Judging by the comments I’ve seen elsewhere, there still seems to be some misunderstanding by many about the origins of the picture of Tim in that crucifixion pose, featured in the Sept 2012 issue of GQ. So this is my explanation of how this came about:
4) So the GQ suits chose to cash in on Tim’s popularity without his participation by using some of those 3-year-old pictures, including even putting one of them on the cover.*
5) In order to justify running these 3-year-old pictures, GQ needed an accompanying article. Since Tim wouldn’t do an interview for the story, the author of the article had to resort to getting a quote from Tim by joining the scrum of sports reporters who stand around Tim’s locker asking him questions after practice. The author asked Tim ONE question and crafted an entire article around the brief 4-sentence answer he received from Tim on that ONE question. The resulting article wasn’t even about Tim as much as it was about how much the author of the article can’t stand Tim and doesn’t like Tim being on his favorite team.
6) Apparently just using old pictures and pairing it with a new article wouldn’t generate as much publicity as GQ wanted. So, the GQ braintrust decided to create a phony ‘controversy’ by altering one of those 3-year-old pictures so that it looked like Tim knowingly posed as Jesus being crucified…which he didn’t (see #7). Since the article’s author referred to Tim as though he’s a deity, even to the point of capitalizing pronouns for Tim (‘He’, ‘His’, ‘Him’), the altered picture fit perfectly with the tone of the article.
7) The picture that was altered to look like a crucifixion pose was first released in 2009 in it’s original state. At that time, the picture generated NO controversy, despite the fact that Tim was playing football in the Bible Belt.
8) By all appearances, the only post-2009 involvement Tim had in the creation of the Sept 2012 GQ issue was in answering one question asked by a guy in the locker room.
9) GQ must be desperate for money.
*This isn’t the only time GQ has used recycled material. While just searching for something on their site, I stumbled upon a piece about the actor Gary Oldman. In it, the article writer states that GQ’s intention was to use most of an unpublished 2009 article they did on Oldman, then re-interview him and add some parts of that conversation to that earlier piece and put it in GQ in time to capitalize on Oldman’s getting his first Oscar nomination earlier this year. When Oldman refused to do another interview, they simply ran the 2009 piece. But at least they had the author write a preface to it, explaining why they were running a 3-year-old interview. Something they didn’t do with Tim’s 3-year-old pictures. Nor did they alter any of Gary Oldman’s interview to make him look as though he thought he was Jesus being crucified.