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

wordherder62

I disagree with the columnist in this instance. It would be sexist if Sarah Palin had stood solely on her own merits and not every raised the issue of her gender and, as much as that, her attractiveness in both her first burst on to the campaign trail nationally and in her book. She has been a beauty contestant. To cry now that she is viewed as how she has tried to have herself viewed is simply silly and to play into it is as silly. Mrs. Palin is not above using her looks and gender, so in my eyes the Newsweek cover simply plays it straight. Here she is. She wants desperately to be president and she needs to learn to play out the hand she puts on the table. Otherwise, she can play a different hand and find herself judged in a different way. I'm not going to hold my breath.

NC77

Ha. Good one Kansas. Let's say without bonuses :)

squeaky

Just out of curiousity--if I were to go onto a conservative blog and go off about conservatives as you have about liberals here, how do you think I might be received? Would people be all "of hey, welcome! Glad you are here! Your in-your-face rhetorical style has really won me over! I'm going out right now and petition for my vote in last year's presidential election be changed to Obama!"

You come onto a left-leaning blog like a bull in a china shop, and you expect every comment towards you to be measured and respectful, when the comments you and other conservative newbies came on here with were anything but. From my perspective as a regular poster here, yours and other's posts have the feeling of someone I've never met coming to my house and immediately criticizing my decoration style (which, I realize, needs criticizing, but that's besides the point).

If you posted here long, you would know that the dialogue has improved pretty significantly in the past few months. It was so bad from both sides that many of the regulars have left, some still haven't returned. And now you and others come on and start tearing what little progress we have made on elevating the respectful tone on this site down again. This may be a reason some posts have been reported. If two people were in my house--a long time friend and a new person I have never met--and both were being very rude to each other, I wouldn't ask my long time friend to leave.

squeaky

Just so you know--one of my posts was removed. I hope you are happy. Actually, I"m a bit saddened by the demise of my post, as I thought it was one of my more clever comments. Cest la vie!

kansasmennonite

is that with or without bonuses?

BuckeyeDon

Here's a good article about the resignation of Van Jones:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/sarah-van-geld...

BuckeyeDon

For some reason, Disqus won't let me reply to KentuckyBlue below, so I'm replying to myself. I hope you see this, Kentucky.

Oaky, granted, it was quoted in 2005. Only four years ago. But what period of Mr. Jones' life was he referring to? Quotes can be taken out of context, as you well know. Without knowing the context myself, it reads like he might have been talking about his college days, not the recent past. How long ago was he in college?

What does he think about that statement today? Would he agree with his former self? That's the key question. And of course, that's the question Beck and his cohorts don't want people asking. We are just to assume that because he said he's a communist once, he must still be one.

And your comment that certain ideologies don't belong in the White House smacks of McCarthyism. What was Van Jones' job? He was there to advise the president on green energy and a green economy. What does his personal ideology have to do with that? Don't forget, so-called czars are only advisory. He had no executive power.

Every employer hires people who don't share their political ideology; they're hired because their the best persons for the job. Claiming that the president must share Van Jones' ideology--even if he still calls himself a communist, which hasn't been established--is guilt by association.

kansasmennonite

This site is by default more liberal than you are.

KentuckyBlue

This is exactly what I am talking about with the posts that are insulting and rude, thus violating the "Code of Conduct" here... yet they are not moderated, and when I try to "report" them, nothing happens. You insult me with a snarky comment, yet you, and others, expect me, and other conservative-leaning posters, to be respectful and courteous. It's really irksome.

KentuckyBlue

Thanks for the insult. Maybe I should "report" it. Seems to be a lot of reporting going around here lately, and it ought to work both ways.

I get almost all my news via the internet, and I go to MSNBC's website, but not CNN's. I also go to the Fox News website. Often they have stories that MSNBC doesn't cover or won't touch for a day or two after it's come out on Fox News.

I don't have the time to read every single news source out there or watch all the news shows. Who does? And I get tired of hearing talk, talk, talk, which is why I'd rather read it.

Now, if you want to continue to insult me because you think "balanced" is not my "cup of tea," go right ahead, but it only looks bad on you, and this site has a code of conduct on how it expects you to treat other posters.

KentuckyBlue

I was just replying to your comment to name "a" talk radio show that isn't extreme right.

myfanwy

"I, like millions of others, don't watch CNN or MSNBC nor do I buy the rags produced by left wing print."

Most people I know sample a variety of media to get a more balanced view of what is really happening. I can tell from your posts, though, that "balanced" is not quite your cup of tea.

myfanwy

When you're biased, you seek news, entertainment and a world view that affirms what you already believe. Oh yes, and you try to shape the nature of God to fit the bias as well. That is the nature of bias, and it is ubiquitous.

myfanwy

Just curious, how can you possibly claim to know what our president "hates"? That is a very strange statement to make.

kansasmennonite

I don't have access to air america here in kansas as far as I know. I have access to all right wing religious programming and right wing talk radio. You don't understand. The media here is conservative and extreme.

JaneinWNY

Um, no, I meant giving time to the insurance companies to develop new products, and change their policies, their procedures, and their computer programs.

Jane

KentuckyBlue

"I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of'.... “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.”

-- Van Jones

Quoted from The East Bay Express in 2005. 2005 is only a mere 4 years ago.

This is America. Self-avowed communists have no place in the White House, unless, of course, our President has no qualms with communism.

KentuckyBlue

"name me a talk radio program that isn't extreme right and I mean extreme."

Air America.

judithod

There's a glaring dichotomy between the "urgency" of covering those varying numbers of uninsured and the delay in covering them. If the concern for the uninsured is genuine, their plight should be addressed immediately, not lost in pages of blighted legislation.

And of course, setting up that maze of government bureaucracy and training thousands to manage an as yet undefined "qualified plan" will consume years and billions of dollars. But go ahead, support it even though you won't know what the plan covers or what it costs for several years. Suspect it will "break the bank" in spite of the forecasts just as Medicare and Social Security have done in spite of the forecasts.

JaneinWNY

Comment no longer needed.