Is Newsweek’s cover of Palin in short shorts sexist?

20th November 2009

Is Newsweek’s cover of Palin in short shorts sexist?

posted in Feminist Topics, Politics, Rachel |

Even I was kind of shocked by Newsweek’s cover this week of Sarah Palin — not for the image used, which on first glance seemed both puzzling and irrelevant, but for the blatantly biased headline of “How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She’s bad news for the GOP — and for everybody else, too.“* But as it turns out, it’s the cover image used that’s getting the most press.

Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin

Originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World, the photo features the moose-hunting , aerial-wolf-shooting former Alaska governor and supermom in short runner’s shorts and leaning on an American flag. It was part of a multi-photograph slideshow that accompanied an article about Palin and her passion for running titled, “I’m A Runner.” Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham said that the photo choice was simply the “most interesting image available” and that the mag applies “the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female” thus adhering to a “gender-neutral standard.”

This isn’t the first time Newsweek has taken heat for their choice of Palin images. Perfectly coiffed, and flawless conservative Fox anchors cried sexism last year because Newsweek didn’t airbrush Jane Sixpack beyond recognition on a cover photo. In a Facebook post, Palin took issue with Newsweek appropriating a photo from an article about health and fitness to promote an analytical piece on her as a political figure:

The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page 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.

Palin’s conservative supporters have predictably rallied behind her, but the image is drawing mixed reactions from pundits. CBN commentator David Brady called the cover “a new low” for the “biased” magazine, adding that Newsweek has a history of portraying liberal women as “heroes for the next generation,” while portraying conservative women like Palin as “nuts and dopey.” Documentary photographer Nina Berman meanwhile hailed the cover as “brilliant” and “shrewd,” adding:

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.

Given the cover, the accompanying Newsweek articles — here and here — are surprisingly impartial and both defends and accuses Palin on her merits while making the argument that history is not on Palin’s side in terms of even a qualified populist nominee winning the White House. And Newsweek’s right: Palin is a major cause for concern. She promotes questionable, ill-informed and inaccurate positions on national and international policy and as Newsweek’s Christopher Hitchens notes, believes that the end of days and Second Coming will come in her lifetime — which could be entirely possible if elected to a position in which her finger rests on the big red button. I find it ridiculous how Palin consistently dismisses “the media” as if we are all just one large, homogeneous entity out to get her, yet as much as I dislike siding with someone so diametrically opposed to me on virtually every issue across the political spectrum, I do believe that Newsweek used the image deliberately in order to marginalize her. While there are a whole slew of reasons to be concerned about Palin’s broad national appeal among conservatives, none have anything to do with how she looks in runner’s shorts.

But that isn’t why Newsweek used this image.

The Daily Beast founder Tina Brown rightfully argues that Palin should have known that, “If you don’t want the moment captured on film, don’t show up in sporty hot pants for a photo shoot.” But it’s more than that. This pin-up-style image may have been inappropriate for an analysis piece on Palin, but it wasn’t appropriate in its original context, either. While there’s nothing scandalous about showing some skin — even the First Lady has appeared in shorts about the same length as Palin’s – this image is deliberately styled not to show off Sarah Palin the runner, but Sarah Palin the sexy governor. Newsweek is simply holding the image up to the world as an answer to its own rhetorical question of why Palin is bad for the GOP. An image may speak a thousand words, but this one asks only: Why would anyone take this woman seriously?

* The headline refers to this song, about a nun going rogue.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Friday, November 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pm and is filed under Feminist Topics, Politics, Rachel. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On November 20th, 2009, Ruth said:

I don’t think it is sexist.

She approved the image going out in the public domain, albeit, in a different context.

It could be argued that the image actually underscores her “rogue-i-ness”.

Now, the Prejean sextape thing–THAT’s sexist.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

2 On November 20th, 2009, Rachel said:

Now, the Prejean sextape thing–THAT’s sexist.

I’m not all that up on Prejean’s sexcapades, but I don’t think bringing it up is sexist necessarily. Prejean presents herself as a defender of Christian morals which she then uses to justify discrimination against gays, so I think it’s completely justified to then question the validity of these morals when it becomes apparent that she herself doesn’t actually abide by them.

I stumbled across another blog that actually equated Palin with Prejean and encouraged people to support them because both are “victims” of a liberal media that’s just out to get them. This is, of course, completely ignoring the fact that it wasn’t “the media” that posed for the Runner’s World pinup shot or made a sex tape or posed topless… And as Prejean’s case has shown, taking umbrage is a good way to keep your name in the headlines even when you’ve become completely irrelevant.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

3 On November 20th, 2009, Ruth said:

Rachel,

What I meant about Prejean’s case being sexist is that she sent the videotape IN PRIVATE to her then boyfriend and he put it out WITHOUT her consent, which seems sexist to me.

But yeah, Prejean is a complete hypocrite, and calling her out about that is not sexist.

And I agree with you–Prejean’s 15 minutes would have been up a long time ago if she weren’t so adept at playing the victim (and probably Palin’s too–a victim who guns down wolves from helicopters–hmmmm–roguey!).

In the case of the Newsweek photo, I feel that the intent was to show Palin as the paradoxical bundle of contradictions that she is, rather than to make some kind of sexist statement. If the photo used had been private, or if the article had given her the treatment poor Hillary got from some “news” articles (ie, her “bad” hair days, her “cankles”, et. al.), THEN I would see it as sexist.

I’m not entirely comfortable about the photo choice, but don’t think it’s sexist.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

4 On November 20th, 2009, living400lbs said:

The problem I have with the photo is the flag. Why on earth would she think posing with her elbow on the flag was a good idea? Or that posing with the flag made sense?

If she’s posing for Runners World, hey – why not be running? Or outside? Or in a gym? Or even, yes, “This is me in my office about to go for a run but I’m going to stop on lean on a flag that just happens to be draped over a chair?”

Gad.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

5 On November 20th, 2009, Rachel said:

@Ruth: Ahh, I see. I don’t know if I would call that sexist (it seemed more motivated by revenge and possibly financial gain and public notoriety), but it was entirely inappropriate and an invasion of privacy.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

6 On November 20th, 2009, Rachel said:

@living400lbs: Yes, it seems very disrespectful to the flag and I’m surprised her conservative supporters, many of whom describe themselves as patriots, aren’t also offended by the casual way it was used in the shoot.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

7 On November 20th, 2009, vesta44 said:

I saw them using that photo as sort of a pun – as in “I’m a runner” (physically running for exercise) and “I’m a runner” (running for office). Neither of which I give a rat’s patootie about. I don’t care for any of her positions on anything political, she’s a hypocrite, and she’s definitely not doing anything to advance women’s causes. If she dropped into obscurity tomorrow, I wouldn’t miss her or her whining.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

8 On November 20th, 2009, katharineluvsopera said:

Well heres my thing, I find this picture hillarious, completely irrelevant but come on this is just funny. But hey she looks beautiful, healthy, and happy. A little silly but I dont think its sexist.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

9 On November 20th, 2009, gurleyinalaska said:

More than silly, not necessarily sexist….but most Alaskans are dismayed, disillusioned and cannot see the glam for the sham. Don’t go there!

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

10 On November 20th, 2009, D said:

Of course it’s sexist! I don’t mean to belabor the point, but why does Newsweek have to put this specific picture on the cover, a picture that was meant for a runner’s magazine and not a news magazine? Why does everything have to be about the way that she is dressed and her body, just because she is a woman in politics? I just can’t stand that.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

11 On November 20th, 2009, Bree said:

I’m biased—I think Sarah Palin is an embarrassment to women and non-radical Christians with some of the stupid things she has said and done. So this cover and headline doesn’t bother me at all. I hope it is a wakeup call to her to see just how much of a caricature she has become, and to step away from the far right wing edge of ultra-conservative, religious fanaticism. And I also agree with living400lbs that posing with the flag is problematic and makes no sense to promote her passion for running.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

12 On November 20th, 2009, Rachel said:

Why does everything have to be about the way that she is dressed and her body, just because she is a woman in politics?

I think the entire reason Palin was chosen as McCain’s VP pick is because she’s attractive — certainly there were more experienced and qualified women Republican candidates he could have chose if it was about bring a woman onto the ticket. And during the election, there were sexually-charged comments made about her body, mostly by conservative male pundits. But in this case, it can be argued that by posing a’ la pinup style, Palin herself has chosen to put her body center stage by presenting herself as some kind of MILF. I think Newsweek used this image just to show what a spectacle she tends to make of herself and to illustrate her questionable decision-making, both of which are why she is bad for the GOP (unless, of course, you’re a Dem).

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

13 On November 20th, 2009, Trabb's Boy said:

I agree with D. Of course it’s sexist! They would never put that picture of Barack obama in his swim trunks on the cover with articles about his career. They’re also implying that the “problem” is that she’s sexy. She’s “bad news.” Ooh.

I think Palin is insufficiently smart for the complexities of public policy at the presidential level, and that her religious and nationalistic views are causing concern with the money side of the Republican party. And the fact that she is probably the most media savvy potential presidential candidate is a problem for Republicans who don’t like her hard line views. But I’m having one hell of a time trying to figure out why I’m supposed to be staring at her legs while thinking about this.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

14 On November 20th, 2009, Rachel said:

They would never put that picture of Barack obama in his swim trunks on the cover with articles about his career.

Yeah, but there’s a key difference in the Obama photo and the Palin pinup: Obama didn’t consciously and actively pose in his swim trunks for a national magazine.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

15 On November 20th, 2009, Godless Heathen said:

I don’t understand why Newsweek got to use the running magazine’s images instead of taking their own. I don’t particularly care if it’s sexist, but it’s certainly lazy.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

16 On November 20th, 2009, Melissa said:

Rachel — fantastically written post. You really hit the nail on the head.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

17 On November 20th, 2009, Rachel said:

I don’t understand why Newsweek got to use the running magazine’s images instead of taking their own.

From what I read, Runner’s World did not give them permission, but because the original photographer retained the rights, they didn’t need it. He allowed them to reprint it.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

18 On November 20th, 2009, Alex said:

I abhor Sarah Palin and all that she stands for. But I don’t think her standing around in a jogging outfit and looking “cute” is that big of a deal (especially since it was for Runner’s World), and I don’t think it’s fair for Newsweek to publish the photo out of context.

I mean hey, I do derive pleasure from seeing her publicly mocked, but let’s keep it about her policies not her body.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

19 On November 20th, 2009, Kelly said:

Rachel, in the original article and in the comments you repeatedly criticize Palin’s pose and reference her “hot pants”. If I read you right you are saying Palin deliberately puts herself out there sexually so she deserves to get showcased in her hot MILF act or whatever. Thus the cover is not sexist, just showing the woman at her own sexually-manipulative game.

So where were your thoughts on the Hilary Clinton cleavage “debacle”? If one could “prove” Hilary was *trying* to look sexier (warmer, more approachable) would you find fault with her for doing this? Or is it OK for Hilary to sex it up a little because, you know, she’s mostly not trying to be sexy and she’s mostly a strong persona (or maybe you like Hilary more than Palin) so it’s OK for her to show a little this or that? Is there some standard of “sex kitten” that a female politico is allowed before we start saying the way she gets treated is her own fault? And if so, would you share us that magic number so we can make sure to call out the right women?

As an athlete myself I see nothing wrong with Palin’s outfit whatsoever. I really, really don’t. As for her pose, it would be slut-shaming and splitting hairs for me to decide when a woman has crossed the line from posing attractively to posing “too”… whatever. I find an attack on this woman (and all women don’t button up entirely) to be part of that tired virgin/whore standard. OK, make sure you look pulled-together but don’t style your hair TOO much or too sexily, pose attractively and HIDE YOUR CANKLES, don’t look frumpy but don’t look like a whore. I remember when Palin was running for VP (sorry, reflexive-fear shudder) the obsession that HuffPo had on her slutty french braid hairstyles.

I don’t know what Sarah is up to. And you could be right, and she’s just a hack who uses her sex to sell (I do categorically believe she’s a hack, by the way). I’m not saying you’re wrong about Palin – inasmuch as you don’t know the woman but are taking some logical analysis based on her past behavior. I am saying I get sick of the slut-shaming, the criticisms and obsessions on women’s sexuality or attractiveness from the rest of us. Maybe the MILFs will quit acting deliberately MILFy when we quit putting them under a microscope to pressure them to be in that mold.

posted on November 20th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

20 On November 21st, 2009, Lauren said:

The common link between Prejean and Palin is that both are media figures and therefore both should know that ANYTHING that involves them is subject to be used in a way that wasn’t intended.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Prejean. By now everyone should know the rule of thumb for sexual videos, photos, etc. Just because it’s done “privately” for a lover does not guarantee that it will remain private. And these days it’s just idiotic to assume otherwise. Surely we’ve learned from Paris, Kardashian, and Cyrus?

I have slightly more sympathy for Palin in that the photo was clearly meant in a sexist and demeaning manner. After all, out of all of the photos of Sarah Palin that exist, of course they picked the one of her in semi-revealing attire (even if they are running shorts), striking a rather pageant-like pose, and the pièce de résistance–an American flag in the background. No photo-editing required.

On the other hand… it’s hard to sympathize too much given my strong personal dislike of anything the woman does. I’m glad she ran on the Republican ticket for VP, but only because I believe she aided the Democrats in winning. I would love if she ran in 2012 for the same reason. Otherwise if I don’t have to see her face again.

posted on November 21st, 2009 at 8:37 am

21 On November 22nd, 2009, Samantha said:

Oh, Sarah Palin as a whole is an embarressment to women. *Sigh*

posted on November 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm

22 On November 23rd, 2009, Hil said:

The choice of cover photo bothers me for the reasons that Kelly laid out. Women in politics are supposed to walk this very fine line of being atttractive, but not too attractive, and I don’t enjoy taking shots at people who arguably fall on the wrong side of the line. Nobody is putting Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body building photos on covers of news stories.

I don’t like Palin’s policies and I hope she fades from the national spotlight as soon as possible. But I think I would have figured out a lot quicker how out there she was if the media had treated her in a slightly less sexist fashion. Things like this just made me want to give her the benefit of the doubt because they seemed so unnecessary.

posted on November 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm

23 On November 23rd, 2009, Rachel said:

@Kelly: I don’t think I was “slut-shaming” in the slightest. Partisan politics aside, I think the Runner’s World image was inappropriate for the sexually provocative way it was styled. The image looked like it belonged more in a men’s magazine than it did in a sports magazine geared at men and women runners. That it showed an elected public figure acting as an official agent of the state (she was both identified as the Alaskan governor and the positioning of the U.S. flag was deliberate) made it all the more inappropriate.

As for the Hillary Clinton cleavage debacle… I thought the half-inch extra she showed was very modest and discrete and not nearly as sexually overt as it was made out to be in the press and blogosphere. If Hillary did so because she felt a need to “sex up” her image, then yes, I am also disappointed in that decision. But I also understand that Hillary has faced more than a decade of unwarranted media attention on her appearance and I know that she is a strong, educated woman who is in the position she is in now on the basis on her merits. Palin, meanwhile, was chosen mostly for her looks and has actively relied on them since to advance her career.

posted on November 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm

24 On November 23rd, 2009, Amy (No More Thinspo) said: