Jill Greenberg's Photos of McCain Make Great Art, Terrible Journalism

At the beginning of the news cycle today, Jill Greenberg's name was known mostly by photography enthusiasts envious of her distinct lighting style. Now her name is being cursed by conservatives and journalists alike for her photo shoot with John McCain for the magazine Atlantic.

In a brazen display of outright media bias, Greenberg has done everything within her power as a photographer and an artist to make John McCain look as bad as possible.

It started with the under-lit horror movie lighting she used on the Republican candidate, but it didn't stop there. She went on to Photoshop his mouth full of razor-sharp bloody teeth with the message "I am a bloodthirsty warmonger." Other messages Photoshopped over the images are too explicit to quote.

Greenberg is being grilled by conservatives who think her work is despicable. She's being grilled by liberals for giving fuel to the conservatives. She's being grilled by journalists for giving conservatives a reason to accuse the media of having a liberal bias.

And let's be honest here. She blindsided McCain and the Atlantic, a client who expected her to deliver on a contractual obligation. Professionalism has been thrown right out the window.

But that doesn't completely invalidate the work.

36 years ago, Hunter S. Thompson subjected readers of Rolling Stone to his unique blend of art, bias and journalism as he applied "Gonzo Journalism" to his coverage of the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries and the resulting battle between Democrat George McGovern and Republican Richard Nixon.

He made up rumors, he was under the constant influence of drugs and alcohol and he made no attempts to hide his bias in favor of McGovern. The resulting collection of articles, "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" is both derided and exalted by those who have read and studied the book. But whether loved or hated, its influence cannot be denied.

Like "Fear and Loathing" Greenberg's photos raise an important question: At what point does objectivity become dishonesty?

If Jill Greenberg, who has been so outspoken in her criticism of George Bush, John McCain and the Republican party, were to offer a truly objective, balanced, unbiased view of John McCain, that act would be dishonest. This is because she is not unbiased. The monster version of John McCain is how she sees the man, and her job as an artist is to show us the world through her eyes. Mission accomplished.

But that doesn't mean it's responsible or ethical. Greenberg did not explain to John McCain the lighting set up she was using. She got her pictures under the false pretense of taking an unbiased portrait of the candidate. And most of her final images were completely unusable by her client.

Greenberg's artistic works and the messages they convey have a place in our culture, but on gallery walls and in the pages of magazines that make no pretenses about their biases or artistic nature. This work should not represent a magazine steeped in the ideals of fair, unbiased journalism, so it's understandable that the Atlantic and writer Jeffrey Goldberg are so upset.

But from here on out, no one can hire Jill Greenburg and claim they didn't see this coming.

What do you think of Greenberg's work? Take our poll.

See more of Jill Greenberg's work on her official site: manipulator.com