Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« 10 Things Theaters Need to Do ... | Bone Thrown »

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Desperate Republicans Attack Newsweek Over Palin Cover

posted by on October 9 at 11:36 AM


Cover above, attack below, and what desperate bullshit.

Thanks for the heads-up (again), Towleroad.

RSS icon Comments


oh god. don't they have other shit to complain about?

Posted by apres_moi | October 9, 2008 11:48 AM

"You'll just have to trust me."

Posted by Fnarf | October 9, 2008 11:52 AM

5 whole minutes?

Posted by A | October 9, 2008 11:52 AM

"Any woman that sees this cover would be shocked and horrified" says the Republican media consultant.

I'm going to have to look at this cover in person. I stared at the cover shot as posted, and I was like, what is wrong with this? What could they possibly find to argue about here? There are a few wrinkles, but really, she looks pretty good for 44.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | October 9, 2008 11:54 AM

5 whole minutes?

Posted by A | October 9, 2008 11:55 AM

waaaaaah! That's so sexist that they think she should be airbrushed.

Posted by monkey | October 9, 2008 11:55 AM

I hate Palin's guts but I see nothing wrong with the cover. She looks damn good in my opinion.

Posted by Al | October 9, 2008 11:57 AM

that cover highlights every imperfection, you say? i don't know about that. for one, you can't see the gaping black hole where her soul is supposed to be.

Posted by brandon | October 9, 2008 11:57 AM

Oh, fgs! O_O

I'm not a Palin supporter, but I do think she's beautiful. This cover, more than many other things, proves it.

And that Andrea woman is a moron!

Posted by Caprica | October 9, 2008 11:58 AM

Julia Piscitelli wants to have an Alaskan box lunch.

Posted by Sexist Pig | October 9, 2008 11:58 AM

"Unwanted facial hair." Geez. She looks pretty good in that picture, actually. They could have used one of those pics of her with that idiotic wink.

Posted by angie | October 9, 2008 11:59 AM

Oh, fgs! O_O

I'm not a Palin supporter, but I do think she's beautiful. This cover, more than many other things, proves it.

And that Andrea woman is a moron!

Posted by Caprica | October 9, 2008 11:59 AM

That girl needs to be fucked by Obama.

Posted by gk | October 9, 2008 12:01 PM

I have to admit, when I pulled teh magazine out of my mail box, the first thing i saw was her mustache! haaa. I laughed inside. I did, I did.

So it doesn't surprise me some people are upset. But I, as a liberal hater that I am, I enjoyed the picture.

Posted by Sceptica | October 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Yeah, I was looking at this photo last night since the magazine was at my girl's house, and I didn't notice anything at all that stood out. This is such amazingly stupid, desperate shit.

Posted by juris | October 9, 2008 12:05 PM

Proof that these stepford wives are divorced from reality. Who wants a woman who puts on make up with a trowel? I'll take a few 'imperfections' any day.

Posted by DavidC | October 9, 2008 12:06 PM

Does she really need those glasses or does she just wear them to look smart?

If they're legit she must have a pretty weak prescription. In my experience, prescription eyeglasses typically distort the size of the eye, and you'd see shifting at the edge of the lenses. In this pic neither are noticeable. Is it just a clever angle?

Posted by K | October 9, 2008 12:08 PM

Why are we talking about her physical appearance? Oh yeah, she's a woman.

Posted by checknbalance | October 9, 2008 12:09 PM

Huh, and here I was thinking that retouching to remove wrinkles or make for fewer "flaws" would mean they were making her look less experienced (and therefore less fit to be A HEARTBEAT AWAY).

Posted by leek | October 9, 2008 12:10 PM

They want her airbrushed with a halo.

Posted by Fnarf | October 9, 2008 12:11 PM

THey should show the unretouched version. I bet you (betcha) that she has more flaws than they are showing.

She keeps saying "This is mortifiying" and its not ... its normal.

Posted by Jeremy from Seattle | October 9, 2008 12:13 PM

Requiring retouching for female politicians is very sexist. Wasn't there a photo of Obama where he was made darker than he is? Why weren't they outraged after that?

Posted by inkweary | October 9, 2008 12:16 PM

She has a nice shade of eye color. It's too bad if you look in them too long, your soul dies.

Posted by Leslie N. | October 9, 2008 12:16 PM

What Fnarf said.

Also, from what I can tell on my monitor, it is somewhat retouched. It's not fashion-photography retouched, but it's what you'd expect from editorial photography.

Besides, I'd prefer my politicians have a little yellow on their teeth like I want my pilots to have a little gray on their head. If Photoshop didn't whiten those teeth, they're bleach to all hell.

Posted by Dougsf | October 9, 2008 12:20 PM

Didn't this exact same photo run in Newsweek in their RNC issue? Isn't it just cropped differently?

Posted by Hannah | October 9, 2008 12:21 PM

Uhhhhhhhh, sorry. It IS retouched. That photo is heavily retouched. And its pretty damn obvious.

She thinks THAT is as bad or unedited as they could get it? This woman as NO. IDEA.

Try looking at this same photo with no adjusted levels, no color correction, no editing out of the background flaws or imperfections. With its less-than-perfect lighting (as ALL LIGHTING is in reality). I'm 100% sure she looks much, much worse in the REAL unedited photo.

And, quite frankly, I thought this cover was extremely flattering! She's 44 for god sakes! Editing out every wrinkle would be a BAD THING for a VP candidate. She already looks too young- any younger and people may be worried about a twenty-something year-old a heartbeat from the president instead of a 44 year old idiot.

Posted by Johnny Liverwerst | October 9, 2008 12:22 PM

yeah, I really feel sorry for her
inciting racial slurs, murder and hatred of Barack Obama at her "speeeches"
what the fuck is Fox News anyway? I'm pretty sure it's not news.
they are bitching and moaning about
the cover of Newsweek. it's a goddamn presidential election and they are pissing about facial hair

Posted by 4f...sake | October 9, 2008 12:28 PM

I'd have made her blacker with Photoshop.

Posted by hohoho green giant | October 9, 2008 12:28 PM

Um, this Time cover of Obama doesn't look retouched (or if it is, to the same degree that Palin's is). He has wrinkles, freckles, and EW! YICK! a mole!

What a bunch of hacks at Fox News. I bet somebody at the show did a quick google to look for Obama's Time cover shots and skipped over this one in favor of that "halo" shot. Those fucking ass-clowns.

Posted by moonman | October 9, 2008 12:33 PM

I wish it had been a clearer slap in the face. Like a literal slap in the face. With a hot iron.

Posted by Gurldoggie | October 9, 2008 12:34 PM

They're claiming that photo of Obama (at 1:17) makes him look "presidential"? He kinda looks stoned to me.

Posted by sorryroger | October 9, 2008 12:36 PM

They want her to look like those weird aliens who appear on fashion magazine covers.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 9, 2008 12:38 PM

Republicans are pathologically hateful and terrified of any truth at all -- can it be a shock that they screech when the truth is revealed as its written on their own faces?

Posted by whatevernevermind | October 9, 2008 12:43 PM


I figured that's why they only showed the one eye...

Posted by COMTE | October 9, 2008 12:44 PM

While I would say it's unfair to only airbrush one side of the political spectrum, blah blah blah - it would make more sense to turn this into a great publicity opportunity. She's got imperfections, but she's still good looking (dumb as a post, but we all have faults). The Republicans should have said "See young girls? This woman has wrinkles and little bits of facial fuzz like all women have, and she's on the VP ticket. You don't have to be perfect to be successful/happy/blah blah blah". Instead, they whinge.

The problem I have with the cover is the text. "She's one of the folks (and that's the problem)" Newsweek says. What's wrong with being one of the folks? I may not like Palin, but my dislike of her has absolutely nothing to do with her being "one of the folks". I know plenty of absolutely brilliant "folks". It's ridiculous.

Posted by scotlanded | October 9, 2008 12:45 PM

It's an HONEST picture...why are people so afraid of that? She's 44 and attractive...what's so wrong with that?

Posted by Evie | October 9, 2008 12:53 PM

I just thought it was awkwardly cropped.

Posted by prenks | October 9, 2008 12:54 PM

OMG, she looks human! Those bastards, how dare they!

Posted by poogloo | October 9, 2008 12:55 PM

Fucking ridiculous.

And so insulting. This would never be a discussion were she a man.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | October 9, 2008 12:55 PM

vanity, thy name is republican woman.

the assumption is that the actual face of a woman is FLAWED.

Posted by max solomon | October 9, 2008 12:57 PM

This "story" is one of the best illustrations of "setting the frame" I've ever seen. It gives all the appearance of being a point-counterpoint representing two opposing viewpoints, but it is in fact a face-off between a Republican spokeswoman who believes her candidate should be more heavily Photoshopped and another fervent Palin supporter who thinks Palin looks just beautiful as-is. Wow, that's a wide range of opinions represented, ain't it?

The subtext is even funnier -- the GOP spokeswoman is more TV-attractive and taking the position designed to incite -- all candidates should be shown literally in their most favorable light at all times. The opposing, "body-positive feminist" view is delivered by a fleshier, less-angular spokeswoman who merely smiles and says she thinks Palin looks great. This second woman is the main message that this segment is transmitting -- it's a faux-feminist "real women have flaws" spin aimed straight at Hillary voters. The "MSM hates Palin" angle is secondary, a Trojan Horse.

At no point in the discussion does the issue of Palin's views on policy or record on supporting women's rights come up.

Posted by flamingbanjo | October 9, 2008 1:10 PM

Be grateful it's not McCain.

Posted by crazycatguy | October 9, 2008 1:14 PM

@41 not to mention the "moderator" who has taken a clear and unobjective position. this is propaganda, not news. i feel like there should be a law about this sort of thing.

"you'll just have to trust me", sheesh...

Posted by douglas | October 9, 2008 1:22 PM

No, @23 is why they only showed the one eye...

Posted by blue barberpole | October 9, 2008 1:30 PM

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Clearly, for the McCain camp, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Posted by kerri harrop | October 9, 2008 1:32 PM

This only further demonstrates that women are vapid, materialistic and petty. No wonder Sex and the City was popular.

Posted by Oh Boy | October 9, 2008 1:38 PM

Flamingobanjo at 41 for the win.

Posted by David Schmader | October 9, 2008 1:48 PM

Could this be a new renewable energy source?... Republican whining.

Posted by Sad Comment | October 9, 2008 1:48 PM

As a conservative, I don't see anything to complain about in the cover picture itself. Of course, Newsweek doesn't even pretend to be an objective news source any more, as shown by the italicized comment under the lead title. But then, anyone with a brain knows Newsweek is in the tank for the Dems, and has been for over thirty years, so what else would one expect?

Posted by Seajay | October 9, 2008 1:53 PM

sorry ... but when exactly did the Republican party get so stupid?

Posted by Gordon | October 9, 2008 1:56 PM

Didn't I read somewhere on Slog that Palin has a group of women to do her whining for her?

Posted by Jen | October 9, 2008 1:57 PM

Interesting concept, how about a little proof with your allegation.

Posted by Newsweek | October 9, 2008 1:57 PM

You can airbrush a skank, but she's still a skank.

Posted by Skank is as skank does | October 9, 2008 2:42 PM

Newsweek is a liberal, elitist magazine? Because Fox is so balanced . . .

Posted by Rebecca Hasdell | October 9, 2008 3:55 PM

Of course, if Newsweek airbrushed out all those wrinkles, then they'd attack Newsweek for making her look fake. And Newsweek would be sexist for trying to make her look pretty.

Posted by EmilyP | October 9, 2008 4:20 PM

"It is reDICULOUSLY unfair to her. Trust me, you can see it here in person. Trust me. Joining us now to discuss the PROBLEM, or is there one..."

This is the greatest example of talking head leading commentary. FOX news thinks adding the or is there one?" makes them fair and balanced. It's sooooo disturbing from a Media Matters perspective!

Posted by Non | October 9, 2008 4:28 PM

I've never been able to stand Newsweek because it always seemed so flagrantly right-wing. The headline on this one is the shocking part, really...shockingly fabulous I mean.

Posted by threnody | October 9, 2008 5:26 PM

@52 ... I've been reading it off and on for forty years. I could cite a lot of examples personally, but you don't have to believe my 'allegation.' You can look at a study done at UCLA, that hotbed of right-wing wingnuts:

Posted by Seajay | October 9, 2008 8:18 PM

Brandon - I would be LMAO except that you are too right - "gaping black hole where her soul should be." She has been whipping up frenzied crowds who respond with an extremely frightening tone.

Posted by Jasbunny | October 10, 2008 7:40 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.