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.
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?
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.
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.
Because that would be retarded. The latter pic would have no relevance to the article.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
That’s a surprisingly substanceless article, unless I’m missing a “click here for next page” button.
The photo is of Sarah Palin, the article is about Sarah Palin. Relevance cited.
Not very clever of you to not actually read the statistics in the article.
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.
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.
How about the third and fourth sentences:
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.
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.
Cite for Newsweek bringing people in specifically to do photo shoots for covers?
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!
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.
And yet, you can cite nothing from the article that shows that the photo has relevance. Shocking, positively shocking.
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.
See what you did there? You forgot to read my citation and instead took a wild guess at what it said.