Yeah, pretty much. They are one and the same. You dispute that?
Do you think that Newsweek is run by people who think women are inherently inferior to men?
If there’s nothing wrong with it, then she’s got no grounds to complain about them.
So does manufacturing fake outrage about magazine covers.
Really?
Anyone else would have gotten a skirt suit picture, given the context.
Newsweek would not have made that choice if we had been dealing with an equally vapid person.
I disagree. I think the context it is used in matters here. To illustrate a running article? Nothing to complain about. On the cover of a hard news magazine? I’m not comfortable with the context it’s used in and I, as a photojournalist (though not so much now), think it’s at best a questionable decision by the photo editors to use that picture to illustrate the story.
Quoting from the article (again)
“Obama knows the long odds against a **right-wing populist winning the presidency, **no matter how good she looks in a skirt (or running clothes), brandishing a gun. He shouldn’t be too cocky, however, because the death of the center is ultimately a problem for him and the whole country. If the Palinistas seize the GOP, they probably cannot take the White House. But their brand of no-prisoners partisanship sure can tie up Congress.”
IMHO the photo is a demonstration of how Palin is a populist and illustrates the point…how Palin looks in running shorts is part of her popularism - and she does play that up, after all - she posed for this photo didn’t she?
They would if that person had taken their pants off and posed for a skin pic.
Her original intention in doing that cover was to sex up her image. It is newsworthy all by itself that someone who wants to be taken seriously as a contender for the White House was willing to do that.
The “context” is specifically about Palin’s lowbrow, populist appeal to unwashed, white trash rabble. Using cheap, beauty pageant style flirting is part of how she does that.
Nylons with running shorts = high heels with swimsuits.
I would just like to point out something that I find a little funny. The members and charter members don’t see the ads here on the SDMB.
But every time someone mentions Sarah Palin’s name in a thead, all the Google ads change to ads selling her book. The one after the first post on this page and the one at the bottom are both for the new Palin book.
It’s just a little amusing, carry on.
Anyhow, Ken Irby, a very respected commentator on visual journalism ethics and the person I look up to most and whose opinion I respect most on these matters has this to say, which better verbalizes what makes me uncomfortable about the cover, although he does not say it’s sexist:
Are we sure we see nylons there? I’m not sure I do. They just look shaved and shiny.
Or perhaps they are nylons. I can’t tell for certain. I’m a guy and not too good with these things.
When I said they were oiled, I was told they were nylons. I don’t know either, but I know that shininess isn’t natural.
I would say that it’s sexist to the extent that it uses a “cheesecake” photo in an attempt to marginalize her, politically. But the “liberal media” can’t possibly marginalize her with any more effect than she’s done on her own. How can she run for president of the Unites States in 2012 after having quit the governorship for no compelling reason? Wouldn’t her opponents harp on that obvious display of instability and easily defeat her?
Does anyone really think that Palin would pose (in any fashion) for a Newsweek article entitled: “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?”
I would think that that would be a clue that the photo wasn’t originally intended for that cover.
They’re not using the fact that she’s a woman against her. They’re using the fact that she posed for a bit of eye candy against her. The point they’re making is that she’s not even taking herself seriously as a politician. She posed for the photo, it’s a reputation thing, not a gender thing.
She posed dressed like that, in that context (which has nothing whatsoever to do with running).
What sort of image did she imagine she was going to project?
Unless you believe she was drugged, dressed and had a broom shoved up her ass to keep her upright that is the image she chose.
And it’s perfectly fair of Newsweek to pictorially call her on it.
This is just another example of
‘Scatch a right-tard, find a whining pussy.’
Ooh - they’re calling me/her on the lies in my book, wah - they’re using a picture I posed for.
Her/the lot of you. Grow a friggin’ spine.
That’s my take, too. The re-contextualisation of the image is deliberate, highlighting the inanity of her media image.
Her gender is accidental to the point being made, not essential. IOW, that her lack of substance manifests in Malibu Stacy-like bimbo-ness is a function of her gender, but were she a man, they’d use an equally silly photo to illustrate the same point.
Why are people calling her a politician? She used to be one. She is now a celebrity. She goes on talk shows, gives speeches, and sells books. Magazines always have pictures of attractive celebrities, both male and female on their covers.
What is the big deal? As far as celebrity photos go, this is nice- it is a posed shot in which she looks good. Yes, it was for another publication that has to do with fitness, but it is still a professional posed shot intended to be on a magazine cover. She is a celebrity now, she has to roll with it. If it was a paparazzi shot of her taking a dump in the woods while camping with her family, I would think that was uncool, even if she is just a celebrity.
Holy Cameltoe, Batman!