Is Easy Bad? [Jill Greenberg and John McCain]

[mjs]

Jill Greenberg is in the news again. Hired to photograph Republican Presidential candidate John McCain for the cover of Atlantic Monthly, she also took photographs for her own political purposes during the shoot, manipulated them and posted them to her own website. The article with longer explanation is here: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/atlantic-monthly-editor-to-offer-apology-to-mccain-for-photogs-doctored-pics/

Is this the future of photography? Are ethics and "professionalism" as "old fashioned" as film is claimed to be (in some quarters)? Looking at the photograph the magazine actually used, can one assume that it is a reasonable likeness or must one now distrust it as well? Do we assume that everything is now Photoshopped to some extent or other, artistic, political, or what have you?

I realize that darkroom photography was always subject to modification, but manipulation to this extent wasn't as widespread, was it? I mean, did it take more or less skill to do this sort of thing in a darkroom?

I can't imagine that she still has a career in photography after this. Who could trust her, regardless of whether they agreed with her ideology or not?

Mike

 

[Ian Grant]

It was just as wide spread, see what the Russians did, and the Chinese.

Ian

 

[mjs]

It was just as wide spread, see what the Russians did, and the Chinese.

Ian

True, but then no one ever assumed that it was anything else, as far as I can find out. But there has always been a popular conception of (film) photography as "honest" by the public at large. It isn't (or at least, doesn't have to be,) but eggregious manipulation was usually pretty easy to detect and roundly condemned when discovered. It seems to me that widespread use of digital manipulation has changed attitudes in general -- ordinary people don't seem to have the same assumption of veracity when they see a photograph as they used to. I wonder whether it seems this way to anyone else.

Mike

 

[keithwms]

I find it rather astonishing that there isn't some legal clause that photographers sign before they are hired for such things. Maybe it is just so unthinkable that a photographer would do this sort of nonsense, everybody just assumes that they will act professionally and ethically.

:rolleyes: I doubt any magazines will make that assumption any more.

Seems to me that Atlantic should have the legal right to embargo her personal work, since the magazine arranged the shoot and the doctored images came from that. Even if the McCain people unwittingly allowed the shoot to proceed, the hole thing was arranged on Atlantic's money.

 

[Ian Grant]

Is it so wrong, I've not seen the photos, but you can bet the ad agencies/campaign managers retouch the photos of this pensioner for posters, press releases etc.

We don't always like the people we photograph for work. She's shown real spunk and nailed her convictions to the mast. Good for her.

Ian

 

[nemo999]

Jill Greenberg ...

I can't imagine that she still has a career in photography after this. Who could trust her, regardless of whether they agreed with her ideology or not?

Mike

I find your conclusion incomprehensible. From a legal point of view, surely all she has done is exercise her right to free speech by producing an obvious caricature in the longstanding tradition of Hogarth, Gillray, Cruikshank and indeed John Heartfield closer to our own time. You may not share her view that McCain is a bloodthirsty warmonger, you may even feel that Greenberg's approach is crude and counter-productive, but that's democracy!

 

[keithwms]

Is it so wrong, I've not seen the photos, but you can bet the ad agencies/campaign managers retouch the photos of this pensioner for posters, press releases etc.

We don't always like the people we photograph for work. She's shown real spunk and nailed her convictions to the mast. Good for her.

Ian

Ian, frankly, if you haven't seen the pics then you shouldn't post your opinion. They are truly awful. Blood dripping out of vampire teeth and such. It does absolutely nothing good for photography.... regardless of your politics, that should be clear.

Just go to her site and see for yourself. We should be able to say that what she did was unethical, regardless of politics.

Nemo, the point is not whether you agree with what she thinks of McCain, the point is that she was hired by Atlantic for a covershoot and she took liberties with material from that paid shoot. It is a form of libel.

 

[SuzanneR]

Is it so wrong, I've not seen the photos, but you can bet the ad agencies/campaign managers retouch the photos of this pensioner for posters, press releases etc.

We don't always like the people we photograph for work. She's shown real spunk and nailed her convictions to the mast. Good for her.

Ian

Yeah, great... she dumbs down the political debate with her childish antics, and, in the process, will in effect make it harder for every single working magazine photographer to own the rights to, and resell to others the work they make as freelancers.

 

[ChrisHensel]

Jill G and John S McCain

No thoughts on this yet?


Love the out takes.

 

[SuzanneR]

Yup

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[ChrisHensel]

Thanks...

I looked...really.

 

[Ian Grant]

Keith, she has a right to do what she wants with her photos, I'm not particularly interested in seeing what she did this time. But she is known for her manipulation of images, so what's the big deal.

Suzzanne Revvy raise a good point , but in the long run Jill Greenberg has mainly only affected her own credibility. Newspapers world wide tamper with and manipulate images in far more insidious ways. At least Gill Greenburg's manipulation is obvious, and she doesn't hide that's what she does.

Ian

 

[ChrisHensel]

Well...she took a shot and exercised her right to free expression.

I am astonished at the deference shown John McCain. He is a public figure. Fair game. The Atlantic publisher (or someone from the magazine) actually apologized for something, which I think is unforgivable. Apologize for what? Nothing wrong with showing contempt for the contemptible.

 

[2F/2F]

If it was in her contract that she could use the pix for personal use, then - "right" or not - her butt is covered, and Atlantic needs to learn to write better contracts...and John McCain needs to sign better contracts. As a lawmaker, he should be able to tell what to sign and what not to sign...or at least have his advisers inform him if he doesn't have the time himself.

If not, she seems rather self destructive.

Quite honestly, there are better methods than visual propaganda with which to attack John McCain. I see it as an unintelligent waste of time and resources. She is better off just posting a list of his voting record from the past 30 years than playing mean-spirited and stupid visual games. That one record holds *everything* we need to know about him, as does anyone's voting record. The worst possible thing for the liberal cause is not conservatives, but fellow stupid-ass liberals.

Also, it was pretty darned stupid of Atlantic to hire someone "vehemently anti Republican" for this job.

Either way, the cover shot is lousy. I can't believe anyone at Atlantic looked at it and decided it was good to print. I assume the manipulations she published personally are lousy as well. The only thing she has done is proven she is a hack and an amateur, and put one more nail into the coffin of the near-dead liberal cause in the U.S.

As to the idea that it is libel, that is an ill-informed and incorrect statement. It's chickenshit, but it isn't libel. A lot of conditions have to be met to make something truly libelous, and I will tell you that it is nearly impossible to prove in court with a public figure and political commentary. If anything, she has stolen (or ethically abused - which is not a crime) publishing rights, but she has not libeled McCain. The contract alone will determine whether it is legal for her to publish images from the shoot on her own. To do some simple research as to what libel is and isn't, I would start by reading the Associated Press Libel Manual, which should be available in any bookstore piggybacked onto the Stylebook. If there is anyone who needs to have a practical, bare bones understanding of libel summarized in easily digestible fashion, its news writers, therefore I find this the best bit of reading one can do to understand libel and slander relatively quickly, but in good detail.

 

[keithwms]

Keith, she has a right to do what she wants with her photos, I'm not particularly interested in seeing what she did this time. But she is known for her manipulation of images, so what's the big deal

Okay, so let's suppose that you get hired to do a shoot. Let's depoliticise it; it's an issue of ethics, not politics. So suppose you get hired to do a shoot for... BMW. You do the shoot and you give the photos to BMW for some advert, which they run. Then you take some shots from the same shoot and you post them on your site, after using photoshop to write "BMW sucks" on the vehicle or paint particularly sensitive historical symbols on the vehicle. Need I say more.

You really don't see anything wrong with this???

Listen, I am all for freedom of speech. I am a card-carrying libertarian; don't get me started! But this is libel, clearly. I am quite sure there will be legal action over this; Atlantic stands to lose a lot of credibility because of her actions. And Suzanne is absolutely right that this will be detrimental to all photographers.

 

[SuzanneR]

Well...she took a shot and exercised her right to free expression.

I am astonished at the deference shown John McCain. He is a public figure. Fair game. The Atlantic publisher (or someone from the magazine) actually apologized for something, which I think is unforgivable. Apologize for what? Nothing wrong with showing contempt for the contemptible.

They hired a photographer who behaved at best, like a childish brat, and at worse... completely unethically. She was there representative.

I used to work for a news magazine, and when I hired a photographer who was working for us, I expected them to behave professionally and ethically. They had to apologize for her behavior. The Atlantic, I have no doubt, will take McCain to task, though I have not seen, nor read the Oct. issue, but drawing little devil horns, and using lighting setups designed to deceive is hardly the way they would want to present meaningful political debate.

I don't think the apology is inappropriate... her behavior was.

 

[k_jupiter]

Ian,

Ya got this one wrong. She was hired and paid to represent a well known publication to get a cover photograph of a major political figure. She was not paid to collect her own material for her personal edification or even gratification. I would suspect she did not inform Mr. McCain that the shoot for Atlantic was complete and could she have a few more poses for her own portfolio. Nor that she was thinking about trashing her work to make politcal satire out of it and him. That's dishonest.

As to whether an ad campaign manager retouches a photo, she would have to have pretty tight editorial controls built into her contract to keep them from modifying the work. The most she could do is make sure her name was not put on the work when published in a modified form.

And yes, I am as Democratic as they come. Think of how high the shit would sail if someone did this to Obama, making him out as a Sambo (who contrary to most public perception was Indian, not African American) in Photo Shopped caricature.

I agree with Suzanne R. The bar gets much higher.

tim in san jose

 

[ChrisHensel]

The Atlantic, I have no doubt, will take McCain to task, though I have not seen, nor read the Oct. issue, but drawing little devil horns, and using lighting setups designed to deceive is hardly the way they would want to present meaningful political debate.

I have the issue right here. The article is more then fair to Senator McCain.

Meaningful political debate? Where is that taking place?

 

[SuzanneR]

The Atlantic, I have no doubt, will take McCain to task, though I have not seen, nor read the Oct. issue, but drawing little devil horns, and using lighting setups designed to deceive is hardly the way they would want to present meaningful political debate.

I have the issue right here. The article is more then fair to Senator McCain.

Meaningful political debate? Where is that taking place?

Chris... I have not read the Atlantic issue, yet, and have stated that. I've never seen the Atlantic as a particularly conservative publication... but I will hold my judgment until I've read the Oct. issue, and I'll concede your point that perhaps they haven't taken him to task. Though, I'd argue that hiring Greenberg in the first place wouldn't result in the world's most flattering image... they had to know that!

That said.. meaningful political debate gets sidetracked by idiots like Greenberg. I'm not a fan of John McCain, but I'm also not particularly enthusiastic about Obama, and in general.. our choices in this democracy are dismal.

But meaningful political is so hard to find because in part because of people like Greenberg, and a whole host of others. On both sides...

 

[JBrunner]

What she did is probably legal, depending on her contract with the magazine. It was also unethical and certainly tasteless. Liberals don't need people like this on their side. I also suspect the actions are at least partly motivated by a desire for publicity.

 

[SuzanneR]

I also suspect the actions are at least partly motivated by a desire for publicity.

Ya think?

 

[jovo]

... I also suspect the actions are at least partly motivated by a desire for publicity.

After all the flack she received after her "crying babies" series was published, were she responsible and caring, she'd not be doing this unethical stuff. I doubt her motivations were only "partly" oriented to her desire for publicity.

I might agree somewhat with her politics, but her expression thereof, and the means she has chosen to use are repugnant.

 

[Aurum]

From what I've just seen of her work http://www.manipulator.com/

She has a certain style, which may be suitable for the task.

From a UK perspective I've seen a LOT worse done with photoshop with politicians.
For instance, have a look around UK based sites such as http://www.bbdo.co.uk/ orhttp://www.b3ta.com

So I'm pretty ambivalent about what Senator McCain had done to him

 

[2F/2F]

What she did is probably legal, depending on her contract with the magazine. It was also unethical and certainly tasteless. Liberals don't need people like this on their side. I also suspect the actions are at least partly motivated by a desire for publicity.

In essence, what I believe. Thank you for saying it so much better and more succinctly than I did!

 

[Vaughn]

Well, at least she manipulate photos she took herself and not by others.

I am reminded of the photo taken by Yousuf Karsh of the WWII German industrialist (Kulp?). He purposefully lit the his face from underneath to make him look as evil as he supposively was (slave labor, etc). Haven't heard a word of censure about that image. Sorry, tried to find a copy of the image online, but could not.

Vaughn