Sarah Palin, Newsweek Cover, and Sexism

by Eugene Cho 11-18-2009

091118-sarah-palin-newsweek-cover Sarah Palin is all over the news — just like she wants. And before you criticize her, she and her team have a strategy and they’re implementing it well to ensure that her persona is before the American public until the next Presidential election. Like her or not, get used to seeing and hearing much about Palin.

And on cue, Palin is on the front cover of the latest edition of Newsweek. Most of my readers know that “I like Palin… but Not in That Way,” but what in the world is up with the editors of Newsweek? What is the point of this cover?

I don’t have a problem with the lead title, but that image of Palin is demeaning. Let’s call it straight: It’s sexist. She is a politician — one of the very few visible female politicians. Why would they take a picture from a shoot from some time ago from Runner’s World magazine (and use it without permission from RW)? What is the point of her with her “running legs” for a political article?

Your turn:

Politically correct overload? Or is this sexist?

Here’s the link from Newsweek:

This week, to coincide with the release of Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue, Newsweek’s editors decided to print two essays (one by Evan Thomas, the other by Christopher Hitchens) about the former Alaska governor and have her image grace our cover. The photo chosen was from a shoot Palin had participated in for Runner’s World magazine.

To note that choosing that particular photograph has ruffled a few feathers is perhaps an understatement. Palin denounced it — and us — to her million-strong Facebook following last night. “The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this ‘news’ magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant,” she wrote on her fan page, adding, “The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.” She also told ABC’s Barbara Walters that she found the cover “a wee bit degrading.” Others, like CBN’s David Brody, said our cover was a new low: “biased and sexist at the same time.”

Today, Newsweek’s Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. “We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. “We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”

Eugene Cho, a second-generation Korean-American, is the founder and lead pastor of Quest Church in Seattle and the executive director of Q Cafe, an innovative nonprofit neighborhood café and music venue. You can stalk him at his blog or follow him on Twitter. He and his wife are also launching a grassroots movement, One Day’s Wages, to fight extreme global poverty – which was recently featured in The New York Times.

Categories: Gender

BlueDeacon

I find it incredibly ironic that conservatives would find the the Newsweek cover sexist. After all, that's precisely why they selected her as their "poster girl" in the first place -- she certainly is easy on the eye but snarls at opponents in the way they want. Sounds as though they want it both ways.

Faydine

I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin, but I guess I'm conservative enough to find this shot sexist, as I found all the shots of a shirtless Obama sexist. I'm equally sick to death of everyone oohing and ahhing over Michelle's fashion sense -- but that doesn't mean I'd like to see Newsweek put a "worst dressed photo" of Michelle Obama on their cover.

I don't think her strategy will get her the presidency. But shame on Newsweek for being so biased. Whatever happened to just reporting the news on not judging who's out there?

BlueDeacon

Whatever happened to just reporting the news on not judging who's out there?

I'm in the business, so let me tell you what that was about: Personalities sell. And because that's the case, one person's truth can be another's bias. In the case of Palin, personality is, for all practical purposes, all she has.

BobinTexas

I beg to differ. Palin also has experience for one thing. She has much more experience than Obama, in fact. Like you, I once thought she was just fluff. I realize now that I was wrong. Yes, she most certainly has a winsome personality, but there is a lot more to her than that. Believe what you will. I was once a lot like you.

BlueDeacon

Impossible, because I'm naturally cynical -- in fact, I got out of partisan politics in the early 1990s because no political party supports what I believe. And if Palin was so "experienced," she would have never left the governorship of Alaska because "those bad bloggers were hating on me!" (which is in fact what happened). You need a far thicker skin to make it in politics, and that's one thing Palin simply doesn't have. None of the platitudes you believe about her can change that fact.

ldbrandel

Having experience and not having the will to continue as governor are two different things. Governor Palin had to work with a budget as well as working with Alaska's government workers and its citizens. On the campaign trail Sen. Obama offered his presidential campaign as an example of handling a budget and leading. That's not the same experience. This comment isn't directed to the man, but the office. A governorship is better preparation than being a senator. Read Palin had better preparation than McCain, Biden, and Obama.

hottamales

I think she might've had the will to continue, but if she had, she would've had her hands tied in a lot of ways, and she felt that taxpayer money was being wasted and she could not do a good job because of all the frivoulous ethics complaints. I actually admired her for putting the people of Alaska first. How many politicians put their people first?

Obviously, it was a good decision for her now that she has a book out and is able to freely speak her mind without McCain or handlers or ethics complaints or job restrictions hindering or stifling her. She seems to really be flourishing anew. I've been thinking that no way was she going to run for President, but now I'm wondering if maybe she is.

BlueDeacon

What Palin certainly lacked in the experience department was in working with people on the other side. She should have known that, no matter what she did, she would have critics. And besides, Alaska has fewer people than most large cities (including mine), and her previous job was as a figurehead mayor of an Anchorage suburb, where an appointed manager did most of the heavy lifting.

Truth2Power

Blue,

I'm curious. Would you be able to recognize if a women for whom you have great contempt at a political level were being treated in a sexist manner, either by others or by yourself?

What methods (spiritual disciplines, consulting with your pastor, etc.) do you employ to at least try to ensure that your partisan political convictions aren't blinding you to weightier issues of truth and justice?

I think Eugene Cho has done an excellent job here of recognizing sexism, even though he's not particularly sympathetic to the object of that sexism. It's a model we would all do well to follow, myself included.

And please, don't bother with an "I'll do it when James Dobson (or other conservative leader here) does it" response. I'll just play "Blue's Greatest Hits" if I want to hear that one.

BobinTexas

It's hard to see straight when blinded by a barrage of liberal hatred and media manipulation. Been there, done that. Won't do it again.

I foolishly allowed the media, the tabloids, and the excitement of the historic momement to blind me, and unfortunately, I voted for Obama. Even though I am a Believer, I harbored hatred in my heart towards Sarah Palin (and George Bush). It was spurred on by angry journalists and mean-spirited mockery by comedians on SNL and elsewhere.

It's hard to admit how duped I allowed myself to be, and shameful for me to confess that I listened more to popular media and culture than to my own conscience and Biblical teachings.

I was unable to recognize my contempt and justified it in the name of political correctness. I am a much better man now. I was blind not only to the strengths Palin possesses, not only to media bias, not only to the way I was influenced by popular culture, not only to Obama's inexperience, but also to my own sinful heart and ways.

And I agree that it's good to see Cho address the sexism, but disconcerting at how he does it in a way that reveals his inner bitterness and desdain towards Sarah Palin.

BlueDeacon

It's funny, but some Christians have had the opposite thing happen to them. Substitute Ronald Reagan for Barack Obama and you have pretty much the same situation that one of my college friends faced.

BlueDeacon

Would you be able to recognize if a women for whom you have great contempt at a political level were being treated in a sexist manner, either by others or by yourself?

Yes, I certainly would, but that's not really the issue here. Palin's worshippers are trying to make it into an issue of sexism because it fits that crowd's profile of whining whenever they can't get their way or someone dares criticize them -- they actually thrive on hating others, which includes others "hating" them. That's the bigger picture; too bad that you can't or won't see that.

What methods (spiritual disciplines, consulting with your pastor, etc.) do you employ to at least try to ensure that your partisan political convictions aren't blinding you to weightier issues of truth and justice?

I've been doing just that for the last 30 years, and as a result I recognize phonies when I see them. Truth and justice? In this case, completely irrelevant. (BTW, some pastors occasionally consult with me!)

Truth2Power

Blue,

I didn’t realize truth and justice were ever irrelevant, even when we’re talking about our enemies, but I’ll defer to greater minds on that one.

I asked you how you would recognize it if your biases were blinding you on this issue and your response is essentially “I’d recognize it because I can recognize my own bias.”

Okay . . . that’s kind of a tautology, so let's try another way of asking the question.

How can you go about pulling a cinder out of your brother's eye when there is a plank in your own?

The issue here isn't Sarah Palin -- and for what it's worth, although I agree with Eugene that the Newsweek cover was undeniably sexist, I couldn’t really care less about her book and I'm not a supporter of hers by any means.

The issue here is you, Blue. If your posts on this blog are any indication, you're spinning around in a constant whirlwind of anger and resentment at conservatives. To quote Don Henly, "If you keep carrying around all that anger, it’s going to eat you up inside.”

I really want you to sit back and sleep on this one, Blue. How will you keep your political passions from turning you into someone who does the very things he hates in others?

Your passion for your politcal concerns is admirable, but all passions have the power to metasticize into hate and judgment.

BlueDeacon

I asked you how you would recognize it if your biases were blinding you on this issue and your response is essentially “I’d recognize it because I can recognize my own bias.”

The way to get rid of bias is to understand the other side, which I do. The trouble is that, at least where many conservatives are concerned, they don't -- and don't want to, so committed are they to their defective worldview. And on top of that, they're truly threatened by anyone who doesn't share it. That's why so many of them hate this blog.

The issue here is you, Blue. If your posts on this blog are any indication, you're spinning around in a constant whirlwind of anger and resentment at conservatives. To quote Don Henly, "If you keep carrying around all that anger, it’s going to eat you up inside.”

I don't see it that way and, for that matter, neither do the conservatives who actually know me; since I attend an evangelical church I'm around them a lot. And I've had substantive conversations with them around politics -- very respectful and tame and accepting each other's positions. But others on the right feel the need to attack other people, and that is and always has been unfortunately part of that MO. Those people, IMO and E, need to be resisted -- firmly -- because they simply have no respect for anyone who disagrees. Just look at the nasty, snarky comments that some "drive-by" posters have made just this week.

Your passion for your political concerns is admirable, but all passions have the power to metasticize into hate and judgment.

My biggest passion is for reconciliation. But to do that you have to admit that there's a breach that both sides have to close, and that's the problem. The "liberals" have always had their hands out but the conservatives have always slapped it and at some point you have to give up. Even Martin Luther King Jr., who certainly wasn't "bitter," publicly called out a number of people and groups who actively opposed him; in (I think) an interview in Playboy magazine he laid part of the blame for the lack of progress on "right-wing Northern whites" and called Barry Goldwater "the most dangerous man in the country." See, a lot of conservatives lionize King for his "I Have a Dream" speech but didn't read or hear the rest of what he said -- and if they did they'd be forced to admit that they'd rather deal with Jeremiah Wright.

hector1

"Pride comes before a fall."

Your response to favorable Palin comments is consistently along these lines: "nope," "false, "wrong," "not so," "no way." In your mind, clearly, you are right while all who don't share your views are wrong. Pride, my brother, pride.

Another brother is trying to get you to look at yourself and your response is no different than your other comments. Your brother said, "all passions have the power to metasticize into hate and judgment." And I would add pride.

Don't hold so tightly to your political persuasions that you fail to self-examine yourself because that's a dangerous place to be.

BlueDeacon

Here's the problem with such a statement: I actually do the homework and
learned and understand the historical context. I also reject post-modern
philosophy, which means that there are some things that are right and others
that are wrong which have absolutely nothing to do with me -- what they are
saying, essentially, is that 2 + 2 may = 11. This is the problem I've always
had with much of the political right -- it simply will not be confronted about
its sins, including distortion of their opponents' positions for the sake of
political/ideological gain. And that is a symptom of pride -- and why
it's on its way out.

hector1

So what's in it for you always being right? Honestly, you gotta wonder what does it do for you? Does always telling people the problem with their statements or how wrong they are help you sleep better at night? Bring you peace and contenment? Strengthen your faith in God? Edify others?

You need to realize that you can't control what others think, say, or do, and the "political right" is gonna keep on bugging you and it clearly ain't doing you much good.

Not everyone thinks like you Blue, and Christian love doesn't expect people to. Always being right is a real problem and can really turn people off. Not to mention that it's a sinful attitude of the heart.

So with that, I ain't wasting no more breathe because clearly you ain't gonna listen to no one but your own bad self.

BlueDeacon

Does always telling people the problem with their statements or how wrong they are help you sleep better at night? Bring you peace and contentment? Strengthen your faith in God? Edify others?

For me it actually does all these things, believe it or not, because I know I've done the best I can to get hard truth -- not just ideology or opinion -- into the discussion, which is what God desires. And some people just can't handle the truth, which is why I, shall we say, create such havoc on-line. But I will not take responsibility for people's reactions to my statements or related actions, much as you would like me to -- because that's codependency. This is what Sarah Palin and other conservatives do consistently, which is wrong.

You need to realize that you can't control what others think, say, or do, and the "political right" is gonna keep on bugging you and it clearly ain't doing you much good.

All I've ever done in nearly 30 years is expose what it does or says as fraudulent, but since it doesn't want accountability for that it calls people names in response. You can't have civility for civility's sake; such things have to be addressed, and I have the guts to do it and take the resultant abuse.

Not everyone thinks like you Blue, and Christian love doesn't expect people to. Always being right is a real problem and can really turn people off. Not to mention that it's a sinful attitude of the heart.

While I will never claim divinity, I'm sure Jesus had some of the same things said to Him for the same reasons, so calling my heart "sinful" is a stretch. Any I know full well that people don't think the same way as I; that's not what I'm talking about.

myfanwy

You, yourself are becoming rather tedious, hector1.

I think anyone who belongs to a good accountability group at church understands what you are trying to do, but you don't know the person you are "counseling" [if indeed that is your intention] and you haven't been asked to do so. From an outsider's perspective, you might want to examine what you, yourself, are actually getting out of this exchange and why you feel compelled [or qualified] to undertake someone else's spiritual instruction.

WaveTossed

"You need to realize that you can't control what others think, say, or do, and the 'political right' is gonna keep on bugging you and it clearly ain't doing you much good."

If you read many of Blue Deacon's posts in other threads, you will see that his views and those of the "political right" truly aren't very different when it comes to gender. Like many in the "political right," Blue Deacon also believes that gender and biology determine complex behavior.

Curious: would you agree or disagree with Blue Deacon's views on biological gender differences?