# Is this Newsweek cover of Palin sexist? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941 "2009-11-17T18:59:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/161 "2009-11-18T19:40:35Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Where did I find what out? The Runner’s World thing? In the article linked to and the thread. It wasn’t obvious from the cover photo as shown on the linked-to site. I’m uncertain what you’re getting at. No, you said that you found out that it was put into a completely different context with no explanation. If you read the article, it’s eminently clear what the context and purpose for using the picutre was. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/162 "2009-11-18T19:42:03Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > She got to choose what images ran in _Runner’s World_? Cite? She posed for them specifically for that article. Whether she chose the particular cover shot or not, I don’t know, but what difference does it make? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/163 "2009-11-18T19:44:27Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > It may have some news in it, so does _Runner’s World_. Here’s their website: [http://www.washingtonian.com/index.html](http://www.washingtonian.com/index.html) (the divisions are “Food & Dining” “Style,” “Health,” and “Homes.”) That isn’t the same type of magazine as _Time_ or _Newsweek_, (where the divisions begin with “Nation,” “Politics,” “World,” etc.) not by a long shot. Though the insight into your magazine subscription choices is enlightening. Actually, **you left out some divisions, including News & Features**. Some people are sure to say that you did it deliberately, lying in a conscious effort to make a point that isn’t supported by facts. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/164 "2009-11-18T19:46:26Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Would you happen to have a cite for that? Newsweek has a staff of photographers. Why would you assume that they don’t use them for covers? Because that’s not how newsmagazines work. They don’t do personality features where people come in to interview and pose. They report on the news and use images whicah are already in it. They do some of their own photography, but they don’t have people come in specially to pose for covers. > [@](#): > > Note the difference between Palin’s cover and [Biden’s.](http://www.anatreptic.com/images/biden-newsweek1.JPG) I wonder why they didn’t use [this one](http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/joe_biden_home_depot.jpg) instead. Because that would be retarded. The latter pic would have no relevance to the article. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/165 "2009-11-18T19:46:29Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Perhaps you ought to read the article, because you’re wrong on every count here. Uh huh. So you can find discussion in the article about Palin’s use of her attractiveness to sell her politics, aside from the irrelevant side comment that’s already been addressed here? Silly me–I thought the article was about the dangers of political extremism and divisiveness. Clearly, I missed all the invisible words \*\*you \*\*read about politicians trading off their looks. Was there some trick to it? Was it the old lemon-juice-invisible-ink thing? Because I’m not sure it would work if I just hold my laptop up to a lightbulb… I know this may be hard to wrap your brain around, but **a single parenthetical mention is not commentary**. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/166 "2009-11-18T19:47:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Palin is significantly [more popular among men than among women](http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846443,00.html). What do you think accounts for her _unpopularity_ with women? See what you did there? You conflated greater popularity with one with unpopularity with the other. Not really very clever of you, but then you do have that user name. 😉 Clearly, being more popular with one group does not equate to being unpopular with the other, and I think that to the degree Palin’s looks play into her popularity it is based on her attractiveness and the well put together way she dresses and presents herself much more than it is on her MILFness. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/167 "2009-11-18T19:49:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because that would be retarded. The latter pic would have no relevance to the article. Exactly! **And this picture of Palin has no relevance to the article.** They shoehorned it in there with a three-word parenthetical comment. None of you who are defending the photo have done anything to show how the photo is relevant to the article. You could delete those three words, and you’d have no idea that the photo had any connection. None. Show me anything else in that article that has relevance to the selected photo, and I’ll concede your point. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/168 "2009-11-18T19:50:23Z")
It’s **good-looking-ist**. Not sexist. Attractive people are often depicted with their physical niceties emphasized. Got nothing to do with sex. Now, where are all the pics of all your ugly asses? (From a wording standpoint, this post sucks. Wow. Good thing I’m hot). ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/169 "2009-11-18T19:50:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because that’s not how newsmagazines work. They don’t do personality features where people come in to interview and pose. They report on the news and use images whicah are already in it. They do some of their own photography, but they don’t have people come in specially to pose for covers. Do you actually know how news magazines work? You’re right that Sarah wouldn’t (most likely) come into the offices to pose for a cover, but it is routine for _Time_ and _Newsweek_ and the like to contract photographers to take photos explicitly for the cover to illustrate a subject. Sometimes they pull wire photos, sometimes agency photo, but they have contract photographers to do this commonly enough. My impression, seeing the cover, was that it was a shoot commissioned for Newsweek. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/170 "2009-11-18T19:50:28Z")
That’s a surprisingly substanceless article, unless I’m missing a “click here for next page” button. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/171 "2009-11-18T19:51:05Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Exactly! **And this picture of Palin has no relevance to the article.** They shoehorned it in there with a three-word parenthetical comment. None of you who are defending the photo have done anything to show how the photo is relevant to the article. You could delete those three words, and you’d have no idea that the photo had any connection. None. Show me anything else in that article that has relevance to the selected photo, and I’ll concede your point. The photo is of Sarah Palin, the article is about Sarah Palin. Relevance cited. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/172 "2009-11-18T19:51:55Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > See what you did there? You conflated greater popularity with one with unpopularity with the other. Not really very clever of you, but then you do have that user name. 😉 Not very clever of you to not actually read the statistics in the article. > [@](#): > > Overall, Palin is viewed favorably by 47% of likely voters and unfavorably by 40%. But her numbers are worse among women than men: 45% of all women surveyed have a negative opinion of Palin, compared to 42% who view her positively. Fifty-two percent of men have a favorable opinion, while 35% are in the unfavorable camp. He’s not “conflating” the two. He’s comparing her (recorded) popularity with men to her (recorded) unpopularity with women–not extrapolating one from the other. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/173 "2009-11-18T19:54:48Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > The photo is of Sarah Palin, the article is about Sarah Palin. Relevance cited. Click back through the actual chain of discussion before you reply. Someone else asked why a photo of Biden in a Home Depot apron wasn’t used for his Newsweek cover, and \*\*Dio \*\*replied that it would be “retarded” because that picture “would have no relevance to the article.” So if it’s retarded to use an irrelevant picture of Biden for a Biden article, why is it perfectly fine to use an irrelevant picture of Palin for a Palin article? Seems to me the only distinction for \*\*Dio \*\*is that he doesn’t like Palin. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/174 "2009-11-18T19:57:39Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Exactly! **And this picture of Palin has no relevance to the article.** They shoehorned it in there with a three-word parenthetical comment. None of you who are defending the photo have done anything to show how the photo is relevant to the article. You could delete those three words, and you’d have no idea that the photo had any connection. None. Show me anything else in that article that has relevance to the selected photo, and I’ll concede your point. How about the third and fourth sentences: > [@](#): > > This week she’s going on-air with Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey to flog her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life, and to promote her brand of in-your-face, power-to-the-people conservatism. President Obama is no doubt happy to have her out there on full display. It’s all about how she is promoting and displaying herself while also being considered as 2012 nominee. As much as I think Evan Thomas is useless, I did find his allusion to Kennedy’s handling of Goldwater, in thinking about how Obama might regard the Palin show, to be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/175 "2009-11-18T19:59:58Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Exactly! \*\*And this picture of Palin has no relevance to the article. Yes it does. That’s where you’re simply wrong. It is absolutely relevant to the article, which is about her _image_, and specifically the populist effect that she has on the far right. It’s not about her policies, it’s about the phenomeon of her appeal to a certain part of the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/176 "2009-11-18T20:06:18Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Do you actually know how news magazines work? You’re right that Sarah wouldn’t (most likely) come into the offices to pose for a cover, but it is routine for _Time_ and _Newsweek_ and the like to contract photographers to take photos explicitly for the cover to illustrate a subject. Sometimes they pull wire photos, sometimes agency photo, but they have contract photographers to do this commonly enough. My impression, seeing the cover, was that it was a shoot commissioned for Newsweek. Cite for _Newsweek_ bringing people in specifically to do photo shoots for covers? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/177 "2009-11-18T20:10:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes it does. That’s where you’re simply wrong. It is absolutely relevant to the article, which is about her _image_, and specifically the populist effect that she has on the far right. It’s not about her policies, it’s about the phenomeon of her appeal to a certain part of the electorate. With a title of “HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE SARAH?” What is her problem that can be deduced from the photo? She likes to run? She has a Blackberry? She spray paints her legs? Maybe there’s something in the subtitle of “SHE’S BAD NEWS FOR THE GOP - AND FOR EVERBODY ELSE, TOO” From the “relevant” photo, I’d surmise the exorcise must be bad for the GOP and everybody else too. Perhaps we’re too dependent on technology. Leaning on a flag might be in poor taste but it hardly rises to the level of EVERYBODY PANIC! ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/178 "2009-11-18T20:11:20Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > How about the third and fourth sentences: > > > [@](#): > > > > This week she’s going on-air with Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey to flog her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life, and to promote her brand of in-your-face, power-to-the-people conservatism. President Obama is no doubt happy to have her out there on full display. > > It’s all about how she is promoting and displaying herself while also being considered as 2012 nominee. Ah yes, I very clearly see there how those sentences said anything at all about her appearing in \*Runner’s World \*or sexualizing her image to gain popularity. … Oh wait. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It is absolutely relevant to the article, which is about her _image_, and specifically the populist effect that she has on the far right. It’s not about her policies, it’s about the phenomeon of her appeal to a certain part of the electorate. And yet, you can cite nothing from the article that shows that the photo has relevance. Shocking, positively shocking. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/179 "2009-11-18T20:12:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite for _Newsweek_ bringing people in specifically to do photo shoots for covers? Well, you said they didn’t because “that’s not the way they work”. Unless you have some credentials, that isn’t much of a cite either. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/180 "2009-11-18T20:13:27Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > See what you did there? You conflated greater popularity with one with unpopularity with the other. Not really very clever of you, but then you do have that user name. See what you did there? You forgot to read my citation and instead took a wild guess at what it said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=10)