22
   

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

 
 
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:03 pm
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:05 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Are they for real?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:06 pm
@Robert Gentel,
The woman on the right on that clip was just wailing on CNN last night.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:09 pm
Hilarious.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:37 pm
@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.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:40 pm
@littlek,
Yup. Was a subscriber until just recently when I dropped it in favor of US News & World Report.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:41 pm
@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
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:43 pm
@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?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:46 pm
@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.
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 06:47 pm
@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
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 07:19 pm
@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

JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 07:20 pm
@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
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 07:24 pm
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.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 07:38 pm
@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
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 07:42 pm
@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
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 07:48 pm
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
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 08:39 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
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


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}
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 08:40 pm
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
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 09:39 pm
@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
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fox News: Palin's Newsweek cover "untouched" and "mortifying"
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/14/2019 at 01:06:03