[subego]

It's being accused as such and I'm missing it.

[The Final Dakar]

No.

[Shaddim]

Well, she can't be the Queen of Stupid, that's already being shared by Palin and Pelosi.

[Doofy]

[andi*pandi]

I'm not seeing it. I'm not even sure it's derogatory. With her gift for deflecting, she could surely say "hell yeah I'm full of rage about the direction this country has taken, blah blah blah..."

It is not a flattering photo though.

[The Final Dakar]

The pic is a dick move, however. Jesus.

[Doofy]

I'm not seeing anything different with the pic? To me, all American women over the age of 19 look like that.

?

[andi*pandi]

It's not OJ-Simpson-in-the-shadows badly photoshopped, just her eyes look kind of crazy. No blame to Newsweek implied.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The pic is a dick move, however. Jesus.

I'd be interested in discovering its source.

[The Final Dakar]

I wouldn't be surprised if they got for a shoot and just picked the worst one.

[subego]

I wouldn't put that past Newsweek, but I find it odd someone hasn't informed her of the importance of controlling your press.

[Waragainstsleep]

I see no sexism.

She does look nuts. Oh wait...

[subego]

Now... this is sexist:

[mduell]

No, but it's a bad photo and I question why they selected it.

[subego]

I'm sure it's because I'm looking at it on an iPhone, but I'm not seeing it as an ultra-horrible picture either.

The thing which is bugging the hell out of me is the shadow on her gums. It makes her look gap-toothed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The pic is a dick move, however. Jesus.

I agree. Her assistants even challenged the photographers on the pictures in question during the shoot and they insisted they were merely trying to set the lighting. Sure enough... this is what makes the cover.

I don't know if it's sexist, that seems a stretch to me. I can say that while I'm no fan of hers, I've heard her speak on several occasions and she's no more "enraged" than anyone else in the public eye... or a foot above it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm sure it's because I'm looking at it on an iPhone, but I'm not seeing it as an ultra-horrible picture either.

The thing which is bugging the hell out of me is the shadow on her gums. It makes her look gap-toothed.

I think it was absolutely intended to make her look fake and a little crazy.

[subego]

I can buy that, I'm just not seeing her as especially crazy or fake (maybe a little crazy, but not way crazy).

But man, that shadow bothers me.

[besson3c]

I like her necklace!

[Big Mac]

It's not sexist, but it's left-wing yellow journalism in very bad taste - just like that Palin cover (and the Palin cover definitely is sexist). It makes that rag look bad, not Bachmann. There's no question that left-wing media outlets are salivating over the attacks they expect to run this election cycle against Bachmann and Palin if she chooses to run.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I like her necklace!

I do too. I like the collar as well.

It's a nice ensemble.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

What does sexism have to do with anything here? It's 'Sexist' to show a woman in an unflattering way, or looking (in the case of Palin) almost attractive?

What's sexist about the Palin cover? Is it sexist to show a female politician in anything other than a dress suit? There's nothing even remotely sexist about the Bachman cover.

I think the term sexist gets tossed around until it's practically meaningless- kind of like the way 'racist' is often applied as though its a temporary affliction acquired almost by accident like bad breath,with the equally loose solution of apology/mouthwash.

Now, both examples in context are probably newsweak displaying the very typical leftwing fear of women who don't know their 'place'. But neither image is sexist, nor is the use of either image sexist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's not sexist, but it's left-wing yellow journalism in very bad taste - just like that Palin cover (and the Palin cover definitely is sexist). It makes that rag look bad, not Bachmann. There's no question that left-wing media outlets are salivating over the attacks they expect to run this election cycle against Bachmann and Palin if she chooses to run.

I think the attacks this run will set new lows.

[andi*pandi]

I don't think either is sexist, really. And I would challenge if right-wing media choose flattering pix of pelosi or clinton etc. Should political candidates be able to greenlight/screen pix of themselves wherever they are published? That would be cumbersome.

If I recall, that photo of Palin is originally from runner's world. They are all flattering pix. Good for her for being fit!
Photos of Sarah Palin from RunnersWorld.com

To be truly unsexist, we shouldn't put more notice on this than we would a picture of Harry Reid or Mitt Romney looking cross-eyed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What's sexist about the Palin cover? Is it sexist to show a female politician in anything other than a dress suit? There's nothing even remotely sexist about the Bachman cover.

Now, both examples in context are probably newsweak displaying the very typical leftwing fear of women who don't know their 'place'.

It's these two as a combo. The mechanism by which they're putting her in her place is an out of context picture of her in pigtails showing off her body.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Should political candidates be able to greenlight/screen pix of themselves wherever they are published? That would be cumbersome.

That would be extreme, but I'm going to insist on greenlighting pics if you actually want me to come into your studio for pictures.

[andi*pandi]

Damn it is hard to find an unflattering photo of romney:

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I like her necklace!

Originally Posted by subego 

I do too. I like the collar as well.

People still like pearls? They always represented a old-fashioned way of displaying wealth to me. Also, tacky.

[subego]

I think that's one of the reasons I like them. Sure, it's a display of wealth, but it's a whole lot more austere than bling.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think that's one of the reasons I like them. Sure, it's a display of wealth, but it's a whole lot more austere than bling.

Considering most necklaces are thinner and less contrasting than giant white balls, I disagree.

Edit: FFS she has three lines of them!

[subego]

They don't refract.

[The Final Dakar]

You've got to be kidding me. Are you being blinded everyday by all the necklaced women in the world?

[Jawbone54]

Bachmann's photo is the kind I delete immediately when going through a set in Lightroom. I'm sure a better picture existed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it was absolutely intended to make her look fake and a little crazy.

To be fair, she looks a little crazy naturally. This photo makes her look completely unhinged.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You've got to be kidding me. Are you being blinded everyday by all the necklaced women in the world?

Depends on the neighborhood.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Depends on the neighborhood.

That sounds vaguely racist...

...anyway, I think it's karma for having terrible taste in jewelry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

To be fair, she looks a little crazy naturally. This photo makes her look complete unhinged.

All I'm seeing is that god-damned gap tooth that isn't really there.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

All I'm seeing is that god-damned gap tooth that isn't really there.

Nay, the "I's" have it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That sounds vaguely racist...

How's that?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

bling.

...

Originally Posted by subego 

neighborhood.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Nay, the "I's" have it.

Now, I'll cop to not necessarily wanting them looking at me, but since they're off in space somewhere, I'm not disturbed by them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

COLOR="White"

Let me make sure I'm following your train of reasoning here.

"Bling" isn't just a object, it's an object possessed only by certain races?

[andi*pandi]

The pearls are always classy, and her collarless shirt is just nonconformist enough while still saying "I iz serious politician."

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

To be fair, she looks a little crazy naturally.

This is true.

This photo makes her look completely unhinged.

This is also true.

A portrait photographer's job is to understand his/her client's strong and weak points, then emphasize the strong points while deemphasizing weak points. For instance: with a heavy person, you never shoot from below unless you want to make them look huge. With an overly pale person, you don't want to place them against a light-contrast background.

For Michelle Bachmann, you want to select pictures other than the one where her crazily bulging eyes aren't emphasized. Catch her laughing or smiling naturally in between shots, because she clearly can't manufacture a believable pleasant expression.

I'm assuming that Newsweek had more photos than this, which boils down to two options:

1. They deliberately picked a bad photo in order to give credence to the "she's crazy" sect.
2. The photographer did a really bad job, and they didn't have any good photos available from the shoot.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Let me make sure I'm following your train of reasoning here.

"Bling" isn't just a object, it's an object possessed only by certain races?

Possessed only? No. Referred to as possessing? Pretty much. Of course, I'm in North East Pennsylvania, not some cultured metropolitan area.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The pearls are always classy

While I don't agree per se, I do think that's the motivation behind using them (like a realtor). I think the general idea is to exude a classical sense of formality, because this is politics anything that is new or different is bad and should be feared and hated.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

A portrait photographer's job is to understand his/her client's strong and weak points, then emphasize the strong points while deemphasizing weak points. For instance: with a heavy person, you never shoot from below unless you want to make them look huge. With an overly pale person, you don't want to place them against a light-contrast background.

For Michelle Bachmann, you want to select pictures other than the one where her crazily bulging eyes aren't emphasized. Catch her laughing or smiling naturally in between shots, because she clearly can't manufacture a believable pleasant expression.

I'm assuming that Newsweek had more photos than this, which boils down to two options:

1. They deliberately picked a bad photo in order to give credence to the "she's crazy" sect.
2. The photographer did a really bad job, and they didn't have any good photos available from the shoot.

Perhaps, but I think a photographer also wants a portrait to capture the essence of a person, and the photo is an attempt to capture and communicate that in a moment.

What I would say this photographer did was create a caricature of that essence, likely at the behest (and interest) of Newsweek.

[Jawbone54]

Essence is a subjective quality in matters of politics. Conservatives would say Reagan was a brilliant, inspirational leader. They believe that to be his essence. Liberals would be more inclined to think of his essence as that of a rogue, reckless cowboy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Essence is a subjective quality in matters of politics.

Essence is a subjective matter period. Coincidentally, Art is subjective as hell, too. What one photographer (honestly) feels captures the essence of a person may not jibe with another photographers (Particularly outside the political arena. I don't even want to consider the existence of political photography, outside of propaganda). This is what makes Art interesting and debate worthy.

Edit – Example: Which photo do you think better captures Johnny Cash's essence?

Cash 1

Cash 2

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Possessed only? No. Referred to as possessing? Pretty much.

Well now that's vaguely racist.

In the fancy metro Midwest, bling is universal. The neighborhood I was thinking of is about as lily white as you can get.

[subego]

Cash 2 is a DB error for me.