McCain photoshoot mini-scandal

Atlantic apology
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/editors-note

Photographer website:
http://www.manipulator.com/

Gawker:
http://gawker.com/5049776/mag-photographers-grotesque-mccain-trick

All the photos, including the monkey:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/the_atlantic_mo.php

I was amused to find she was the photographer whose last controversial project involved photographs of crying children--allegedly crying over Bush, but in fact crying over being offered candy which was then taken away.
http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/la-et-kids24jul24-pg,0,2119282.p... (cf. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Greenberg)

Pro or Con: Should you accept candy from a photographer?

I dont get it.

I've never seen the man in person, only on TV. Is there something wrong with the image that's on the cover of the magazine?

If not, why would anybody care if the same artist does caricatures and unflattering photo manipulations on her own ticket?

Those are some pretty sick images the photographer has on her website. The photographer certainly has a right to indulge in political satire, but if the original photos were taken during a photoshoot for a client, I don't understand how she has any right to use them for that purpose.

That cover photo seems very odd. I don't see exactly what has been manipulated, but McCain's face looks bulgy, and the photo emphasizes every wrinkle and age spot. I don't know to what degree magazines usually edit their cover photos, but I would have thought they would airbrush out he most visible flaws for all of their cover subjects. So what is reality - is the cover photo doctored to make McCain look worse than his actual appearance, or have photos published elsewhere been doctored to make him look better?

It should be noted that the Fox network has repeatedly manipulated photos and videotape of Democrats and liberals. (I think it was Susan Sarandon who said that they spliced sequences of her screaming at some sports event into an interview they aired.) Is this more egregious, and if so, why?

I don't like McCain, but her images (the caricature ones) are pretty tasteless and definitely cross a line. Plus it does not help one bit in not getting these people elected.

I can't remember a situation like this, but there have been cover-photo dust-ups before, notably the "darkened" O. J. Simpson mug-shot cover:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/31/012306.php

Then there's the Spitzer cover:

http://www.mikepaulblog.com/blog/media/SPITZER%20BRAIN%20NY%20MAG%20COVER.jpg

Then there was this:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/02/juvenile-fox-news-alters-photos-of-nyt-...

Wow. Can I get myself as troll?

No, don't do it.

Maybe. It's your site, Tim. However, you can have your facial features incorporated into a Maoist propaganda poster.

>3 oregonobsessionz: the photo emphasizes every wrinkle and age spot.

Back in the primaries, Atlantic put Hillary Clinton on its cover in an unsparing close-up and detail. If I recall correctly, you could see her contact lenses!

High-bandwidth HD broadcasting will be the norm within a few years. Imagine how "real" our politicians will become then.