Photographer Jill Greenberg Won’t Be Working For the Atlantic Again Any Time Soon

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


mojo-photo-monstermccain.jpgJill Greenberg’s portrait of John McCain for the October cover of the Atlantic (see below) is either a bit gnarly or respectably granitic, depending on your perspective: all of McCain’s “experience” is etched in the deep, harshly-lit lines on his face. But in case you were wondering what Greenberg’s perspective is, she’s made things abundantly clear on her web site, the aptly-named Manipulator, taking some of the more unflattering (and sneakily-executed) pictures from the shoot, adding some grody Photoshoppery, and posting the results. As Boing Boing points out, the elaborate Flash-filled site means one can’t link directly to the pictures, but you can see one to the right, and Gawker has a couple more posted.

The Atlantic, unsurprisingly, isn’t happy, with editor James Bennet issuing a statement that Greenberg has “disgraced herself” and that they are “appalled” by the images. The accompanying piece’s author, Jeffrey Goldberg, released a statement saying that Greenberg’s “‘art’ is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive… she betrayed this magazine and disgraced her profession.”

Certain bloggers are quick to jump on these portraits as a symbol of an immoral Left: Shannon Love’s post on Chicago Boyz is the most unintentionally hilarious, decrying liberals for believing that “the enormous benefits of their enlightened rule outweigh any consequences of the dishonest acts that bring about that rule.” Dishonest acts, you say? Sure, these are crappy Photoshop jobs, and I’m not sure exactly what the point is or the actual outcome will be: in today’s chaotic political world, attacks beget sympathetic reactions beget opposing backlash beget underdog resurgence. But, jeez, if you were doing the McCain photo shoot, wouldn’t you play a little joke, if you could get away with it?

mojo-photo-mccaincover.jpg

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate