Fox News: Palin's Newsweek cover "untouched" and "mortifying"

Forums: Politics, Palin, Humor, Media, Fox News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 22 • Views: 7,513 • Replies: 59

[+4] - vmars2007 - 10/14/2008Are you ******* joking me about this? I mean, honestly. Are people really fighting about how she looks on a magazine? Isn't that what everyone has been saying all along- oh, look at Sarah Palin,...
[+3] - farmerman - 10/11/2008Exactly my response. The one Obama pic has more "Blemishes " than does the PAlin shot. Well, the funny thing is that Foxfyre cancelled her subscription to Newsweek based on this...
[+3] - NickFun - 10/11/2008I can guarantee you will never find three guys arguing about this.

@Robert Gentel,

Are they for real?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

The woman on the right on that clip was just wailing on CNN last night.

0 Replies

Hilarious.

0 Replies

Below viewing threshold (view)

Megan Kelly took the view that Newsweek attempted to make Sarah Palin as unattractive as they possibly could without flat out making it obvious that was their intent. I believe she is right.

Steven & Brian were equally offended, but Gretchen Carlson of the earlier Fox & Friends program and their guests, however, took the view that even though Newsweek intentionally tried to sabotage Sarah, Sarah still comes across as an incredibly beautiful 44-year-old.

Time Magazine's effort to skewer Ann Coulter with an unattractive photo backfired just as badly:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/20050425_107.jpg

But there is no secret that Newsweek (and most all of the rest of the MSM) is pulling hard for Obama and did not want to do any kind of favor for Sarah Palin. But, for those who know that, the cover only reinforces that opinion, and probably won't sway a single vote.

Verdict: tempest in a teapot.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Not buying this silliness. Have you ever looked at Newsweek aside from these two covers? They generally are pretty straight up.

Why are pores, wrinkles and such considered unattractive anyway? Sounds like those who are complaining have issues with aging or reality or something.

1 Reply

@littlek,

Yup. Was a subscriber until just recently when I dropped it in favor of US News & World Report.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Time Magazine's effort to skewer Ann Coulter with an unattractive photo backfired just as badly:

That's all TIME could publish for there isn't anything but unattractive photos of Ann Coulter

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

So, why are you being swayed by this silliness? I've found unretouched (so far as i can tell) photos of Obama, H Clinton, Johnny Depp...... they look real and normal (and in Depp's case incredibly hot). Why is that unacceptable for Palin?

1 Reply

@littlek,

I didn't say it was. But show me such a really close close up of any of those other guys on the front cover. I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight here Littlek. I don't think the cover was that big a deal. It is just one more example of a growing body of evidence of blatant media bias but most, or a least a lot of us, know that that's the way it is going to be. Like I said, tempest in a teapot.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I simply can not see the bias in that picture. If anything I thought, wow, she looks great even close up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/the-ridiculous-emnewsweek_n_133625.html

1 Reply

@littlek,

The actual photo, when you hold the magazine in your hands, shows the pores, wrinkles, facial hair, that doesn't show up on the reproductions on the internet or on TV. And some, especially men, tend to view a super close up of a woman on a cover like that negatively. (A concept which we were taught even back in my old journalism school days.)

Compare this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01007/palin-cover_1007297f.jpg

with this:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052908/content/01125107.Par.57162.ImageFile.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/29933/thumbs/s-NSWK-small.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/6997/thumbs/s-NEWSWEEK-small.jpg

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

First, you should have noted what "news branch" raised this story, Foxy. That would have been enough to put it to rest.

How you can say things like, "a growing body of evidence of blatant media bias", is really astounding. A media bias is the one that let Bush and Cheney repeat the same lies over and over, that let them off the hook when they denied that they had lied, even when there was video proof of the lies.

Someone please tell me that the picture at this site,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/eye-of-the-barracuda-emne_n_132048.html

is NOT the one that this "controversy" is all about.

I saved the picture from that webpage, blew it up on my Picture Viewer and still wasn't able to notice ANYTHING wrong with the picture. It is a highly flattering picture of Ms Palin, I think the best I've seen.

0 Replies

Still can't resist the non sequiturs can you JTT.

Oh well, I'm thumbing down the thread anyway because I've seen and said all there is to it at this point. You can only devote so much time to a tempest in a teapot.

Ya'll have a great night.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Still can't resist the non sequiturs can you JTT.

You should make an attempt to understand big words before you try to use them, Foxy.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Megan Kelly took the view that Newsweek attempted to make Sarah Palin as unattractive as they possibly could without flat out making it obvious that was their intent. I believe she is right.

I think she looks fine on that cover. She looks good, specially for a woman her age. I think it's a pretty flattering photo, actually - real, yeah, but all the more flattering for it. Better than yer standard glossy retouched type cover woulda been.

And really, what kind of bizarro logic is it to claim it's sexist not to retouch a woman's portrait? After all these decades of feminists teaching us that the way to really respect women is to see them as they really are, not as the made up models that business (or man) wants to turn them into, but as real life real women and see that they're beautiful for that, for who they really are. Now here you have a photo showing the woman unvarnished, and indeed, she still looks good anyway - and there's this woman calling that sexist?

Weirdo world.

0 Replies

Huh, looks great to me, but I can't see it in closeup.

You shoulda seen the one of Janet Reno, I think by the NYTimes magazine, some years ago. She looked like a photographed corpse, and I remember thinking it was a vicious photo.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Compare this:

with this:

Um, arent you totally undercutting your own message here? I mean, yeah, the one on the right is all glamorous. But I mean, look at that Obama cover on the left. What's the difference between that one and the Palin one, seriously? It's raw - talking of seeing every pore and imperfection.

Sure, he looks proud - but unvarnished and definitely not prettified. If anything, it's less flattering than the Palin one. And yet both Palin and Obama, on these unvarnished covers, look strong.

So doesnt this just prove Little K's point? On both levels: Obama's been just as unvarnished on covers, and what's wrong (let alone sexist) about showing them unvarnished anyway, since they still look good, and all the more strong for being real?

{shrugs}

2 Replies

I can only assume this is just another talking point from some hate-wing conservative blog."they are picking on our dearly beloved sarah."

0 Replies

@nimh,

Indeed...and I looked back at a bunch of Newsweek covers and they seem to have a penchant for this sort of close-up.

0 Replies

Fox News: Palin's Newsweek cover "untouched" and "mortifying"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know