Newsweek takes a cover page from TIME

[fossten]

From 1995:

This week:

 

[Calabrio]

It's really outrageous.

First, the way this "objective" publication frames the discussion is insulting.
But the picture should outrage everyone, including feminists.

The effort is clearly to trivialize the woman and reduce her "gravitas," planting the impression that she's some kind of bimbo cheerleader.

They took a picture that was intended for a running magazine and used that on the cover of Newsweek.

 

[fossten]

Thank God Hillary didn't pose like that.

 

[foxpaws]

I have to agree with Nina Berman...

The Newsweek cover is a shrewd strategic maneuver to demean Palin without having to take responsibility for it. I think it's brilliant. They take an inelegantly, even laughably propped photo where Palin is an obvious participant as opposed to being a manipulated subject, and recontextualize it to show how far out she is willing to travel on the road of self promotion. They beat her at her own game and in the process shield themselves from what would have been the inevitable criticism if they had dolled her up themselves and posed her the same way.

 

[Calabrio]

Let's first then acknowledge that you agree- NEWSWEEK has made a deliberate effort to demean Palin. Therefore demonstrating completely, once again, that it is not an impartial record of the news, but a magazine that dishonestly presents itself as an such. Newsweek is engaged in a broader effort to simply attack and destroy this woman.

And the comment, that you are agreeing with, is nothing more than a cute way for old feminists to endorse and support what is essentially a sexist attack on Sarah Palin simply recognizing the "shrewd strategy" of a so-called "news" publication.

In your "progressive" world, everything is politics.
Government is everywhere and involved with everything, and all decisions are political.

If I want better health care or jobs, I need to protest in the streets. And everyone is political target and no tactic is too deplorable.

But, thanks for, once again confirming that gross, despicable bias in the main stream media. Newsweek, according to you, is CLEARLY a grossly bias publication and it is working to advance the political agenda of the left in this country while INSISTING that they are a credible and objective news source.

It's not wonder Newsweek's circulation is so pitiful that it's about to go out of business.
Perhaps if it continues to do the lifting for this administration, they'll provide a bail out for them.

 

[foxpaws]

Heck, I bet they sell lots of issues with this cover... they are capitalists at heart Cal... very liberal capitalists. Does anyone think that Newsweek isn't left? I just wish they would label themselves left and leave it at that. And if they want to destroy Palin - isn't that their right? If Fox wants to undermine Obama at every turn - that certainly is their 'right', I don't care. Just label it as right wing rhetoric.

My 'progressive world' - really? Suddenly a discussion about a cover turns to labeling me progressive?

Is everything political - not in my world - but maybe in yours Cal.

 

[04SCTLS]

This is ruthless american politics, not some support group.
If she can't deal with media attempts to crusify her and rise above it by coming across as more substantive than a cartoon character then she doesn't have what it takes to win.

 

[04SCTLS]

Speaking of Cartoons

 

[fossten]

I have the perfect book for you, fox...

 

[fossten]

This is ruthless american politics, not some support group.
If she can't deal with media attempts to crusify her and rise above it by coming across as more substantive than a cartoon character then she doesn't have what it takes to win.

You don't see her whining about the Newsweek cover, yet Obama has done nothing but caterwaul about Fox News from day one. Who's the girly girl now?

 

[04SCTLS]

I heard her complain about it this morning on NBC saying it's essentially bimboesque and trivializing.
But hey she posed for that picture( albeit not for Newsweek)
She should aknowledge she makes a pretty picture and make some smart comments about it she can use to her advantage in the serious world.

 

[fossten]

I heard her complain about it this morning on NBC saying it's essentially bimboesque and trivializing.
But hey she posed for that picture( albeit not for Newsweek)
She should aknowledge she makes a pretty picture and make some smart comments about it she can use to her advantage in the serious world.

I'd like to see the quote, if you don't mind. Was she asked about it, or did she bring it up?

It is interesting that she gets criticized out of jealousy because she's attractive. How misogynistic the left is. And yet Obama gets criticism about his policies and he's a petulant man child.

 

[04SCTLS]

http://www.dailyworldbuzz.com/is-sarah-palin-newsweek-cover-sexist-guess-what-palin-said/672/

No one seems to doubt Obama is an intellectual but no one is calling Sarah one.
Now weather an intellectual is what the people want in 2012 remains to be seen.
It's quite exciting seeing Sarah coming out compared to the boreheads in the rest of the republican party.
She is a celebrity with all the glibness on some fans parts that comes with that.
There is a certain entertaining spectacle to her appearances.

She has this gift of her looks and she really needs to turn it against the media and hoist them on her own petard.

 

[Calabrio]

Heck, I bet they sell lots of issues with this cover... they are capitalists at heart Cal... very liberal capitalists.

Newsweek never sells "a lot of issues."
But more importantly, they have AGAIN demonstrated their hard ideological bias, political motivation, and continued practice of editorializing their "news." They are transparently seeking to shape public opinion with this cover.

You may consider them capitalists, but it's more accurate to just call them bad business people. That's why they are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy due to low circulation.

Does anyone think that Newsweek isn't left? I just wish they would label themselves left and leave it at that.

A lot of people don't know any better.
And the people at Newsweek don't acknowledge this gross bias either. They refuse to do so. Evan Thomas will deny it. So will the rest of the staff and other members of the legacy media.

Time is also a very left wing magazine/news source.
But they are not labeled as such.

And if they want to destroy Palin - isn't that their right?

No one is arguing rights, I'm simply talking about journalistic and editorial integrity. Of which they have NONE.

If Mother Jones ran a cover story like that, it'd be expected.
Maybe even appropriate.

But publications like Newsweek, Time, the NY Times, ect. proclaim to be different. NOT ideological, but fair and objective.

And the market reflects the increased awareness to this bias with the declining circulation and the fact that these publications are on the verge of closing their doors.

They have cut their circulation in half and will be raising their prices for their remaining customers.

 

[fossten]

http://www.dailyworldbuzz.com/is-sarah-palin-newsweek-cover-sexist-guess-what-palin-said/672/

No one seems to doubt Obama is an intellectual but no one is calling Sarah one.
Now weather an intellectual is what the people want in 2012 remains to be seen.
It's quite exciting seeing Sarah coming out compared to the boreheads in the rest of the republican party.
She is a celebrity with all the glibness on some fans parts that comes with that.
There is a certain entertaining spectacle to her appearances.

She has this gift of her looks and she really needs to turn it against the media and hoist them on her own petard.

You need to get this through your head. Obama is a freaking lightweight. He's a glorified community organizer who is way over his head and completely unqualified and incompetent to serve as President. He can't even speak without a telePROMPTer.

Palin's appeal is more about her conservatism and plain manner of speaking and straightforward honesty than about her looks. At least she had governing experience before running for Veep. Obama had ZERO experience and he admitted this.

Let's not forget the swoon-job the women on the plane did over Obama posing for a crotch shot in his tight jeans.

 

[Calabrio]

No one seems to doubt Obama is an intellectual but no one is calling Sarah one.

Why did they call Obama an intellectual? Because he went to the "right schools?" Or because he's been embraced by the media and political elite?

I'm not saying that Obama isn't an intelligent man, but you'll notice
a media template here.
Jimmy Carter was supposed be a genius, Gerald Ford was a dofus.
Reagan was a dumb actor cowboy.
George HW Bush was a stupid lap dog.
Bill Clinton was a Rhoads Scholar and the craftiest, shrewdest, "bestest" Politician ever!
George W Bush was said to be a moron cowboy while Al Gore was a genius scholar.
Obama is refered to as being BRILLIANT, with Messianic charm and intelligence. McCain, when running for President, was suddently senile. And Sarah Palin is some dumb hick that appeals to those "morons in flyover country." Evan Thomas does not approve.

That's just the media and DNC template.
All liberal Democrat leaders, smart.
Anyone who disagrees, stupid.

 

[04SCTLS]

You need to get this through your head. Obama is a freaking lightweight. He's a glorified community organizer who is way over his head and completely unqualified and incompetent to serve as President. He can't even speak without a telePROMPTer.

Palin's appeal is more about her conservatism and plain manner of speaking and straightforward honesty than about her looks. At least she had governing experience before running for Veep. Obama had ZERO experience and he admitted this.

Let's not forget the swoon-job the women on the plane did over Obama posing for a crotch shot in his tight jeans.

Palin's situation is different than Obama who was nationally unknown until he ran for president.
The public got tired of Bush and Obama had the luck to be in the right place at the right time.
Now that she's become a public figure 3 years before the next election scrutiny of her will be intense if she pursues public office.
Unlike Obama she has to come up with more than just slogans this far ahead of the next election.

 

[fossten]

Palin's situation is different than Obama who was nationally unknown until he ran for president.
The public got tired of Bush and Obama had the luck to be in the right place at the right time.
Now that she's become a public figure 3 years before the next election scrutiny of her will be intense if she pursues public office.
Unlike Obama she has to come up with more than just slogans this far ahead of the next election.

Wrong. Unlike Obama she has to overcome intense media hatred and attempts to destroy. That's what this thread is about. Even foxpaws admits the media is out to get her. I'll gladly entertain your point IF and only IF you can demonstrate that Obama has been treated with equanimity by the media. Never happen. I GUARANTEE you that in the 2012 campaign Obama will be propped up by the subservient, state-run media, and Sarah (or whoever else steps up) will be grist for the mill.

Case in point - Oprah, who IS a powerful and influential media figure, all but begged Obama to run for Prez with tears rolling down her cheeks. But she has Palin on her show last week and can't even contain her sneer as she bullies her, as well as cutting all audience applause out of the edited tape.

 

[Calabrio]

Unlike Obama she has to come up with more than just slogans this far ahead of the next election.

Is she necessarily running for anything?
But your right, unlike Obama, she needs more than a slogan to win any future election. We'll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, there's a frantic effort on the left to kill her before she grows.
11 AP reporters were assigned to "fact check" her book.
Sadly, they didn't invest any of that energy in "fact checking' our President during the election, or since..

 

[fossten]

Is she necessarily running for anything?
But your right, unlike Obama, she needs more than a slogan to win any future election. We'll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, there's a frantic effort on the left to kill her before she grows.
11 AP reporters were assigned to "fact check" her book.
Sadly, they didn't invest any of that energy in "fact checking' our President during the election, or since..

DING DING DING! WINNER!

 

[04SCTLS]

Is she necessarily running for anything?
But your right, unlike Obama, she needs more than a slogan to win any future election. We'll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, there's a frantic effort on the left to kill her before she grows.
11 AP reporters were assigned to "fact check" her book.
Sadly, they didn't invest any of that energy in "fact checking' our President during the election, or since..

Well
She's running around the country promoting her book.
You know, she has to deal with the world the way it is.
Life is unfair so it's more fair to some than others.
Obama is a good example of luck.
To try to make it more fair would be (Gasp!) socialistic.
This country is supposed to be a "tough" place to make it according to some of you.
If she didn't expect and isn't prepared to deal with reporters digging through every word in her book then how can we take her seriously beyond celebrity.
Her fans will give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her recollections of conversations and such so that's why the critics of her book won't matter much.
The critics are part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

The Media IS the Message.

Of course it also depends on how she reponds (or doesn't) to the valid sounding criticisms.
You guys tear people's arguments apart piece by piece so she should expect the same.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal – nobody is selling ‘a lot of issues’ right now. Print media is hurting – Conte shuttered 8 titles recently. Ad count is down across the board. Except maybe Guns and Ammo. Mother Earth News is certainly suffering in this recent downturn.

Newsweek will see a bump for the week –a decent one.

And if the media wants to destroy Palin – let them. If AP wants to keep reporters busy reading her book – let them. If they didn’t want to fact check Obama – heck, did you really expect them to?

And she is running-until she absolutely denies it (oh, heck, she could even run by declaring 'mandate' even after absolutely refusing), which she certainly didn't do in the Baba Wawa interview...

“That certainly isn’t on my radar screen right now, but when you consider some of the ordinary-turning-into-extraordinary events that have happened in my life, I am not one to predict what will happen in a few years,” she said.

Palin told ABC television’s Barbara Walters her stated desire was to “help our country.”

Asked if she would play a major role in the 2012 presidential election, Palin answered: “If the people will have me, I will.”​

If Fox wants to destroy Obama, that is their prerogative. The days of a fair and balanced media are long gone. We can’t change it at this point. People don’t want homogenized reporting, they want John Stewart, Glen Beck, et al. Their numbers grow while straight reporting is mostly down. Fox will level off – they are still growing their right wing base, but once that is maxed out, their ‘news’ numbers will ride the waves just like the more established news media.

Media is capitalistic – now more than ever, and they are going to run stories for sensationalism value. Integrity be damned. Capitalism doesn’t survive on integrity, does it? They will bury stories if they don’t think that their reader/viewer base wants to see it. If Katie Couric is going to skewer Palin and softball Biden, it is now the way of the world. Crying about it won’t change it, and only makes one side look weak.

I think if Obama continues to go against Fox it would be a mistake. The administration made the splash – got their point out, now write Fox off as right wing nuts. That is what the administration should do at this point. Don’t exclude them, don’t draw attention to them either. If they misrepresent something, calmly counter it, but don’t make it a big case. Now they need to trivialize their opponent, they have the majority of the media basically still in their court, the administration should now be able to marginalize Fox. Right or wrong – who cares, in this case perception is what really matters. Its face time in the media. Politics… it isn’t pretty.

Palin shouldn’t have complained at all about the cover. Take it stride, put a smile on, and go running around the beltway with exactly the same outfit on. She needs to learn to play the media, rather than have the media play her.

Oh, Foss have you read Life’s a Campaign?

​

 

[fossten]

Well
She's running around the country promoting her book.
You know, she has to deal with the world the way it is.
Life is unfair so it's more fair to some than others.
Obama is a good example of luck.
To try to make it more fair would be (Gasp!) socialistic.
This country is supposed to be a "tough" place to make it according to some of you.
If she didn't expect and isn't prepared to deal with reporters digging through every word in her book then how can we take her seriously beyond celebrity.
Her fans will give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her recollections of conversations and such so that's why the critics of her book won't matter much.
The critics are part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

The Media IS the Message.

Of course it also depends on how she reponds (or doesn't) to the valid sounding criticisms.
You guys tear people's arguments apart piece by piece so she should expect the same.

You keep presenting this straw man argument that she somehow isn't prepared to deal with reporters, etc. Please back that up, otherwise pick a different phony argument.

Meanwhile, it IS a fact that Obama's first book was ghost written, and nobody bothered to give either of his books any scrutiny. So yeah, the media is leftist.

It's also a fact that the media doesn't bother to critique her arguments, only mock her appearance and her accent. But please, once again, give an example of the 'valid criticisms' she's had to endure. I'm all ears. Yet another straw man argument from you.

 

[fossten]

I think if Obama continues to go against Fox it would be a mistake. The administration made the splash – got their point out, now write Fox off as right wing nuts. That is what the administration should do at this point. Don’t exclude them, don’t draw attention to them either.

They should mischaracterize Fox News? So you acknowledge that Obama's best tactic is to smear and falsely accuse. Alinsky at his best.

 

[Calabrio]

Cal – nobody is selling ‘a lot of issues’ right now. Print media is hurting –.....Except maybe Guns and Ammo....

So people are being selective in what they are spending their money on.
Does that excuse bad reporting? And in a environment with increased competition, does it make good business sense for the "capitalists" at Newsweeks to alienate a segment of the consumer base and to project their gross bias so boldly.

Remember, Newsweek insists that they are NOT a left-wing magazine.
That they are a fair and accurate reporting of the current events. It's a lie, a lie you have acknowledged, but that's THEIR claim.

Newsweek will see a bump for the week –a decent one.

Do you think the Palin haters will be rushing out to by a copy now? A few?

More importantly, if they had printed a FAIR and OBJECTIVE article about her, how many additional people would have been inclined to read an informative article about this character that the media keeps focusing on?
I might have. Not going to now.

Additionally, how much damage to the reputation does this do to Newsweek. Does a center right country really want to buy a weekly news magazine that is so transparently left wing, despite their own dishonest claims? I don't think so.

And if the media wants to destroy Palin – let them. If AP wants to keep reporters busy reading her book – let them. If they didn’t want to fact check Obama – heck, did you really expect them to?

They can do whatever they'd like.
However, let's identify the profound political bias in these publications that present themselves and INSIST that they are fair and objective. They clearly are not.

And do I expect the news media to investigate the Presidential front runner, later the President. I do. That's supposed to be the job of the newspaper and the media, it's a task so important that it's specifically protected by the constitution.

And she is running-until she absolutely denies it

Running for what?

Media is capitalistic – now more than ever, and they are going to run stories for sensationalism value. Integrity be damned.

They're going to be capitalist until they need a bail out?
And, all of your arguments reinforce my claim. Not that the media isn't a capitalist enterprise, but that those running it are more ideological then they are business minded or pragmatic.

We've been through this discussion before.
You readily acknowledge the bias, but refuse to acknowledge or condemn them for continuing to present themselves as objective and fair.
You argue that they are motivated by business, then refuse to acknowledge that their ideological pursuit is costing them money and marketshare.

Newsweek published a hit piece of Palin.
They're certainly allowed to do that. Journalists often talk about integrity, but apparently you don't think that's important.

But they have AGAIN demonstrated their gross bias. They should just admit it at this point, as should the rest of the main stream meida, but Evan Thomas and the rest of the clowns over there will continue to deny it in an effort to continue to advocate their point of view to people who aren't as media savy as your or I.