I’m a little surprised that until just in the last 24 hours or so, no one seems to have ever noticed how many magazines of all types display attractive women (or, hell, bare-chested men) on their covers, if they can come up with the slightest excuse to do so. The rampant sexism on display at my local Borders magazine rack has long turned my stomach, but I’m glad that so many like-minded folks are finally speaking out on this odious habit.
Well, not really.
The Newsweek cover, IMO manages to make a salient point about the relentless and fairly clever self-marketing of a Presidential wannabe who is nevertheless manifestly unqualified for the position, while providing a good excuse for the sort of arresting image that helps sell a few more copies of the mag. Which, by the way, is probably the main point.
If anyone is concerned that I might somehow think of Mrs. Palin as some sort of lightweight just because I happened to get a glimpse of that cover, you needn’t be. It would be difficult to think of her as more of a lightweight (as a politician) than I already did long before the current flap erupted.
If you pose for it, then you don’t get to complain about where it’s printed. Period. However I agree there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and anytime Palin gets to cry “OMG! SEXIST!” is probably a victory for her.
Yes it is. I had a subscription to it when I lived in the DC metro. It’s not all news, but it’s partly news.
The Obama beefcake pictures were splattered all over news sites on the web as well.
He at least didn’t pose for them. Palin doesn’t really have a leg to stand on here. Once she posed for that cover, that picture was “news,” and is fair game for Newsweek to use as a cover.
Well, I don’t think this is being portrayed by anyone as simply something “other than a suit.”
Back on page 1 of this thread I asked if anyone could: recall any previous incident where a national politician posed for a similar photo? And I’m not talking about candid shots …
But no one has offered a posed photoshoot where a male politician sowed some thigh, bared his chest, etc. I guess you could make an argument for “candids” taken during clear photo ops - W in his flight suit, Dukakis in the tank. And I think it entirely appropriate for such images to be used by whomever for whatever purposes they wish.
I have seen or read nothing in this thread to change my personal opinion that this was * Just not how you want to pose if you want to portray yourself as presidential.*
I’m a little surprised nobody has mentioned the obvious. Whether you like her or hate her, the most salient question many people are asking is whether she’s running (as a presidential candidate in 2012). I think *Newsweek *is not-so-subtly suggesting they think she will attempt to do so.
This cover kills me. The combination of the running suit, crackberry and American flag is hilarious commentary on Palin. Thank you, Sarah, Runner’s World, and Newsweek.
It may have some news in it, so does Runner’s World. Here’s their website: Washingtonian - The website that Washington lives by. (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.
I apologize if this qualifies as mod-commenting which should go in ATMB, but the tone of the thread sure fell short of what I consider Pit-worthy. I’m not sure if I am more disappointed that IMHO is expected to be so meek such that this is excessive, or that the Pit is so castrated that this fits there.
Actually, I thought it valuable that folk of differing opinions were able to exchange their views as politely as they have. Movingit to the Pit just encourages participants to lower the level of their discourse.
Sure you do. A photograph is no different than a quote, really. The context is important. How would you feel if thisphoto was on the cover of Glamour magazine, coupled with an article titled “Is it OK to cheat on your husband? Michelle Obama speaks out!”
It’s an immaterial difference anyway. The point is that the Obama swim trunks shots were all over the place in the news media, and nobody called it “sexist.”
Palin’s choice to do this particular cheescake shot was a deliberate choice on her part to sexualize herself as a political candidate, therefore it’s legitimate news that she did so, and a legitimate choice for Newsweek to use the image as an examplar of how Palin chooses to present herself.
There is no misleading context. the context is that Palin has chosen to do sexualize her image for political gain, and so Newsweek is using the image that she herself has chosen to present.
She wasn’t wearing short shorts because she was on the cover of a running magazine, she was on the cover of a running magazine so she could wear short shorts.
Its sexist, but Palin wants it both ways. She wants to play up the sexy part of her persona, understanding that its appealing, but wants to cry sexist when it suits her. So while I think it was sexist, and I’m not sure it was a “fair move” - I also think she’s contributed heavily to people being able to be sexist about her.
Few female U.S. national level politicians would have posed for Running World in shorts to start with. It would have been a full coverage jogging suit. Can you see Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Hillary posing like that?
Palin apparently doesn’t want to be judged by her looks, despite posing for photographs like the Newsweek cover. Odd how she doesn’t mind judging other books by their covers, like profiling American muslims who are obviously all up to no good.
A: I strongly doubt it. It is a flattering photo, and she now reaps the benefit of looking good on the cover of Newsweek and simultaneously getting to complain about liberal media bias. In my opinion, if she could have anonymously arranged for this phot to be run, she would have.
Not sexist. She posed for the photo and, if it was really about “but it was running attire for a running magazine” then there was no need for her to be leaning on a draped American flag. Politics has nothing to do with running (well, for office maybe – I’ll be here all week) but that didn’t seem to be a concern when she posed for the photo. She chose to combine the two and is now playing some lame “sexist!” card when it came back in a way she didn’t like.
Although, while I’m here in the Pit discussing photos of politicians, I am so sick of every political article coming with an unflattering photo of the politician in question. Usually them staring downward, blowing air through pursed lips, face scrunched up, etc. It can be a story about passing legislation to give ribbons to kittens and it’ll come with a photo of some Congresscritter looking as though he was just caught molesting the kittens instead.
I think this hits the nail on the head. She has no problem promoting herself on the basis of her looks, which is why she didn’t have a problem posing for the sexy hot-pants photo shoot in Runner’s World in the first place. (Yeah, I know. They’re running shorts. Funny, but I typically don’t oil my legs up and drape myself sexily over an American flag when I’m about to go for a jog. Maybe it’s an Alaskan thing.) I also don’t remember her bitching about Rush Limbaugh going on the air calling her a “babe”. This is all manufactured outrage and I’m sure she’s loving every minute of the publicity.
