September 16, 2008
"fittingly called The Manipulator"
Michele Catalano takes a close look at the Jill Greenberg affair in a piece titled "Unrepentant Photographer Turns McCain Into a Monster":
What has become of journalistic integrity? As if it wasn't already on its way to a slow death, its demise has been shoved forward a few steps thanks to the Atlantic and photographer Jill Greenberg.In its defense, the Atlantic explained that "When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics." Fine. No one is asking them to. But Catalano points out something I also objected to -- it's not so much Greenberg's politics that are at issue, but the fact that this was not the first time she engaged in deceptive tactics to advance her political views.
Too bad Jill Greenberg has a history of behaving unprofessionally.I'll say. "Laid back" is a kind way of putting it.
Here's Greenberg in her own words, explaining in an interview why it's OK to make children cry to promote her greater cause (linking Bush and the Iraq War to End Times):
...Maybe getting kids to cry isn't the nicest thing to do, but I'm not causing anyone permanent psychological damage.It was hard work too:
We would book 12 or so for one day, and see who we could make cry. At the end of the day I was not in a good mood. I don't like making little kids cry.You know what? I probably wouldn't enjoy making little kids cry either. I've never given it much thought, but if I decided to make little kids cry in order to promote my favorite cause, it wouldn't surprise me if people thought that raised questions about, you know, my integrity. (Being that I'm male, I might not get the same sort of pass, either. But that's another topic.)
Little wonder she rationalizes. It's all about the "strength" and "beauty" of the "images" (may Godwin forgive me for thinking about Leni Riefenstahl):
...That was one of the things that interested me about the project--the strength and beauty of the images as images. I also thought they made a kind of political statement about the current state of anxiety a lot of people are in about the future of the country. Sometimes I just feel like crying about the way things are going.I don't know whether she cried or not, but she certainly seemed upset by the criticism directed at her. So upset that she switched her subject material from sensitive children to insensitive bears -- which she compared to bloggers:
After my "End Times" series, with children crying, I wanted to do more work with children, but I needed to take a break because I'd gotten such crazy backlash from people who think it's a scandal that children cry.I didn't know that bears were known for randomly misguided rage. They do have their instincts, and of course they can be dangerous. While I'm not sure how "randomly misguided" or rage-filled the attacks on her were, mine was pretty specific. But I think she's missing the point when she characterizes her critics as "people who think it's a scandal that children cry." The point was never that children cry; it's that she made them cry.
Michele Catalano mentions Greenberg's attack on a fellow professional photographer, Thomas Hawks, who described her retaliatory tactics:
First she tries to discredit me as an insane person with personal problems who she doesn't even think has kids (even though in my blog post about her I clearly state I've got four children, have photos of my four children up on flickr and elsewhere on my blog etc.) She tells this to a professional publication American Photo (whom I've asked for a retraction from and who never contacted me to verify her claims even though they pulled quotes from my same post that referenced that I had four kids).Wow. She makes bloggers look like lambs by comparison. (Perhaps she identifies with the bears more than she lets on.)
She doesn't seem to mind using the First Amendment to her own advantage and use children to assail Bush and link him to the far right, but heaven forbid that another photographer dare criticize her! (A classic example of "free speech for me, but not for thee!")
Michele Catalano concludes with the hope that her latest crooked manipulation is her last:
By bragging about how underhanded, dishonest and childlish she behaved in regards to the shoot, Jill Greenberg brought on herself everything she deserves, including but not limited to some very bad publicity. This is not the first time she gave professional photographers a bad name; hopefully it is the last.Considering the woman's smarmy, sanctimonious self-righteousness, I doubt she thinks she has done anything wrong. In her mind, it's all for a higher cause. (And not about her, of course.)
Jill Greenberg can make children cry, demand her critics be fired, and use her photo assignment from the Atlantic as an opportunity to literally demonize McCain by making him into a profane, blood-dripping monster. This all fits the profile of a bully. But then, when people don't like it, she quickly becomes the victim, and they're bullying her.
Catalano observed that her web site is "fittingly called The Manipulator."
It's a perfect fit. Greenberg chose the name well.
posted by Eric on 09.16.08 at 09:30 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood