wins, she’ll have to go back to Canada. Of course, if Obama wins she’ll probably be his Official Photographer.
She took things way too far. No question in my mind, and I consider myself a very liberal person.
But… Ignoring the “rules” of doing such a portrait (if that’s possible)…
It says “Why war is his answer”. So, from a purely logical standpoint, shouldn’t the image reflect the title? The problem is in defining whether or not war is good and nobody seems to agree on that one.
The hooplah over the cover image is misplaced. The photograph is exactly what Atlantic wanted, or they wouldn’t have put it on the cover. It uses Greenberg’s distinctive lighting style, that’s what they hired her for. Sure it’s not heavily retouched, is this now a BAD thing? Can we no longer portray a craggy old politician exactly as he is, without whitening his eyes and softening his skin?
The outrage seems to be solely about the deliberately distorted images that the Atlantic did NOT use. Greenberg is being castigated for what are essentially outtakes. If the Atlantic did not use the outtakes, they can express no outrage over them.
There’s a truly spectacular discussion going on about this over at the strobist website:
Even better – it has not degenerated into political mudslinging.
Ms. Greenberg’s quotes on working with presidential hopeful John McCain are utterly despicable. I’ll use them as an example of poor ethics in journalism to my high school PJ club on Wednesday. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
How can arranged portraits *ever* be called somthing like true journalism? They are always colored by the photographer taking them.
And while we´re at it, journalism is never without a personal twist of the truth: this twisting is taught at journalist educations, and practised everywhere in the profession.
Good work, Greenberg.
For God’s sake get off the fence and have an opinion.
Well we can only hope that she has truely blotted her copy book and won’t be hired by any more editorial publications.
She has shown what a self centered and ignorant woman she is and once her five minutes of fame are up I hope that she dissapears back in to her dark little cave and never comes back.
Journalism (photography) doesn’t need people like this.
I don’t like Greenberg or most of her work, but these complaints are nonsense. The critique of objectivity in journalism in general and photography in specific is well-developed, but not even required here. Are we going to pretend there’s such thing as an objective approach in portrait photography? Is there any true objectivity in making McCain (or any subject) look “good” or at least unoffensive? No. So let’s not get up on imaginary high horses and ride out against someone who made McCain look “bad.”
The notion that Greenberg’s photographs have an angle and interpretive approach should be no more surprising than the concept that the Atlantic’s feature article takes a position or positions on McCain. Indeed, as Charles pointed out above, the Atlantic chose an image that it decided was appropriate. This editorial decision was preceded by the editorial decision to commission Greenberg, whose style is well known. Will we hear similar howling about “despicable bias” and “poor journalistic ethics” when National Review hires a photographer to make McCain look magnificent and heroic?
I couldn’t agree more with your last statement Vincent, mixing professional work with your believes and showing it off can only damage fellow professionals, let keep everything in its place and moment.
I won’t argue on what is journalism and what is not but I still have a question or rather something that is not exactly clear for me – why did the magazine run that cover if it’s considered offensive and unflattering.
I agree that the photographer clearly tried to influence the perception and ‘image’ of the person she was photographing but overall if that photo is so outrageous, why the hell did the magazine run it ?
Every time I do some portrait work, I get guidelines and a clear description of what is expected by the editor, than when I deliver my work there is an approval to be obtained by the client.
Apparently there has never been a problem until now, much later, when the world discover that it’s an unflattering portrait. Isn’t it a bit late for that ?
The only thing I feel I should point out, is that the quotes you use referring to two separate photographs. While the quote about leaving his eyes red and skin looking bad are about the cover photo (and pretty obviously so), the reference to the “stealth flash” is about a picture that The Atlantic didn’t use.
Both images are available on the link you provided, so it’s easy enough to verify.
Anyway, I think we can all agree that Greenberg acted unprofessionally. That much, I think, goes without saying.
This whole politics thing is getting really out of hand! These elections are starting to be more and more like The Real World than anything else. A local talk show was making fun of Palin for saying “Nuclear” differently (simply an accent) and calling her uneducated and not ready for the role she would have to take.
This is about the future leader our country for 4+ years. It is not a popularity contest or about who P-Diddy tells MTV to vote for or should be based on age.
It’s funny because all I have been hearing is mocking and jokes about McCain and Palin yet in the same vein Obama’s losing fans…
On the news a couple days ago, they said how he will now most likely lose the NY vote.
The only real problem is that she said anything. Opinion is good and when you photo someone that opinion ought to creep into what you are doing. But – she might regret discussing the method. The result is great and stands well on its own.
She acted fully professionally and as an artist should. Admirable. Candy assed – GWC’s – guys with camera – lacking didactic, perspective and point of view need not apply.
I think her attitude towards a paying Job is highly, highly unprofessional and she seems to be rather cocky in her attitude. If the magazine had hired her to do a personal work of art on the subject McCain then she would have been well within her rights. But they did not. They hired her to get a photo for their magazine, and she was deceitful in the way she portrayed her subject on behalf of a paying Client.
On the other the magazine DID publish the picture and they had to approve of the photo before it went to press.
The photograph itself is not that bad and I doubt that the general public would catch that his eyes are red and the skin tone is not what it should be. So what is the big deal!
Go Freedom of speech in the USA
I enjoy your blog. I think you are an amazing photographer. Anyway, I found this disturbing. It would be a like a doctor having a bias toward a person and therefore not giving him all his medical option and saying “well, he is responsible for his own body, if he doesn’t know what other options he has then he’s an idiot.” That doctor would be fired…hopefully. I believe that as a photographer your photos are your own. However, when somone hires you for your art and professionalism you owe it to them to do your best work for them. When photographing children I always try to capture them the way their mom sees them, not the way I do (dirty, little brats…just kidding). Anyway, you get my point. I think what she did was dispicable. I would have respected her for handing this job off to someone else who had the capacity for professionalism.
As a newsperson, the images are completely tasteless — not to mention how she went about getting them. On the other hand, she is an artist and I’m not really surprised.
If you hire someone whose title is “The Manipulator” and whose website is http://www.manipulator.com/ …
Sometimes you have to play devil’s advocate,
even if just for a little while,
to help provide others with a truly balanced perspective.
“Does the Truth Matter Anymore?”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/does_the_truth_matter_anymore.html
“Boy, do I miss the old John McCain and wonder what became of him. And I wonder if the media will really take on this onslaught of half-truths and outright deception.”
“All the Sad Young Journalists Who Used to Love John McCain”
http://gawker.com/5050626/all-the-sad-young-journalists-who-used-to-love-john-mccain
“On the whole, the journalists who’ve TURNED AGAINST their former boyfriend John McCain are some of our least favorite journalists in the nation, embodying as they do everything insular and adolescent about the Washington Press Corps. They loved John McCain when he could convince them that he was only bullshitting to the voters, not to them. Now, he won’t speak to them! And hey, he’s lying about shit, too, but whatever.”
I worked as a television photojournalist at two major stations in San Diego for over 7 years. The problem is, Jill Greenberg DID follow “professional journalistic” standards. When I was “outed” as a republican, my job was on the line. IF you are a “journalist” these days and want to surrvive in the newsroom, news directors office or on the assignment desk, you better be a hard core America hating left winger. There is ZERO political diversity in todays newsroom. Jill Greenberg is simply the norm among todays “journalists”, I KNOW because I suffered persecution from these left wing nut jobs. And please, the proper term is not journalist, it is Obama press secretary. Great blog and thanks for having the GUTS to publish this.
I support Jill Greenberg. These photos were great. I’m sorry that “Todd Covelli” is living on Planet “America-hating-left-winger” but the reality is that most media does favor the Republicans: Fox, ABC, Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report, National Review, and on and on.
They would like to divert attention from the $700 Billion bailout of their cronies to stories about an “elitist” photographer.
Since i am European my voice and vote doesnt count here so much since McCain is the candidate for the american presidency.
But honestly : I do like the picture. Its not perfect. It shows an old man, who has been through a lot and who gained expierence by this.
And while i in no way support McCain and his politcs, i think its a really great picture for what he tries to sell.
Its the first portrait picture of him in which looks honest to me.
Maybe i am weird … but well … it makes him more human and i do think that this is always a good trait in a politican.
According to Apple’s Oxford American Dictionaries..
avant-garde |ˈavänt ˈgärd; ˌavä n |
noun (usu. the avant-garde)
new and unusual or experimental ideas, esp. in the arts, or the people introducing them : works by artists of the Russian avant-garde.
adjective
favoring or introducing such new ideas : a controversial avant-garde composer.
DERIVATIVES
avant-gardism |-ˌdizəm| noun
avant-gardist |-dist| noun
ORIGIN late Middle English (denoting the vanguard of an army): from French, literally ‘vanguard.’ Current senses date from the early 20th cent.
Thesaurus
avant-garde
adjective
this year’s avant-garde fashion statement
innovative, original, experimental, left-field, inventive, ahead of the times, cutting/leading/bleeding edge, new, modern, innovatory, advanced, forward-looking, state-of-the-art, trend-setting, pioneering, progressive, Bohemian, groundbreaking, trailblazing, revolutionary; unfamiliar, unorthodox, unconventional; informal offbeat, way-out.
antonym conservative.
zorg 09.21.08 -” but the reality is that most media does favor the Republicans:”
Really?
I don’t have issue with what she did. No matter how professional we are, our emotions do get involved in what we do. But what I don’t agree on is the fact she would even give such an interview exposing what she did. That’s just dumb.
I had a boatload of respect for her as an artist before this…I’m so disappointed in her actions regardless of political affiliations. You raise a fantastic point on how future actions by photographers will be judged.
“If you don’t have anything good to say about something – don’t say anything.” or in other words, keep your head stuck in the sand. The shot of McCain is not journalism, it’s a portrait for a magazine cover and a damn good one. Her photo manipulation was childish but well executed.
As for “hurting other photographers” that is just complete nonsense.
If people are being more vigilant with you because of this, which I doubt, then deal with it. Digital imaging allows them to see shots as they are taken so if they want to be that vain than let them have at it.
Ms Greenberg is a top photographer and anybody who doesn’t hire her because they’re having a hissy fit over this is the one losing out.
greenberg is not a professional, she is a child with a camera.
I think the issue of artists or journalists telling the truth or saying what needs to be said, etc. Is beside the point. She had a job that she was hired to do, she purposefully executed it poorly, and took advantage of those who were paying her.
I think many of those commenting on the page may not have read the original text — Greenberg did take a deliberately ugly photo, but the Atlantic did not use it. If you think the photo on the cover makes him look bad, that’s just because, well, he looks bad.
What ever happened to ethics and professionalism? Or does artistic license trump it? I’d like to believe it doesn’t. I’ll chalk this one up to immaturity.
I have to admit that when I first saw that Canon had included a video function with the EOS 5D MKII that it was just a gimmick to sell a few cameras to those who weren’t really into SLR photography.
If I had a hat I’d be sprinkling some salt on it right now and preparing to tuck in.
This superb video demonstrates just what a powerful tool Canon has released.
Well I thought that I would not upgrade my Canon 5D for another few years but now I’m am seriously thinking about saving up a few pennies.
Anyone prepared to make children cry in order to make a political statement, and incidentally whip up a storm of publicity for her latest exhibition, is obviously someone who would not think twice about compromising journalistic ethics.
Unfortunately she believes very strongly in her views and is prepared to vilify anyone who disagrees with her view. I say unfortunately, because it is the very trait she condemns in the people she rails against.
Unfortunately she beleives very strongly in her views and is prepared to vilify anyone who disagrees with her view. I say unfortunately because it is the very trait she condemns in the people she rails against.
Ooops sorry for my posting everyone. Seems I left in a paragraph I thought I had deleted. 🙂
Very very usefull info. I think this is a ‘TOP1 Article into Build Link Popularity. Keep going!