For the second time since Sarah Palin stepped into the national political spotlight, a photo of the former Republican vice-presidential candidate featured on the cover of Newsweek magazine is sparking controversy. Palin herself blasted the "out-of-context" cover as "sexist" on her Facebook page.
Originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World, the photo features the former Alaska governor in short runner's shorts. It was part of a multi-photograph slideshow that accompanied an article about Palin and her love for the sport titled, "I'm A Runner." In her Facebook post late last night, Palin took issue with Newsweek using a photo from an article about health and fitness to promote an analysis piece contemplating her relevance as a political figure:
"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness -- a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention -- even if out of context.
The reaction to the Newsweek cover has predictably sparked outrage from conservative supporters of Palin and kudos from liberals who oppose her. CBN commentator David Brady called the cover "a new low" for the "biased" magazine, adding that Newsweek has a history of portraying liberal women as "heroes for the next generation," while portraying conservative women like Palin as "nuts and dopey." Meanwhile, documentary photographer Nina Berman hailed the cover as "brilliant" and "shrewd" for using a "propped photo where Palin is an obvious participant ... to show how far out she is willing to travel on the road of self promotion" while "shield[ing] themselves from what would have been the inevitable criticism if they had dolled her up themselves and posed her the same way."
The current cover flap isn't the first time Newsweek has generated controversy with a photograph of Palin. The October 13, 2008, issue featured an extreme close-up of Palin that seemed to be devoid of the high-tech retouching often employed by magazines. Conservatives claimed this highlighted some of Palin's supposed "flaws," like wrinkles around her eyes.
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham told Yahoo! News that the photo choice was simply the "most interesting image available":
"We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
-- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog
So yeah, apparently any criticism of Palin is still sexism.
I can never love you because I'm just thirty squirrels in a mansuit."
"Ah, good ol' Popeye. Punching ghosts until they explode."[/b]-Internet Webguy
"It was cut because an Army Ordnance panel determined that a weapon that kills an enemy soldier 10 times before he hits the ground was a waste of resources, so they scaled it back to only kill him 3 times."-Anon, on the cancellation of the Army's multi-kill vehicle.
For the second time since Sarah Palin stepped into the national political spotlight, a photo of the former Republican vice-presidential candidate featured on the cover of Newsweek magazine is sparking controversy. Palin herself blasted the "out-of-context" cover as "sexist" on her Facebook page.
Originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World, the photo features the former Alaska governor in short runner's shorts. It was part of a multi-photograph slideshow that accompanied an article about Palin and her love for the sport titled, "I'm A Runner." In her Facebook post late last night, Palin took issue with Newsweek using a photo from an article about health and fitness to promote an analysis piece contemplating her relevance as a political figure:
"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness -- a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention -- even if out of context.
The reaction to the Newsweek cover has predictably sparked outrage from conservative supporters of Palin and kudos from liberals who oppose her. CBN commentator David Brady called the cover "a new low" for the "biased" magazine, adding that Newsweek has a history of portraying liberal women as "heroes for the next generation," while portraying conservative women like Palin as "nuts and dopey." Meanwhile, documentary photographer Nina Berman hailed the cover as "brilliant" and "shrewd" for using a "propped photo where Palin is an obvious participant ... to show how far out she is willing to travel on the road of self promotion" while "shield[ing] themselves from what would have been the inevitable criticism if they had dolled her up themselves and posed her the same way."
The current cover flap isn't the first time Newsweek has generated controversy with a photograph of Palin. The October 13, 2008, issue featured an extreme close-up of Palin that seemed to be devoid of the high-tech retouching often employed by magazines. Conservatives claimed this highlighted some of Palin's supposed "flaws," like wrinkles around her eyes.
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham told Yahoo! News that the photo choice was simply the "most interesting image available":
"We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
-- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog
So yeah, apparently any criticism of Palin is still sexism.
Um, no? The part that's allegedly sexist putting a "sexy" photo of Palin on the cover, rather than a more modest shot. Someone compared it to how, say, Tim Pawlenty would be treated; even in a critical article, there'd be a picture of him in a shirt and tie, not relaxing on the beach with his shirt open. You can take issue with this if you like, you can suggest (probably correctly) that she's trying to distract people from the article itself, and it's certainly fair to point out that Sarah Palin is an anti-choice, anti-feminist who tried to make rape victims pay for their own rape kit, so she lost the right to complain about sexism. But nobody is saying "Criticism of Palin=sexism".
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Really though, not only is it idiotic to stoop to their level by attempting to smear her with 'sexy' photos but beyond that it's unnecessary, she says enough stupid crap that all you need to do to discredit her is to quote the lunacy that comes out of her mouth.
The part that's allegedly sexist putting a "sexy" photo of Palin on the cover, rather than a more modest shot. Someone compared it to how, say, Tim Pawlenty would be treated; even in a critical article, there'd be a picture of him in a shirt and tie, not relaxing on the beach with his shirt open.
yeah sexist newsweek . Remember when they ran this photo of Howard Dean ?
Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh
Darth Yan wrote:isn't this the kind of bullshit karen traviss pulled when she was criticized?
No, her argument was that her critics were sexists because they focused on her when she was far more vocal than her cowriter Ryan Kaufman. Palin is arguing that this is sexist because they focused on her sex appeal for the cover picture rather than on her political or family aspects, and that they wouldn't do this to a male politician. She has a far stronger case.
xerex wrote:yeah sexist newsweek . Remember when they ran this photo of Howard Dean ?
Was that a cover photo? Because Palin's is talking about the cover, not internal pictures. I wonder how Newsweek stacks up when comparing "sexy" photos of male vs. female politicians?
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
xerex wrote:yeah sexist newsweek . Remember when they ran this photo of Howard Dean ?
Was that a cover photo? Because Palin's is talking about the cover, not internal pictures. I wonder how Newsweek stacks up when comparing "sexy" photos of male vs. female politicians?
its only sexist if its on the cover ?
Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh
xerex wrote:yeah sexist newsweek . Remember when they ran this photo of Howard Dean ?
Was that a cover photo? Because Palin's is talking about the cover, not internal pictures. I wonder how Newsweek stacks up when comparing "sexy" photos of male vs. female politicians?
its only sexist if its on the cover ?
One would argue a cover photo is far more significant an image than a photo on page 57. Everyone who goes to the grocery store for the next week will see that picture of Palin. Until now, I'd never seen that photo of Howard Dean.
Don't split hairs, you're obviously not dense enough to have made that mistake.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
One would argue a cover photo is far more significant an image than a photo on page 57. Everyone who goes to the grocery store for the next week will see that picture of Palin. Until now, I'd never seen that photo of Howard Dean.
Don't split hairs, you're obviously not dense enough to have made that mistake.
Did you even look at the photo they used for Palin? It's downright modest compared to that photo of Dean. The idea that anyone can look at this image and screech about sexism is mind numbingly retarded. The best you could really claim is that it's inappropriate for the article they're trying to use it to promote.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
So... wait. Is this supposed to be sexist because it's portraying her as a leggy little thing rather than a serious political figure, or for some other reason?
Because if she's complaining about being portrayed as a leggy little thing when she doesn't want to be, Sarah Palin actually has a point, and that would make my brain hurt almost as much as the day I discovered I shared a political opinion with Dan Quayle.
When I first saw that pick, I considered it more of political satire in a sense than anything remotely 'sexist', hell there are images of male politicians far more demeaning out there let alone female ones.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:One would argue a cover photo is far more significant an image than a photo on page 57. Everyone who goes to the grocery store for the next week will see that picture of Palin. Until now, I'd never seen that photo of Howard Dean.
Don't split hairs, you're obviously not dense enough to have made that mistake.
ahh. so its only sexist if it significant . its okay to be sexist on pg 57.
i'm not the one splitting hairs. Placing the image on pg 1 or pg 100 doesnt alter the content of the image.
Now I agree the picture is belittling her as a presidential candidate but i think it belittles her whether its in Newsweek or a Sport's magazine.
I dont think Newsweek is right in being singled out as sexist when she obviously was using her sex appeal when the pic was taken.
Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh
CaptainChewbacca wrote:One would argue a cover photo is far more significant an image than a photo on page 57. Everyone who goes to the grocery store for the next week will see that picture of Palin. Until now, I'd never seen that photo of Howard Dean.
Don't split hairs, you're obviously not dense enough to have made that mistake.
ahh. so its only sexist if it significant . its okay to be sexist on pg 57.
i'm not the one splitting hairs. Placing the image on pg 1 or pg 100 doesnt alter the content of the image.
Now I agree the picture is belittling her as a presidential candidate but i think it belittles her whether its in Newsweek or a Sport's magazine.
I dont think Newsweek is right in being singled out as sexist when she obviously was using her sex appeal when the pic was taken.
Are you being deliberately dense? A cover photo is more potentially demeaning than an interior photo, by virtue of the fact that more people will inevitably see the cover photo than the interior photo. Newsweek is being "singled out" because they were the ones to publish the photo. Sexism, meanwhile, simply refers to the preferential treatment of one sex over the other. If female politicians were generally shown in sexualized photos in Newsweek, then Newsweek could be said to have a sexist policy and be sexist in general. What people are saying is that the individual photo may be sexist.
The political satire argument, though, is also a good justification for the photo, which is why I'm a little leery, but not shouting "Omigod! Sexism in Newsweek! Boycott!"
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
Like montypython I saw this as (pretty harmless) political satire. She´s portrayed as the good looking dumbass holding a political office that she is. She has many a time demonstrated that she´s a moron and she invests a lot in her looks (During the election campain there was some outrage about the amount of money spent on her clothes and stuff like that).
How is this picture sexist? It shows her in typical sports attire for women. Heck, over here I saw at least 50 women dressed similarly each morning doing their morning runs.
Anybody who does not get the point that the picture portrays her as a sports lover - and gee, last time I heard Palin really tried to present herself as a proud outdoorswomen - is missing the point spectacularly.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
I think it's actually encapsulates her quite perfectly: cute, peppy, and completely unsuitable for public office.
Perhaps some people just confuse "sexy" and "sexist".
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
Considering the context of the article title with the picture, I had assumed that the picture was chosen to make her look like a joke candidate, unsuited for office, and that the article would then make that argument. I don't think it's meant to be sexist, just make her look vapid and foolish.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any. The only comparably hypersensitive nations I can think of are the Turks and the Thais, but they have different fetishes; I'm not sure they have comparable laws about flags. In the US, those laws are generally ignored (often not even known). People use flags in all kinds of ways that would technically count as "desecration" according to the official code. Such as forgetting to take them down when it rains. Or leaving them on the antenna of their car until the airflow causes half the flag to fray away, leaving behind a ragged stump.
The picture pretty much encapsulates how she sold herself during the campaign. Basically "Vote for me I'm the hot librarian folksy pit bull mavericky real America hockey mom you betcha."
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who portray themselves a certain way then complain when other people do it, too. I doubt Obama would complain if Newsweek used the picture of him with the Superman statue or the lightsaber for an article about how he's a nerd.
Bakustra wrote:Are you being deliberately dense? A cover photo is more potentially demeaning than an interior photo, by virtue of the fact that more people will inevitably see the cover photo than the interior photo.
Watch yourself you are moving goal posts now. switching from whether it is sexist or not to it being more demeaning than something else.
If it is sexist on the cover then it should be sexist on the inside too.
Newsweek is being "singled out" because they were the ones to publish the photo.
Actually they are reprinting a photo that was previously run in Runner's World
Sexism, meanwhile, simply refers to the preferential treatment of one sex over the other. If female politicians were generally shown in sexualized photos in Newsweek, then Newsweek could be said to have a sexist policy and be sexist in general. What people are saying is that the individual photo may be sexist.
The political satire argument, though, is also a good justification for the photo, which is why I'm a little leery, but not shouting "Omigod! Sexism in Newsweek! Boycott!"
like I said the photo belittles her but I disagreee with the sexist connotation. If they found a similar photo of a attractive male politician I sure they'd use it.
its simply hypocritical for a person who used her looks to get ahead, now to be complaining that people think she's just a pretty face.
Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh
xerex wrote:its simply hypocritical for a person who used her looks to get ahead, now to be complaining that people think she's just a pretty face.
She did something similar by parading her children all around when it was convenient and beneficial to her politically, but then she complained when her daughter's pregnancy and brainless boyfriend were hot topics.
Bakustra wrote:Are you being deliberately dense? A cover photo is more potentially demeaning than an interior photo, by virtue of the fact that more people will inevitably see the cover photo than the interior photo.
Watch yourself you are moving goal posts now. switching from whether it is sexist or not to it being more demeaning than something else. If it is sexist on the cover then it should be sexist on the inside too.
The point would be that all forms of sexism are not equal, as you were claiming.
Newsweek is being "singled out" because they were the ones to publish the photo.
Actually they are reprinting a photo that was previously run in Runner's World
Sexism, meanwhile, simply refers to the preferential treatment of one sex over the other. If female politicians were generally shown in sexualized photos in Newsweek, then Newsweek could be said to have a sexist policy and be sexist in general. What people are saying is that the individual photo may be sexist.
The political satire argument, though, is also a good justification for the photo, which is why I'm a little leery, but not shouting "Omigod! Sexism in Newsweek! Boycott!"
like I said the photo belittles her but I disagreee with the sexist connotation. If they found a similar photo of a attractive male politician I sure they'd use it.
its simply hypocritical for a person who used her looks to get ahead, now to be complaining that people think she's just a pretty face.
I agree that she's being hypocritical.
FSTargetDrone wrote:
xerex wrote:its simply hypocritical for a person who used her looks to get ahead, now to be complaining that people think she's just a pretty face.
She did something similar by parading her children all around when it was convenient and beneficial to her politically, but then she complained when her daughter's pregnancy and brainless boyfriend were hot topics.
I forgot about that. Double hypocrisy!
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
