Sarah Palin, Newsweek Cover, and Sexism

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.

Ms. Palin seems to want to both eat and have her cake. She is upset at the "sexist" photo for which she willingly posed appearing on the cover of a national magazine. Rule number one with photographers: never allow yourself to be photographed in a position that you are not willing to be seen displayed publicly, but then despite her faux-naive response, I'm reasonably certain she already knew this. Typical provocateur tactics - set yourself up to be mocked and then feign outrage when the mockery occurs. Those well-versed in American media strategies know that controversy, be it real or manufactured always draws attention. Looks like Ms. Palin and her PR team have been working overtime this week and it's really paid off for them.

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I wish that Newsweek had not run with the photo. She should be judged solely by what she says and by what she does. Those who have followed her political career (starting with the announcement by McCain of her selection as his running mate and extending through her resignation and her interviews promoting her book) have enough information with which to evaluate her fitness to serve as president.

One important lesson here: be careful of the photos that you pose for. It does not appear that the camera lens was poking through a hole in a picket fence.

She "willingly posed" on the cover of Runner's Magazine because she is a strong promoter of health and exercise! Should she have posed on the cover of Runner's Mag. in a pantsuit or dress?? This is hardly a sexist photo on Runner's Mag, but Newsweek using this as there cover photo for an article that has nothing to do with running, exercise, or health is ludicrous and pure sexism.

I'm confused. Did someone hold a gun up to Salarah Palin's head and force her to pose as she did, like that? Or did she do it voluntarily? In order for any magazine to publishe pictuyres, they have to get a release from the person involved. Unless she claims to have been mysteriously "brainwashed" by the "liberal media."

When self-described conservatives get into victimology, it's just as bad as when liberals get into it.

I'm afraid I don't get it. If the picture was OK at Runner's World, being not sexist, then, while it may be a poor choice of picture (I agree it was a poor choice), how can it be sexist at Newsweek? Is it because it diverts readers' attention to her physical body rather than her ideas? But then there is the question of dress in general - is it always wrong to dress in a way to highlight one's physical "plusses?"

What's up with all the group think here at Sojourners? Does a person have to be a Sarah hater in order to comment here??

I personally have no problem with Palin. Okay, put your stones down and catch your breathe!

I don't know if I'd necessarily vote for her if she runs for President, but I do think that she's a well-rounded and intelligent person as well as a good politician. She has a great personality as well.

All the media hype isn't due to her putting herself out there. Surely we are all too intelligent to buy this ridiculous frame of thought! The media is obsessed with her. Obsessed with bringing her down. Obsessed because no matter what they do they can't bring her down.

Even if she sat at home with her curtains drawn, I'm sure there'd still be Palin articles and blogs. It doesn't take much to get certain people foaming at the mouth at the mention of her name. Interesting.

Newsweek's sales have plummetted. They recently went through yet another round of layoffs and probably won't survive much longer. They are far too biased for most people. This cover- it's picture and heading- are so clearly biased it slaps you in the face. They are desperate, and this cover clearly shows it. And yes, it is pure sexism.

She posed voluntarily- for Runner's Magazine, not for Newsweek. She posed because she was on the cover of a magazine about running.

You honestly think Newsweek would get her permission to post a picture? The rules of journalism don't apply when it comes to Sarah Palin. The AP "fact checked" her book with a team of eleven people and a huge list of "lies." What a hoot! They did no fact check on either of Obama's books, nor Biden's. There are no "rules" when it comes to them and Sarah Palin.

Saying that this is a sexist photo is hardly a statement of victimization. It's a statement of fact, and it's ridiculous that this "news" magazine chose this photo for a "news" article. There are hundreds of other much more fitting photos of Plain out there. And they choose this one?? Why? Because they are demeaning here, as they have done in the past and will continue to do in the future.

It's a tasteful photo in all ways, but not at all fitting for the cover of an article that has nothing to do with running, fitness, or health.

"Should she have posed on the cover of Runner's Mag. in a pantsuit or dress?? "

How about a sweat suit? Seems like it would have more closely reflected what joggers wear in Alaska.

Look, she can wear anything that she wants, including nothing. Some photos may be appropriate to share with family or close friends. (I have photos of my children and grandchildren in the tub - I just don't post them for the general public.) A little discretion goes a long way here.

I don't see what the photo has the do with the title. I guess they couldn't find one where she was dressed as a nun and playing a guitar?

But- common sense would suggest- don't pose for photos for professional photographers if you don't want people to see the photos. Not even Sarah Palin is that stupid, right? ...right? She's complaining because she likes attention. And the more she complains, the more attention she gets. Newsweek did her a favor by running this picture and she knows it.

"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)?"
Does RW hold the © to the photos? Does the photographer? Newsweek didn't need permission from anyone but the copyright holder, and I bet they're pretty careful about that kind of thing. (If they're RW's photos, how did Newsweek even get them?) I bet Sarah Palin has no right to approve/disapprove use the photos either, and with political figures you don't need a model release. (Something else to keep in mind when you pose for the camera in your shorts, if you actually want to be taken seriously as a politician.)

The Newsweek article is not on running or fitness. It's a "news" article (although Newsweek hardly writes news. It's devolved into a purely partisan opinion mag), and the photo is so out of place.

Newsweek obviously choose this photo intentionally, considering all the other more fitting photos they could've chosen from.

Jon Meechem is the editor of Newsweek, and he is unable to hide his political believes. He became editor in 2006 and has driven the magazine to the ground because of his biased commentary. He is fiercely supportive of Obama and hotly antagonistic towards Palin.

He's shrewd and choose this photo purposefully. His motives were purely sexist. If it had been Hillary Clinton posing on the cover of Runner's Mag and Newsweek ran the same article with the same heading and a photo of her in shorts, you better believe the feminists and media would've been all over it claiming sexism. But when it comes to Palin, anything that demeans her is blindingly acceptable with them.

I have seen some photos of our President smoking a cigerette, they get passed around by those with a negative political view of his policies.
Not all people are lost to their political preferences and prejudices and are unable to see what NewsWeek did here.
Conservatives did not find the cover sexist, "people" found the cover sexist.

Bush, Obama, Cheney, Clinton & Clinton, Palin. All 6 generate polarizing reactions. What's up with that?

Oh good grief. A sweat suit?

She looks perfectly fine in this photo, esp. considering that it was on the cover of a fitness magazine. There is no cleavage showing. She's not posing provacitively. She's extremely modest looking, esp. compared to what most women wear on the covers of fitness magazines.

It's astounding to hear someone say that this photo is indiscrete. Esp. in our 21st century when women wear far more revealing things than this outfit.

While I have no doubt that the people at Newsweek aren't fans of Sarah Palin, my question remains. Why, precisely, is this picture sexist as opposed to simply being a poor choice and out-of-place? And the same question applies to a hypothetical picture of Hillary Clinton in the same pose.

Don't forget the shirtless photo of him on the beach. The media went nuts over his "hotness." Double standard.

I think Newsweek chose this picture to make Palin look non-serious. I am not one who takes her seriously. She is just a folksy slogan-spouter who plays fast and loose with the facts and had no business being on a national ticket, to my mind. But I think Newsweek made a poor choice in running this picture. It does feel a little sexist as well as disrespectful on one hand, and on the other is counter-productive if Newsweek wants to lower her political stock - it will just make a lot of people feel more sympathy for poor little picked-on Sarah. Sorry if this post is a little snarky, but Palin has also dished out her share of snarky comments, and a lot of them have been half-truths or downright false. If she can't take the heat, maybe she should stay in Alaska where it's cold.

If what Newsweek was trying to portray is that Sarah Palin promotes herself in weird ways for a person trying to be President and doesn't come across as a "normal" politician, then I think that this is the perfect image for that.

If they were writing a story about a man who was acting more like a celebrity than a public figure, then they would find the weirdest publicity shot of them on file, too. Okay, they may not have their legs bared, but really... I'm just not sure it's worth all the hoopla.

I'm still trying to figure out why this is sexist. ...because no one would ever show a male politician's legs unless it was a fitness mag? ...or because it's okay to show a man's legs but not a woman's?

I don't remember hearing an uproar when "Washingtonian" magazine ran a photo of Obama (which was NOT staged by a professional photographer, but shot while he was on a family vacation) wearing nothing but swimming trunks, next to the headline, "Our New Neighbor is Hot".
The only issue with the photo that I heard about was that they altered the color of his shorts from blue to red, and photoshop is a big no-no in the news business!

"It's sexist. She is a politician - one of the very few visible female politicians."

WHY is she the most visible female politician? One reason: 'cause she's purdy. She's using what she's got. (What's "sexist" is accusing women of that when they've actually honestly worked hard to achieve success, but that really doesn't apply here.) Sarah Palin is not a victim of sexism, if anything, she's a contributor to it. If I wanted to be taken seriously as a politician and Newsweek had called me a "Problem" "bad news for the GOP-and for everybody else, too" on their cover, I'd be a little more upset about THAT instead of drawing attention to a photo that I willingly posed for showing off my sexy legs.

I think she looks great! Healthy and fit. Her beauty comes from her healthy lifestyle, her happiness, her family. Newsweek's photo backfired IMO because our nation has a huge obesity problem, and Palin promotes health and fitness. One more plus if she ever runs for office. There's been all sorts of hoopla over the fit shape of the current President.

Of course the photo has absolutely nothing to do with the Newsweek article and clearly, it was a sexist decision to use this particular photo. Newsweek isn't exactly a magazine that delivers fair and/or balanced news, and their agenda is fairly obvious.

You didn't hear an uproar over the Obama shirtless photo because there is a double standard and a media who loves Obama and fears and despises Sarah Palin. Those who wrote things like "Our new neighbor is hot" were tabloids and liberal media. Most conservatives just rolled their eyes watching the ongoing, never-ending love fest.

Sarah Palin's the most visible female politician because liberals despise and greatly fear her. I'm sure there is envy involved too. Had lsome of those liberal female politicians posed in shorts on Runner's Magazine... we'd all be cringing!

There certainly is nothing at all unprofessional or distasteful about a woman, including a politician, having a beautiful body and great legs! Newsweek's choice of this photos was dumbfounding, but she sure looks great!

Does a person have to be a Sarah hater in order to comment here??

Hardly, but most of us who do don't care for her.

...but I do think that she's a well-rounded and intelligent person as well as a good politician. She has a great personality as well.

That doesn't mean she deserves to be in public office. She left the governorship of Alaska because she couldn't take the heat.

Newsweek's sales have plummeted. They recently went through yet another round of layoffs and probably won't survive much longer. They are far too biased for most people.

Uh -- not one conservative magazine has ever made a dime of profit. They're all on "welfare" from wealthy conservatives, every last one of them.

I think she's proved that she can "take the heat!" Look at her out on her book tour, smiling, happy, confident, poised! She's won me. I wasn't sure about her to start with, and I listened a bit too much to all the media pundits, but once I started learning more about her, I liked what I saw. She's a very vibrant woman, and she doesn't pussy-foot around things like Obama. She speaks her mind, and she isn't a people-pleaser. Our nation could use more politicians like that. All the empty rhetoric currently in D.C. is getting old.

She'd still be governor if she could.