Republicans complain when Palin filtered by mainstream media. Republicans complain when Palin unfiltered by mainstream media… October 10, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in US Politics.trackback
Wow, in an election where the absurd and the bizarre is reified to previously undreamt of heights, what about this?
As Abby Callard noted in today’s Slate there is a rumpus on the right about the current issue of Newsweek. Seems that the cover image they have used this week – that of Sarah Palin in close up is the cause of the trouble. As Callard writes:
The photo is clearly untouched: stray eyebrow hair, large pores, and wrinkles are all visible on her face. The headline reads “She’s One of The Folks (And that’s the problem).”
So then, what’s the cause of the ire?
But the outrage isn’t about the headline at all; it’s about the photo. When did untouched become “unfair,” as a Republican media consultant claims during the segment? And when did it become a requirement to retouch photos in news magazines rather than fashion ones?
Excuse me? Isn’t this the candidate not a bit over a week ago closed the debate with Joe Biden by saying that:
I like to answer these questions without the filter of the mainstream media
Why yes. Yes it is.
Callard continues:
The consultant went on to claim that the photo was “mortifying.” Maybe the photo is a little unflattering–who can expect to look great that close up–but mortifying? It’s also ridiculous that the three women on the segment prefaced their statements by some form of “Sarah Palin is a beautiful woman.” We get it.
If I were Palin, I would upset. Not at the magazine, but at these women who can only talk about her as a “beautiful woman.”
And this isn’t sexist treatment?
It sure is, and it’s also utterly utterly mad. I don’t think the photo is unflattering. Palin is a strong presence and this in some respects echoes it. But I can’t also help but wonder at whether there is method to the Republicans madness. The McCain/Palin ticket is badly holed below the waterline. A significant part of their fightback has been to suggest that media elites disdain Palin, in the hope of striking chord with the broader mass of Americans.
So charges like this are absolutely par for the course.
Incidentally, anyone catch Michelle Obama on the Daily Show last night? She was good, but exceedingly (and to my mind disappointingly) cautious. That’s a campaign that is absolutely focussed on not putting a foot wrong.
Well, they went out of their way to make her look unappealing. They couldn’t show her whole face. I don’t care who you are, even if you look like Anne Widdecombe, no woman wants to be photographed in an unflattering manner. And that’s what was done here. There’s no other way to read this.
The funny thing is, I bet women across America will recognize this for what it is: an attempt to make her look bad. Not look bad in the political sense, but just the way she looks. I suspect that if anything could make Sarah Palin a sympathetic person for the women of America this picture might just do it.
The McCain/Palin ticket is badly holed below the waterline.
Things are bad, but not quite that dire yet. McCain has to find a message that speaks to America about the current economic situation and make it stick. The polls are bad, but really I would have thought Obama’s lead would be bigger at this stage. It’s late in the 3rd quarter and McCain is down, but it’s not over yet.
I saw the video and went to look up Newsweek’s previous covers. The Fox commentator was dead wrong (surprise, surprise). This is the third time they’ve had her on the cover in six weeks. The first time was a standard portrait of her and McCain. The second was Palin-as-all-American-moose-hunter. Now this. (Joe Biden, incidentally, has only been on the cover once, wih Obama, in their corresponding portrait-style cover).
McCain had a pretty unflattering close-up cover in the summer. Obama’s been on the cover many, many times. Fox chose his most flattering cover to compare in their segment, but his ones in May and particularly January were NOT airbursh extravaganzas. In fact, the January one is very much the same style as this week’s Palin cover. They also had a cover of his fugly-looking high school yearbook photo.
If I were a ‘Republican media consultant’ I’d be far more worried about the content of the articles, which are far more unflattering than the photo.
Can’t really blame Michelle Obama for caution, as showing humour and expressing controversial opinions hasn’t gone well for her in the past. With the McCain campaign seizing increasingly pathetic straws, it’s understandable she wants to keep her head down until after the election. But I’m biased, I love her!
I don’t know Eagle, I guess it is in the eye of the beholder, but I see little wrong in someone in their 40s who looks well, wrinkles, hair very slightly astray and all, being photographed as such.
As regards the poll lead for Obama, I think considering the undertow of racism/ignorance (i.e. the belief that persists that he’s a Muslim) he’s doing strikingly well.
Claire, great info re other photos. Don’t get me wrong re MO, she’s a mighty impressive person. And I certainly don’t blame her, but it’s a pity that everything is couched in elliptical language.
Does this mean I’m the only one who has carnal thoughts about Sarah?
Does this mean I’m the only one who has carnal thoughts about Sarah?
Say three “Hail Marys”, Garibaldy- as gaeilge, freisin.
Maith go leor Nollaig.
*****(Joe Biden, incidentally, has only been on the cover once, with Obama, in their corresponding portrait-style cover).*****
Because no one is interested in Joe Biden. Even Democrats aren’t interested in Joe Biden.
*****There’s no other way to read this.*****
I don’t know if I would say that definitely, but it is a very odd photograph and it’s hard to know what Newsweek was thinking. If Michelle Obama were photographed in this way Democrats would be howling. Palin can sure take the exposure, though.
*****I guess it is in the eye of the beholder, but I see little wrong in someone in their 40s who looks well, wrinkles, hair very slightly astray and all, being photographed as such.*****
In principle you’re absolutely right. In practice, with the powerful cultural emphasis on women’s looks, the conventional rules for photographing women are different, because men can be considered attractive with gray hair, lines, and other minor flaws, and women are not.
*****Things are bad, but not quite that dire yet. McCain has to find a message that speaks to America about the current economic situation and make it stick. The polls are bad, but really I would have thought Obama’s lead would be bigger at this stage. It’s late in the 3rd quarter and McCain is down, but it’s not over yet.*****
I agree. But if the bad economic news continues to dominate the headlines, there is very little McCain can do even if he retools his economic message. Historically, in this situation, the party in power gets thrown out.
I bet women across America will recognize this for what it is: an attempt to make her look bad. Not look bad in the political sense, but just the way she looks
I’m not sure if I count as a “woman across America” any more, but I don’t think she does look bad in this cover. I thought she looked worse on that Vogue cover.
PamDirac, true to a point, but I think that there has been a degree of change as regards the perception of woman – well, let’s be honest – over their early to mid-30s. I think that’s great. I can’t point to any particular reason, other perhaps than the proliferation of women in their late 30s/40s/50s in the media and cultural areas, etc, etc. in a much more public way than before. And perhaps a loosening of cultural/social expectations. Which is also operating across a range of areas, for example the numbers of people in those areas going to music festivals…. And while I can think of some highly attractive women with gray hair etc… I agree that the cultural shift there is slow.
Here are three Newsweek covers to compare the Palin one to. Michelle Obama & Hillary /a> Clinton.
It seems clear to me that the other photographs are flattering to their subjects. That’s just not the case here. You might argue that she still looks attractive, but that’s not thanks to the picture.
As for the Vogue cover, I think she looks nice, but she doesn’t look like a serious politician, I guess.
This cover is not a political caricature. In fact, I can’t detect any political message whatsoever. What was the point?
Tiny point. The Vogue cover is a photoshop. It’s not real. When Palin appeared in Vogue it was with two photos, one of her in winter clothes next to a plane, the other she’s walking across a frozen lake.
Well interesting you should mention caricature Eagle. They show a close up photograph of her. I presume to indicate in part how she has a personalised folksy image that is immediate and – in this instance literally – in your face. I think that one can argue that it can be regarded as caricature. But I’d also argue that she looks well in the image. So it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.
I see this as a lot of fuss about nothing, it will have no impact on the campaign and it seems odd that for a candidate who plays on her ‘ordinariness’ her proxies would take offence.
Fair point Conor.
It seems clear to me that the other photographs are flattering to their subjects.
I don’t find the Hillary photo flattering at all. I think you’re projecting.
Didn’t know that about the Vogue cover, Conor. But I’ve never heard any Palin supporter complain about it, even though to my mind it conjures up Florence Henderson in Shakes the Clown.
It was done up last December by an Alaskan blogger on kodiak konfidential. He wrote recently that he can’t wait until the election is over so he can get back to his normal 500 hits a day! All the googling for the image is causing havoc with his bandwidth.
The original post is here.
http://kodiakkonfidential.blogspot.com/2007/12/sarah-in-vogue.html
It’s very well done, but there are slight things that give the game away, both of which I only noticed after they were pointed out to me – the letters VOGUE are in front of the image, not behind it as is usual for Vogue covers, and the sides of Palin’s face are completely straight where the picture has been cut and pasted.
Oh, there’s already a Sarah Palin porno. It’s to be released by Hustler.
Oh God…
Gotta love supply and demand
Well, live by the sword… etc… But really, does Larry Flynt have no shame? :0 I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
I’m resisting the temptation to name a whole slew of possible alternative films starring the other players in the race.
Now I’m curious…
I have a few Obamaporn links, but I doubt they’d get past the spam filter on this site.
Sure Google would throw them up anyway.
Sarah Palin is saying that already she’s improve the jobs situation by keeping Tina Fey in regular work – hohoho. At the end of this amusing clip of a recent McCain/Palin rally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuSYHnVpYbs
Bet she wouldn’t be as quick to name the pornstars that are earning a crust because of her.
Oh God, squared.. to both 21 and 22
She talks about her “impatience”. Hmm.
She ends with “When will we get the answers?” Well maybe she won’t get the questions answered just the way she wants if the other campaign talks straight to the American people.
“does Larry Flynt have no shame?”
I think he has a deep hatred of Republicans since they started trying to put him in jail.
The point about Palin is, if you don’t know anything then you really shouldn’t be in the running for Vice-President of the United States, or of anything else. If you’re not sufficiently knowledgeable then being “a hockey mom” – regardless of whether that claim actually stands up – is of pretty much no relevance whatsoever. Indeed, to bring it up, as if it were somehow compensatory evidence, is pretty much degrading.
This is why I’m not a populist: because grandstanding about people’s origins and how close they are (or reckon they are) to the people is profoundly damaging and stupid. A thing is not made true because of how many people believe it and ignorance is nor admirable merely because a lot of people are similarly ignorant. And it’s always seemed to me strange that people who otherwise will harp on about how it’s people’s own responsibility to get on by themselves, to improve themselves, very rarely take the same view about matters intellectual: that you’re really supposed to learn, to take on the responsibility of making yourself more knowledeable and that if you don’t, it is no good saying “well never mind, that’s just what the pointyheads do and I’m a hockey mom”.
I think he has a deep hatred of Republicans since they started trying to put him in jail.
He’s also been rather good at unearthing scandals and claiming the scalps of Republican moral hypocrites. This doesn’t efface Larry’s misogyny, but it does go some way to making me glad he’s still about. His political interventions are generally on the side of good causes, at least.
I see this as a lot of fuss about nothing …
Funny enough, I haven’t seen any mention of this yet on my favorite conservative web sites. Maybe it’s really no fuss about nothing.
Ah-hah. So perhaps it is a low level thing…