Remember last Independence Day when the (then-) governor of Alaska posed for a (psychologically) revealing photo spread in Runner's World Magazine? (Check out the whole photo spread series.) Back then, I posted the photo at right, which has now been recycled as the cover photo for this week's Newsweek magazine,¹ causing a ruckus. Sarah Palin, promoting the book ghostwritten with Lynn Vincent, posted on Facebook last night that she does not approve of the photo's re-use:
[The] profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness -- a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention -- even if out of context.
It's so true. The darned media will just do just about anything to get attention, won't they? I mean, they practically bend over and show off their babies, they're so desperate for publicity! Last July, I was struck by the provocative red-white-and-blue overtones in this particular photo, and proposed "a fun exercise in critical thinking and visual interpretation." The carefully arranged, iconic image, I wrote:
represents a veritable firecracker-explosion of patriotic and political symbolism. (Likewise the use of familiar props in this photo and this one.) Given Palin's views and background, how would you interpret it?
The responses were intriguing. I suggested that if, say, Michelle Obama (or, for that matter, John McCain) had posed in the same outfit for such a photo, she/he would be criticized for showing such disrespect for the flag. What do you see in the photo? What are the messages it conveys about its subject? Do they change now that Palin has quit her job, is marketing a book, and the photo is on the cover of Newsweek?² Let me know what you see, and what you think about it.
Me, I've said all along that I see Sarah Palin as the most hilarious thing in American politics popular culture since, maybe, Billy Carter -- leaving Dan Quayle, Fanne Foxe, Monica Lewinski and Sanjaya (wasn't he a political figure?) eating her dust. She's another, funnier-than-usual reminder (as if we needed one) that our taste for political spectacle has not evolved far beyond circus barkers and freak shows. I wish Robert Altman were alive to see this. It feeds back into "Nashville," "Tanner '88," "Buffalo Bill"... This absurdly venal character seems to have walked right out of Altman's lifelong movie.
UPDATE (11/23/09): Interviews with Palin book fans explaining her political positions and what she stands for:
* * * *
¹ Runner's World has published the following explanation: "Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission."
² Newsweek's official response to Palin's charges of "sexism" (wait -- who posed for these pictures when she was in office?) was: "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." Better yet, does the image convey what she is saying. The answer to that is irrefutably "yes."
Has Sarah Palin ever uttered a single coherent thought that an adult could take seriously? That's the amazing thing: The answer is unequivocally "no."
The original photo, by Brian Adams:
I remember when you first posted this picture and I squeezed every possible drop of meaning out of every single aspect - overkill with a hint of irony.
I think Newsweek's use of the photo is two-fold. First, they're trying to remind everyone of the initial euphoria over her selection and her meteoric rise. Second, they're trying to evoke in a single image what Ms Palin has become - a lightning rod for the religious/far right's views and beliefs, and a figure of fun for anyone with a brain.
On a slightly different subject, I noticed you used the term "ghostwritten" to describe Ms Palin's collaborator, so I looked it up on amazon.com to see if the ghostwriter was credited, and indeed she is not. So the term "ghostwritten" applies.
But, I noticed with some sadness an indication of the increasing polarization of society the list of books in amazon's "Readers who bought this also bought" section:
- Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck
- Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Michelle Malkin
- Catastrophe, Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
- Glenn Beck's Common Sense, by guess who
- The Christmas Sweater: A Picture Book, by Glenn Beck
No doubt if I looked up a Naomi Klein book on amazon I'd see a similar preponderance of left-leaning polemics. It's really depressing to see that so many people who are unwilling to explore any alternatives to their ideas. My way or the highway. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but somehow I doubt it.
Like most people, I got a kick out of Sarah Palin last year and agree that she wasn't up for the job of V.P. based on her incoherent interviews, among other things. But I agree with her on this one: in the context of a running magazine, this picture would be just fine. But taken out of context and put on the cover of Newseek, it looks silly. I think she has a point about sexism: they probably wouldn't put a male politician in running shorts on their cover. This is oviously an attempt by Newsweek to discredit her.
All the criticisms of Palin are on the money, but -- much to my surprise -- I think I (kind of) agree with her on this one.
Though there are ways to try to defend the photo use, can I ever imagine Newsweek putting a male political figure on its cover in workout attire? No. Unless the article were about physical fitness.
I'm stunned that someone suggested, "Hey, let's take a picture from her Runners World shoot and slap it on the cover," and someone else said, "Good idea!"
In fairness to Sarah*, she took offense in large part because offense WAS intended. They did publish that photograph out of context to make her look foolish alongside a quote saying she is bad news for everybody.
That said, using her fairly land logic and patented self-righteousness (I'm a woman, thus it must be sexist), she has made herself look far dumber than Newsweek ever could have. They ask a valid question: how do you address the problem that a significant percentage of Americans would seriously consider electing this buffoon to the presidency?
*No I will not call her by a title she resigned.
I can't honestly even say what she's holding in her left hand. If you think you know, let us know. It either looks like a digital camera or some other type of high-tech gadgetry, or its her walet, and she's showing off pictures of her kids?? I haven't a clue.
The thing that strikes me as being "out of context" about this picture is that it was done for Runner's World and it doesn't show her running. The only thing consistent with a Runner's World cover is that she's dressed for running. Why she's indoors, using an American flag as a seat cover is beyond me.
Ms. Palin (and I use the title deliberately since she probably abhors it) made the choice to strike a sexist pose for RUNNER'S WORLD. Excuse me? What's that got to do with running, except that she's wearing running gear? How about a photo of her actually RUNNING, if she wanted to be nonsexist? Fred pegged it there.
If she chooses to have suggestive photos taken of her for any publication, she shouldn't carp if they come back to haunt her later.
JE: When you see this photo in the context of the other coy poses in the spread, it's even worse. As you say, the photos have nothing to do with running.
So would it have been acceptable for Newsweek to do a cover story of Arnold Schwarzenegger with a picture of him from Conan the Barbarian? I know it's a different situation because he wasn't serving as governor like Palin was when those pictures were taken, but I still think it is a little ridiculous for Newsweek to choose that picture.
Also, the arugument that she's not actually running in her pictures for Runner's World is weak. Is Runner's World only allowed to pubish pictures of people in the actual act of running? I think (without every reading the article associated with it) that the pictures are supposed to show how running has helped her stay fit. Fitness magazines often used posed photos of people not currently working out, but just looking fit.
I probably would not have chosen to do that particular photo shoot (not that I can relate as a male), but I doubt she ever imagined that a supposedly reputable news magazine would use them for their cover story of her.
"[The] profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness -- a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now."
What I love about Palin's argument here is that she's basically admitting it's okay to have done a sexist photoshoot for Runner's World, just so long as it's not used for anything else. "How dare they take these photos out of context in a sexist way for Newsweek?! Those provocative pictures of me in mini-shorts and nylons were meant for a sexist spread in a running magazine, and you better leave them in their appropriate sexist context!"
I think that's what these two viewing experiments say more than anything else: the context hasn't changed what the image shows. Runner's World (and Sarah Palin) was using a sexually charged image to sell Runner's World (and Palin), and Newsweek is using the exact same picture to sell Newsweek.
Honestly, I think if the original picture Palin had taken actually was more about, you know, running (say, her outside in the same outfit but in stride), then you could have made a better argument that Newsweek used it out of its context for a sexist reason. But if Newsweek is just using a sexually provocative picture of Palin indoors, how is that taking the picture out of context? As Lynn said, running was outside of the picture's context to begin with.
I mean, doesn't the ultimate proof of how much this picture says nothing about running (or "health and fitness") lie in the fact that Newsweek took it from Runners' World, and no one who didn't already know that would have ever known any better if someone didn't tell them?
Technically she's right, but this is selective outrage. If Newsweek had published that photo on its cover last year during the campaign with a more positive caption, there wouldn't have been protest. In the early days of her presentation the message was first of all "Hey Clinton voters, over here!", and then it was "We're the ones that have the babe on the ticket, " (a direct quote from Limbaugh) and "I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me."(Rich Lowry). Nowadays they're trying to present her as serious and pretend that the "babe on the ticket" theme never happened.
Furthermore, what if Newsweek had posted a picture of her in front of a dead moose. What are the first words Jon Voight speaks of her in her RNC convention video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddRoiVWfLyU
"Mother. Moose Hunter. Maverick."
JE: Dan -- thank you! Sometimes people act as if they have no memories. I'm glad yours is intact. We shouldn't forget the contexts in which she's been presented (and presented herself) previously.
Palin diminished herself by posing for this shot, no matter its intended use. The too-tight-for-exercise outfit, "slimming" angle, and come-hither body language are exactly what would have been ordered by the producer of a Playboy collection. (Girls of the GOP?)
Newsweek diminished itself by approving this cover. No matter what they claim, there was never any journalistic purpose or message involved. Someone found the photo in a stock agency's portfolio and decided it would make a good attention grabber. Which it did.
One point I have not seen raised yet: if the photo agency had the rights to re-sell any part of a photo shoot, originally made for Runner's World, to anyone else willing to pay, both Palin and the magazine had to sign away those rights. What were they thinking?
Newsweek's decision strikes me as somewhat questionable and wide open to charges of sexism, the consensual sexist nature of the original photoshoot notwithstanding.
However, I do find it ironic that Palin accuses Newsweek of being sexist, i.e. "politically incorrect," essentially complaining they should have been politically correct, at a time when she's blaming all the world's ills on political correctness.
She's not grown up much from the girl she was when she was "in" college wearing her "I May Be Broke, But I'm Not Flat Busted" shirt.
JE: That is kind of the main point, isn't it? Did you see the other photos? They weren't "athletic" -- they were classic cheesecake-style poses. What is she selling? Reminds me of Katherine Harris posing like a Maidenform model for Sean Hannity. How are these women trying to present themselves, and to what end?
No, I haven't seen the other Runner's World photos, though I've seen the t-shirt photo I mentioned and the swimsuit contest video.
Maybe you discussed this before, but arguably the flag draped over the chair is a violation of the Flag Code; it's not supposed to be used for drapery. Her elbow on it might be too, though that may be forced perspective.
JE: How are these women trying to present themselves, and to what end?
In this case, I'd say she's trying to get elected, and using the system we (which includes the media) have in place to do so.
It's all gamesmanship, from Obama playing with Fox News to Palin's cheesecake. Or Clinton shutting down the government because polls showed the public would blame the Republicans. (Apparently he wasn't concerned about what would happen to the federal employees under him who would go without pay while this happened...although they eventually did get paid after all.)
If America wanted thoughtful coverage of politics, no doubt the media would provide it. America doesn't. Let's try applying critical thinking to the latest People magazine cover instead, it'll do as much good... (Sorry, my cynicism only gets stronger when I'm tired.)
JE: I don't think you're cynical, just seeing things clearly. I have to say, though, I think you've got the 1995 government shutdown wrong. It was a showdown between Newt Gingrich and Clinton, with Gingrich refusing to pass the budget in the House without further cuts, as the government ran out of spending money. Neither side would move, and Clinton called Gingrich's bluff. From Tom Delay's book, "No Retreat, No Surrender":
http://j.mp/2wh2k9
And, of course, the Clinton administration not only cut costs and eliminated deficits but ran a surplus -- all of which was quickly wiped out by the next administration.
Lets say for a moment Newsweek used another stock photo of Palin looking professional and ran the same caption. Shouldn't she still be offended? A major, respected news magazine is running a cover article on how she's bad for everyone. That's the major offense Newsweek is laying on her. ANY picture with that caption would make her look bad. This one makes her look even more foolish, but I think that's what they were going for with that caption.
Jason: And I think Newsweek would run a photo of say Mike Huckabee, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton or Any male public figure in running gear, either as a companion to a fluff personal profile article, or a critical article. Imagine this scenario: Newsweek has a stock photo of Mike Huckabee(a politician noted for his running, much more so than Palin) looking tired after or during a run. Maybe out of breath. His campaign in 2012 got off to a quick start, but then he loses ground to some other canidate. Newsweek runs the photo on its cover with the caption "Running out of Steam."
JE: You've put your finger on one of the core idiocies here, something I keep puzzling over again and again: People don't respond to the substance of an idea, just to whether they consider it positive or negative. In other words, if the very same picture had run with a headline saying "Sarah Palin, Running for America," she wouldn't have complained at all. It's not the picture that she has a problem with, it's the headline that spins it. Remember those beefcake pictures of Obama emerging from the surf in Hawaii? They could have been used on magazine covers (maybe they were -- in addition to the tabloids) -- but he didn't POSE for them! He was raised in Hawaii, he went swimming, paparazzi took photos. They showed him looking fit and strong -- definitely a publicity advantage, but he didn't look coyly at the camera and strike modeling poses. That's another key difference. Sarah Palin, no matter what she does, will always try way too hard -- and fall on her face.
"If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. "
Jim - how could you let the funniest quote of the year slide right by? It had never even occurred to me to judge a book by its gender until today.
JE: It is not an easy thing to do. You have to turn them upside down first.
Speaking of intact memories, I seem to remember Newsweek just ran a picture of a cute baby with a caption reading "Is Your Baby Racist?" Palin aside, it's a bit laughable that Newsweek is defending the journalistic integrity of their covers. They're selling sensationalism, not news.
"Sarah Palin is neither savior (that job has been taken by the current president, or didn't you know?) nor is she satanic. She is a politician, a species of human like the rest of us.
I'm fairly certain that if you read many of her public-policy positions but concealed her byline, many of her worst enemies would say "that sounds about right," and some of her biggest fans would say "that sounds crazy." But most people would say that her views are perfectly within the mainstream of American politics. She may be more religious than coastal elites in the lower 48, but that is something some bigots need to get over anyway."
Not my words, but sums up my feelings on the matter.
JE: What ARE her "views"? I've never heard anything but the vaguest mangled platitudes from her. Any time she tries to talk specifics (recently about KSM's trial or breast exams -- I read her statements on her Facebook page) she resorts to ignorant speculation, lacking the information necessary to take a coherent position. Consequently I'm not surprised that many people who know as little as she does find it easy to "agree" with her.
Yes quite entertaining stuff here. Sarah Palin is so self-destructive and self-effacing just being who she is that the mainstream media doesn't even have to trash her 24/7...since she does that to herself all the time, and absolutely no one else has to, and doesn't have any credibility at all, and everyone automatically knows that without prompting.
This is all very fine.
Except for the fact that the mainstream media does trash her 24/7. So why does the mainstream media pretend to operate on the foregone conclusion that she is an abominable idiot, and then have to spend all of their time making sure those who don't believe Palin is an inveterate fool are themselves just that? (I can forgive them though, because so few people are tuning in to hear CNN & MSNBC do this, as all of us lobotomized dummies are over watching Fox News. Sad face.)
The one thing I like about libs is that they communicate so well: they tell us who they are afraid of. If Sarah Palin was the political disaster for the Right that you spend all your time having us and making us believe, you could instead just, relax, sit back, and watch the disaster unfold to your heart's content as all your favorite politicians slide into elected office. But, sadly, Americans right now are too busy watching the real disaster presided over by President Obama to worry about the phony disasters trumped up by sad little partisan wannabe-journalists.
JE: It's simple: As Tina Fey proved, most Americans love to laugh at Sarah Palin. She sells magazines, she boosts ratings. Not because she's a popular political figure, but because she's a hilarious buffoon -- today's equivalent to Anita Bryant in the 1970s or Tammy Faye Bakker in the 1980s (and with a comparable gay camp fascination). Has she ever articulated a coherent political thought? No. She invites ridicule every time she opens her mouth -- or poses for cheesy pictures. There's nothing of substance to even discuss. Political orientation doesn't matter. She's such an obvious joke that conservatives (those with any integrity) openly dismiss her, too. (David Brooks matter-of-factly called her "a joke" on national TV just last weekend. Not like that's news.) She can sell books to Fox viewers, but she quit the job she was elected to do so that she could cash in on the publicity John McCain gave her. Now it's all about the money for her. She has nothing to do with politics. She has no political philosophy beyond self-promotion.
Boy, doesn't that Youtube video sum it up!
Gay camp fascination? This is the first time I've heard Palin accused of having some sort of gay following.
I feel obligated to mention that the latest issue of Newsweek puts Palin's "sexist" complaint over the Obama swimsuit picture.
It usually doesn't take me more than 30 minutes to get through an issue, but I like that magazine.
Let me get the popular criticism straight: use of the Runner's World photo is inappropriate, sexist, and disrespectful. Is that correct?
Hello? Did anyone bother to read the cover copy? "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She's bad news . . ."
Hmmm . . . I'd say the tone of the Newsweek article is perfectly consistent with the image presented. That, my friends, is editorial prerogative honestly presented.
I think it's hugely ironic that it's precisely all the hate-mongering and vitriol spewed about Sarah Palin is precisely what keeps her in the media. And all political inclinations aside, I find it perfectly hilarious that people seem up in arms over her "come hither" pose and her "too tight" running shorts. On any day I can go down to the river and see women running by in jogging bras and shorts twice as short as hers. The first thought that came to mind when I clicked the link to look at the Runner's World photos and see what all the hullaballoo was, "this is it?" Come on, people, there's not even any cleavage!
Don't get me wrong, the whole flag thing is kind of disturbing, as is Palin's patent idiocy, but the fact that people are nit picking and whining about an outfit that really isn't particularly racy or sexual just shows that people will criticize absolutely anything they can about Palin, even if it doesn't really make sense.
There were A TON of angry letters to Newsweek over that cover. One of them was at least open-minded: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah? Don't give her another Newsweek cover- that's for sure!"
With regards to male figures being used in a similar way, in Canada about a decade ago the Canadian Alliance party (now the Conservative party) was lead by a man named Stockwell Day (now a high-ranking cabinet minister in the current government). Mr. Day made the mistake of allowing himself to be photographed in a skin-tight wetsuit, and believe me, that photo appeared absolutely *everywhere* in the Canadian media.
(Also, I believe I've seen shirtless-Obama photos on the cover of a couple of magazines).
Really... all this hullabaloo about what a future president of ours wears on the cover of a lame stream media magazine?? Really?
Shouldn't we all be working on getting through the next 3 years as quickly as possible with all efforts made to preserve our dignity and sovereignty globally?
Having mistakenly elected the worst president in this century, I would think prudence would dictate our focus on saving our nation as it was imagined by our Founding Fathers.
Really... all this hullabaloo about what a future president of ours wears on the cover of a lame stream media magazine?? Really?
Shouldn't we all be working on getting through the next 3 years as quickly as possible with all efforts made to preserve our dignity and sovereignty globally?
Having mistakenly elected the worst president in this century, I would think prudence would dictate our focus on saving our nation as it was imagined by our Founding Fathers.
@Rock: You did notice that the "hullabaloo" is from Palin herself, right? Maybe you should pass your advice on to her. I know I've seen a link to her Facebook page somewhere. You can leave comments and everything, it's great. Geez, where did I see that?