Photographer Only to Get Free Publicity for Fooling McCain

#27- No, they printed relatively tame pics.

It's what she did with the leftovers that riled them up.

Give me a break. They saw the photos before they printed them. They had to. If they didn't like her shots, they could've subbed in another. They obviously didn't have a problem with her shots until she started talking about them.

So you mean the GOP are the only "evil" party here?

Really? You believe that?

i checked her website and her photographs are amazing.

Maybe if he did not embody all that is evil -as Republicans in the government VERY OFTEN AND CURRENTLY do- this would be only a stupid image...but it is a very accurate measure on where things are and what he represents.

yay!

i'm so happy to see this! hopefully this controversy will spread that wonderful image around far and wide. one thing that's not getting discussed very much in all the hullaballoo is this:

john mccain IS a bloodthirsty warmonger!

we can't usually see the blood on his hands, because he and his kind kill at a remove. they don't get blood on their nice suits.

ms. greenberg has digitally restored the blood dripping from their lips, so that we are reminded about the effects of the policies that men (and women) like him enact.

are their policies working?

Greenberg has a great series of crying kids on her sit. It makes all the Park Slope mothers @ my job cringe, which is a wonderful thing.

She gave the client what they wanted and used the rest for herself. No harm, no foul.

Fuck her. She's not important or relevant by next week. Or at least Oct.

Who was the artist for the New Yorker cover? Does anyone remember?

The Atlantic had its reputation to consider..what? they are still publishing? Lewis Lapham still subscribes? I hear the collective groan of disgust over this womans treachery emanating from assisted living centers across the Northeast.

@Taksain

I think you kinda proved my point. I'm saying that if the public does not seem to care what bad things McCain does, when most fact checking organizations are saying that he's flat out lying or distorting, and continuing a sleazy campaign...things that actually matter...

...then why would someone care about what a random photographer did, that no one knows?

do we even know if jill greenberg is a registered democrat? no! how can anybody say she speaks for or acts on behalf of the democrats? the answer is, you can't. because she doesn't. although if some person took embarassing photos of obama and posted them inappropriately, i'd surely assume they were a republican and want to blame it on the republican's lack of morals, ethics, and human decency. we're all guilty here.

what jill did was both sort of cool, and also wrong, as most cool things are (smoking, eg.)

ultimately though, if Greenberg dislikes mccain and wants him to lose, she should have known that what she was doing was selfish and counterproductive to the cause.

The cover shot wasnt bad, and if they didnt like the alternative setup that she shot, they shouldnt have run it.

She was given an assignment to photograph John McCain, not photograph him in any particular layout, way, or feel, just to photograph him. The magazine hired her because they liked her work, however it is there responsibility to be aware of her work, and Jill Greenberg hasnt exactly avoided controversy in her career.

@driftwood: What has McCain's campaign been doing? It seems like they've been perfectly content to sit back and let Obama's campaign and the artists and media people do the job for him.

But, you must be right... that must explain why McCain's shaved 15 points points of Obama's lead in New York. IN NEW YORK!!!

Be a professional when on the job and save snarky cuntiness for the internets.

#12: That's only because they're more upset by the nonstop Palin bashing.

you think instead they'll get upset about pictures from a rogue photographer? Right.

It's called a double standard. This photographer doesn't even have anything to do with Obama, but she'll be mentioned on talk radio 100 times this week as an example of how hateful liberals are.

@Tkaisen

Really? You think that after everything McCain's been doing, being criticized repeatedly for the way he's been running his campaign based on lies and distortions about Obama? While not really talking about anything. No one's really gotten too upset...you think instead they'll get upset about pictures from a rogue photographer? Right.

Greenberg also got into a minor kerkuffle a while back over her photographs of crying children.

I do like her work, though her personality seems to rub me the wrong way.

When are idiot Democrats going to realize that this stuff turns off independent voters. It doesn't help your position.

It's amazing how this party, for whom this current election should have been a formality, manages to continually shoot itself in the foot and make a race out of this.

Maybe next someone in the Obama campaign or a hip artist can goof on Palin for having a retard for a baby. That'll surely help!

Barring all the political shit, it really is unprofessional, to say the least.

Not that any of you care.

I want to drink those children's tears like Mason Verger from Hannibal.

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

gallery of the pictures in question

Her photography is hardly juvenile - she actually has an incredible style for shooting portraits.

The photo itself is pretty awesome-looking- great lighting. She should sign Bush up for a session.

Shame on her, fooling an old man like that!

HE WAS A POW!

9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!

SARAH PALIN IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!

Stupid old box deserved to look like an idiot.

a new career? hardly? her work is terrific and this as any publicity stunt, will catapult her to a new level.

http://images.google.com/images?sa=N&tab=ni&q=Jill%20Greenberg

Time for a new career for her!

Oh, God, it's lèse majesté! The sacred image of the emperor-designate, McCain Augustus, has been defaced!