Comments on: Sex, Power, and Palin’s Newsweek Cover

By: Doc

Doc — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:31:04 +0000

Why was this entire comment removed?

“This is the most manipulative and controlling administrations when it comes to the press that we’ve ever had. Obama did not happen to be prancing half-naked in front of cameras by mistake. ….. psychology (10), public service announcements (74), race/ethnicity (633), race/ethnicity: American Indians/Aboriginals (51), race/ethnicity: Arabs/Middle Easterners (35), race/ethnicity: Asians/Pacific Islanders (133), race/ethnicity: Blacks/Africans (335), race/ethnicity: Jews (3 …”

By: Football Proves that Lautner’s, Like, Totally Straight » Sociological Images

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:29:47 +0000

[...] see, in this photograph, Lautner is a sex object. And, as I’ve written before, a “sexual object is to be presented as passive, consumable, inert (remember, only one person [...]

By: Leah

Leah — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:19:50 +0000

Palin’s nomination itself was a cheap shot. It was an offensive, sexist move based on the popularity of Clinton, the thought being that we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between female candidates, would like her for the sake of being female, and/or would laud the GOP for being ‘progressive’ enough to nominate a woman (and, incidentally, forget any slamming they did of Hillary or dismiss it). How she and her handlers chose to represent her as a political candidate involved playing up her role as a wholesome, but definitely sexy, ‘average Jane’ soccer mom (with killer gams!), including the publicity she was willing to give to other publications that portrayed her as such. The poster above hit the nail on the head by mentioning the Newsweek cover that came out during the race that was criticized for being “unflattering.” I agree that it is entirely disingenuous of a politician whose entire campaign and celebrity was built on this motif to suddenly cry sexism when it doesn’t work in her favor, and it undermines other women who have tried hard to succeed without the use of this kind of presentation when they are victims of sexism.

I feel as though Newsweek deliberately chose the photo because it actually encompasses everything we know about Palin: she’s got celebrity, she’s hot, she loves America, she works from home overlooking the water (and Russia), she’s fit, she’s hot, she tweets on her Blackberry/ies, she’s hot, and… oh wait – she’s a politician?

By: Shana

Shana — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:56:23 +0000

Eh it was still a cheap shot for Newsweek.
It provided enough wiggle room to become yet another thing to interview her about. If they would have stuck with the interior story and pasted one of her “approved” head-shots on the cover, the message would be the same. The image was not selected to support the story in this case. It was more of a stand alone, “look at this bimbo,” type of hucksterism that sells copies but is not germane to the article.
On a personal note, I think that she demonstrates the TRUTH of the article every time she opens her vapid, self absorbed, opportunistic, and shamelessly exploitative mouth. The cover pic could have been of Slime molds or space shuttles with roughly the same effect. But opinions are like bums…we’ve all got them.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:42:32 +0000

“Their other covers do not show bias as she was presented in her campaign getup like McCain, Obama, and Hilary.”

One big difference, though, is that the cover images of McCain, Obama, and Clinton (as well as Palin in 2008) supported articles about their campaigns and their political lives. To have run this cover during the campaign would’ve certainly been a cheap shot.

But at the moment, Palin is not running for office, nor is she any longer a state governor. Her career for the time being is as a media celebrity (much like the ones she claims to be an antidote to), and the photo is one of many garish examples of the public persona she’s created in the service of that.

It’s not inconsistent with journalistic integrity to present truth and skepticism of public figures based on facts and real images. But if Newsweek were just making stuff up or printing only the images and quotes that Palin and her handlers would like them to, they would certainly be failing at their job.

By: Shana

Shana — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:38:42 +0000

I would be more inclined to agree that it was sexist if she hadn’t posed for this picture and hundreds of others like it. I don’t feel that her attractiveness is a detractor. Decades of research proves that “beautiful” people are considered to be smarter, more pleasant, and more successful than “average” looking people. Beautiful people are given the benefit of the doubt based solely on appearance, so I am not sure that this image harmed her. However; the things she chooses to start fires over does speak to an element of disconnectedness and reluctance to face the challenging subjects she has been presented with time and again. As for Newsweek, I do believe that their choice of the Runner’s photo was opportunistic and not in following with any supposed journalistic integrity. In short it was a cheap shot. Their other covers do not show bias as she was presented in her campaign getup like McCain, Obama, and Hilary.

By: karinova

karinova — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:22:11 +0000

Personally, I and everyone I know, would read take that to mean “I like both fucking [people] and being fucked [by them].” It being understood that two people can, in fact, fuck each other simultaneously. So I disagree with the OP there. (And frankly, I’m not sure why the statement showed up at all.) However, in saying that, we’ve just said that one person can fuck another. After all, sex (“fucking”) often consists of alternating, rather than simultaneous, fucking. That’s just physics! That probably seems like nitpicking (I’ve never broken it down before), but c’mon, we’re nitpicking, right?

Anyway. All of that is me trying to explain the fact that truthfully, if I were to hear “I like to fuck,” I would, lacking context, take that pretty literally: “I like to fuck [people].”

By: karinova

karinova — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:56:04 +0000

Dude. What’s up with the metal-based millinery?
He wasn’t even sworn in yet.

By: VinceP1974

VinceP1974 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:48:05 +0000

I see you didn’t address what Mao-worshipping Anita Dunn said…

Maybe you’re not aware.. so here it is:

http://www.zimbio.com/Anita+Dunn/articles/Ah7ZtiXyC93/Anita+Dunn+Media+Controlled+Obama+Campaign

Transcription in part of Anita Dunn – on the Obama Campaign Controlling the Press
From: The Movement for Change: Barack Obama Campaign. Part 8 Anita Dunn and Ben Self Auditorio Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo January 12, 2009

“We had people assigned to us, after having one too many emails that his candidate and his wife said, isn’t there something more we can do – we had obviously a large department to deal with the traditional media of the united states – and given the international interested in this election, we had a huge press corp to deal with – but the reality a huge part of our press strategy was making the media cover what he was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it what the tactic was –

we had a huge premium both on message discipline on people on the camping in leaking to reporters or discussing our strategy or cover what we were saying. Making the Press Cover What we wanted “to get the Message Out without having to actually talk to reporters – so it was very much we controlled it, as opposed to the press controlling it.

Very rarely did we communicate to the press what we did not absolutely we could control.”

By: alyssa

alyssa — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:38:35 +0000

Here’s the thing:
we live in a society where all women (especially those in high profile areas like politics) are constructed as hot or ugly. This hot or ugly thing too often takes center stage, so little else is heard. I imagine Palin understands this to some degree and decided to use it to her advantage. Yet when we analyze her actions, we never say she is responding to the sexism around her and trying to make the most out of it. Rather we say things like she is doing it of her own free will and thus deserves it. I’m bothered by how many people go the “she started it, so it’s okay” route (I don’t include you in that).
I go back and forth about the picture. There are some sexist aspects of it, but if they are saying that her trying to turn the sexist angle in her favor backfired on her then the picture makes perfect sense. Without the article next to it, it’s hard to say. Perhaps I’d feel better if this image were an internal image instead of on the cover.
I’m not sure Newsweek could make a non-sexist cover of a woman whose caricature is “hot woman.” But what is most disturbing me is what kind of comments an article like this generates.

By: alyssa

alyssa — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:05:40 +0000

Yes I did see some articles they wrote calling out the sexism against her. I also saw all the comments from people basically saying she deserved that kind of sexist treatment.
Yes there are some people on the left calling out the sexism against her, and I applaud them, but they are certainly a minority.

By: Village Idiot

Village Idiot — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:27:33 +0000

Seems like a valid enough point in a sexual context, but yeah you’re probably the only one having a problem with that usage; I just say ‘fuck it.’ I’ve heard a lot of men and women say “I got fucked” but it always referred to a divorce or an encounter with the government.

“It’s not a verb that requires a direct object.”

I guess not, but sometimes direct objects can be quite helpful.

By: Village Idiot

Village Idiot — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:09:11 +0000

This is the most manipulative and controlling administrations when it comes to the press that we’ve ever had.

Did you really type that with a straight face?

By that I mean do you really believe that there is a two party system running the Federal Government and that there are substantive differences between them (beyond their political philosophy propaganda, that is)?

I find it hard to believe it still happens, but do people really think the President wields actual power and isn’t more like a circus act paraded around to distract attention away from power? Isn’t the last Presidential campaign (or the last eight Administrations for that matter) proof enough of this? A news magazine cover like Newsweek’s might appear to be hard-hitting criticism, but really it’s just more of the same old merry-go-round bullshit: “Hey look, it’s that woman who should’ve faded into obscurity over a year ago! Let’s talk yet again about how good-looking but dimwitted she was while all kinds of real and important stuff is going on that nobody needs to hear about until the cash has been laundered off-shore!”

And if that doesn’t float your boat, we got some brand spankin’ new President-elect beach-blanket beefcake for ya instead! And I bet Obama could totally beat Putin at arm-wrestling; so why not, like, settle the Iran nuclear stuff and whatever that way? It’d make a hella cool Newsweak cover! (oops, Freudian slip there with the spelling)

By: Nomie

Nomie — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:20:06 +0000

Two Blackberries! I was staring at the picture for the longest time trying to figure out what the hell was in her hand.

By: Gloria

Gloria — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:31:33 +0000

Okay, am I the only one having a problem with “only one person gets fucked”? That’s not how I use that word. That is not how ANYONE I KNOW uses that word. I am a woman, and I have sex with men, and I have never said I was fucked by someone. I say I fucked them, or we fucked. For me, and everyone else I know, pretty much, it’s just a more graphic way of saying “have sex”. It’s not a verb that requires a direct object. Bikini Kill has a song called “I Like Fucking”, but I guess you’d all read that as “I like getting fucked”? Who really talks like this? Do any of you talk to people, outside of an academic setting? This is not how most people use this word.