quote:

The editor of The Atlantic Monthly said Monday he is sending a letter of apology to John McCain after a woman the magazine hired to photograph the Republican presidential nominee posted manipulated pictures from the photo shoot on her Web site.

Photographer Jill Greenberg, who is vehemently anti-Republican and expressed glee that the photos would stir up conservative ire, took pictures of McCain for the cover of The Atlantic’s October issue.

During the shoot, she took several other backlit pictures, which she then doctored and posted to her site. In one photo, she added blood oozing from McCain’s shark-toothed mouth and labeled it with the caption “I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer.” In another, a caption over McCain’s head says, “I will have my girl kill Roe v. Wade,” an obvious reference to his running mate Sarah Palin’s anti-abortion positions.

Editor James Bennet said Greenberg behaved improperly and will not be paid for the session. He said the magazine is also considering a lawsuit.

“She has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so we’re taking steps. So we’re looking into what steps we can see to do something about that,” Bennet told FOX News, adding that he is “already drafting a letter of apology” to McCain.

“I mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us … but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way,” he said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Who owns the photos? They got the shots they contracted for, and she's allowed to express her opinion in her own way on her own time. Now if they own the negatives, that would be something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Seriously, New Yorker runs a cover making Michelle and Barack look like terrorists, no problem...and the Atlantic runs an inside photo that makes McCain look like the friggin' "imperius leader" from the original Battlestar Galactica, and they get upset? If this proves anything, it's that the McCain campaign is composed of whiners who can't take critisisim.

/quote]


now come on and be fair - the NYer said they were being satirical!      I'm guessing that the Atlantic wasn't going for a fantasy shot.

(in reply to bipolarber)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Who owns the photos? They got the shots they contracted for, and she's allowed to express her opinion in her own way on her own time. Now if they own the negatives, that would be something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Of course, on reflection.... because this will probably make the news cycle, every TV show and online news hub will be carrying the photo... in the end, more people will see it than if they had just STFU about it in the first place... LOL  Serves 'em right.

With luck, the left will blow this up out of proportion, making it a "freedom of the press" issue, and it'll continue to be put up in front of the american public again, and again, and again...

The photographer may not work for the Atlantic again, but this shot could make her career!