[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When Newsweek, Time, etc. put a racy picture of Obama on its cover with some really negative headline, how did his people respond?

Do *you* consider that photo of Palin on the Newsweek cover to be "racy"? If it is racy, then would that show some questionable judgment on her part?

For the record, I don't think that photo is racy, sexist or in any way "poor taste". Out of context? Absolutely.

[besson3c]

Wiskedjak: you don't think that it is designed to make some people a wee bit horny for her?

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Nice gams.

Retweeted for goodness.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do *you* consider that photo of Palin on the Newsweek cover to be "racy"?

It would depend on it's context.

If a woman wore a bathing suit to church, I would suggest that's "racy". If she did it on the beach, not so much.

It's my understanding that the photo in question wasn't taken in order to be put into a news magazine, any more than the photo of Obama with his shirt off was.

The problem isn't so much that the photo is "racy". It's just not something that's appropriate (if Newsweek wants to be taken seriously) for a news magazine that does not try and poke fun at other male, democrat politicians in the same way. It shows an inconsistency on their part and an agenda which is trying to use Palin's gender and looks to give the impression that SHE is not to be taken seriously. That is essentially sexist.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wiskedjak: you don't think that it is designed to make some people a wee bit horny for her?

Someone who is going to get a "wee bit horny for her" over that photo will get a wee bit horny for her in a suit as well.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wiskedjak: you don't think that it is designed to make some people a wee bit horny for her?

Have you ever considered that the effects that things have on YOU are not true for the general public ?

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It shows an inconsistency on their part and an agenda which is trying to use Palin's gender and looks to give the impression that SHE is not to be taken seriously. That is essentially sexist.

Hmmmm .... I get what you're saying, and agree that they're trying to give the impression the Palin is not to be taken seriously, but I'm still not convinced that they're using gender to do so. In my opinion, they're trying to use how she projects herself. There's no question in my mind that Palin herself is sexist, using her gender and looks to serve her own goals. Now that I think about it more, I think Newsweek might be trying to expose Palin's *own* sexism to give the impression that Palin is not to be take seriously.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Hmmmm .... I get what you're saying, and agree that they're trying to give the impression the Palin is not to be taken seriously, but I'm still not convinced that they're using gender to do so. In my opinion, they're trying to use how she projects herself. There's no question in my mind that Palin herself is sexist, using her gender and looks to serve her own goals.

Why? Because she cares about how she looks? Because she happens to be attractive, she's been using this to her advantage deliberately? Any examples? The picture she chose for her book was not in running shorts or miniskirts or anything of the like. This is not how "she's chosen to project herself" in that arena. Whenever she's gone on speaking engagements regarding any professional capacity, she's not worn running shorts or miniskirts has she? Do you have anything at all to establish Palin's own sexism other than the fact that she happens to be an attractive female who cares about how she looks?

I get the impression you're trying to suggest that in order for Palin to be a properly humble female, she must drape herself in worn clothes, cheap glasses, and old shoes or something.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you have anything at all to establish Palin's own sexism other than the fact that she happens to be an attractive female who cares about how she looks?

Yeah, Obama is "hot" as the magazine cover posted her freely admits. Is Obama guilty of this too, just because he's a good looking male who works out and take care of his appearance? Is he guilty because he gets some women all hot and bothered with his muscular physique that he shows off?

Where was the cover photo of John Edwards in his boxers on any given news magazine a few years back?

The idea that only a good looking republican woman can take advantage of their attractiveness, and that can be their only (or main) selling point is patronizing and sexist in and of itself.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yeah, Obama is "hot" as the magazine cover posted her freely admits. Is Obama guilty of this too, just because he's a good looking male who works out and take care of his appearance? Is he guilty because he gets some women all hot and bothered with his muscular physique that he shows off?

The difference is that Obama isn't posting to Facebook whining about how his photo was taken 'out of context', and crying 'sexism'.

The idea that only a good looking republican woman can take advantage of their attractiveness, and that can be their only (or main) selling point is patronizing and sexist in and of itself.

I didn't see anyone claim it was only a 'good looking republican woman' that could do this. But apparently only 'good looking republican women' whine about sexism when it backfires.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by The original linked article

Meanwhile, documentary photographer Nina Berman hailed the cover as "brilliant" and "shrewd" for using a "propped photo where Palin is an obvious participant ... to show how far out she is willing to travel on the road of self promotion" while "shield[ing] themselves from what would have been the inevitable criticism if they had dolled her up themselves and posed her the same way."

This. Here's your 'context'.

Sarah gets called out on being a media whore, doesn't like it, cries 'sexism'.

This is a photo SHE POSED FOR. FOR A MAGAZINE. That says a lot right there. She didn't pose for this particular use, but it does in fact fit with the story content, which talks about her populist side and divisiveness. SHE is the one that put the idea out there that the photo is 'racy'. If it's too 'racy' for the cover of Newsweek, why is it not too 'racy' for the cover of Runner's World (or whatever running magazine this was). This isn't the difference between the beach and church - it's 2 magazine covers. SHE'S responsible for this, so the sexism starts with her. And, of course, the next time Sarah actually publicly accepts accountability for something will be her first. Everything is always someone else's fault.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

This isn't the difference between the beach and church - it's 2 magazine covers.

This assumes that all magazines are similar. Appropriate covers for Highlights for Children and Playboy are completely different. In a magazine about running, you would expect her to be pictured in typical running attire. In a magazine about news, you'd expect her to be pictured in typical professional attire. No?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This assumes that all magazines are similar. Appropriate covers for Highlights for Children and Playboy are completely different. In a magazine about running, you would expect her to be pictured in typical running attire. In a magazine about news, you'd expect her to be pictured in typical professional attire. No?

Depends on what the news story is covering. Not to mention, I didn't know that 'typical running attire' consisted of posing in front of an American flag.

In this case, one was a news story about Sarah, her populist influence, and its impacts. The other was a story about Sarah, the runner and political figure. I'd say there's a lot of crossover there.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The difference is that Obama isn't posting to Facebook whining about how his photo was taken 'out of context', and crying 'sexism'.

Put it on the cover of Newsweek magazine with a smarmy, condescending headline and see if he or one of his people respond.

Both the photo of Palin in shorts, and the photo of Obama without a shirt where not taken in order to be used in conjunction with a serious news article. Obama's never was. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Both the photo of Palin in shorts, and the photo of Obama without a shirt where not taken in order to be used in conjunction with a serious news article. Obama's never was. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Hm. I don't seem to recall being the one making the comparison.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Sarah gets called out on being a media whore, doesn't like it, cries 'sexism'.

How is she any more of a "media whore" than a guy running for President who is extremely physically fit, that often times gets photographed in public without a shirt? The only time one is required to be without a shirt where others can see you is at a pool or the beach as far as I can tell.

I don't remember any photos of Clinton, who personified "media whore" when he ran, having a shot of him winking, playing the saxophone in the band on Arsenio on the cover of Time Magazine. If there was ever an appropriate time and opportunity to call out media whorism, that was the time - and Newsweek wasn't up to the task apparently.

This is a photo SHE POSED FOR. FOR A MAGAZINE.

..and the pose and the wardrobe was specifically themed to the magazine in question. The photograph was appropriate for it's intended, and agreed upon use.

That says a lot right there. She didn't pose for this particular use, but it does in fact fit with the story content, which talks about her populist side and divisiveness. SHE is the one that put the idea out there that the photo is 'racy'. If it's too 'racy' for the cover of Newsweek, why is it not too 'racy' for the cover of Runner's World (or whatever running magazine this was).

I have no idea about "racy", but it was inappropriate for a non-biased news magazine seeking to report the facts about serious matters.

This isn't the difference between the beach and church - it's 2 magazine covers.

That's like saying there isn't a difference between an indoor pool and a church because they are both inside buildings. I'm pretty sure that the people who subscribe to the news magazine and the sports magazine will be able to educate you on the differences of the publications in question if you aren't capable of figuring it out yourself. In one, you often times find people running around in shorts engaging in athletic activities. In the other, you mostly see people engaged in serious matters, wearing appropriate attire.

It really is no different than someone deciding to wear a bikini to church. At the beach, it really isn't "racy" or inappropriate. At church, it is. Sarah Palin was invited to go to the beach, but when she got there, Newsweek replaced the beach with a church to try and use her gender to make her appear not as serious.

SHE'S responsible for this, so the sexism starts with her. And, of course, the next time Sarah actually publicly accepts accountability for something will be her first. Everything is always someone else's fault.

You are sounding like a textbook sexist. Hey..she probably deserved to be raped too, because she wore clothes to the beach may be sexually appealing and it's her fault what happens to her when she dresses that way.


Really, it's Sarah's fault Newsweek trivialized her because she choose to pose for a photo that was appropriate and reasonable for it's intended use. How dare she do that and not expect to be belittled because of it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Hm. I don't seem to recall being the one making the comparison.

You compared Obama to Palin. I pointed out how there was no real comparison.

[CreepDogg]

Hm. Let's go find the post where the comparison was drawn.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yeah, Obama is "hot" as the magazine cover posted her freely admits. Is Obama guilty of this too, just because he's a good looking male who works out and take care of his appearance? Is he guilty because he gets some women all hot and bothered with his muscular physique that he shows off?

Where was the cover photo of John Edwards in his boxers on any given news magazine a few years back?

The idea that only a good looking republican woman can take advantage of their attractiveness, and that can be their only (or main) selling point is patronizing and sexist in and of itself.

Hm. Nope, not me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The difference is that Obama isn't posting to Facebook whining about how his photo was taken 'out of context', and crying 'sexism'

This is the comparison in question.

Obama isn't "whining" and crying "sexism" because the same thing that happened to Palin didn't happen to him.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is she any more of a "media whore" than a guy running for President who is extremely physically fit, that often times gets photographed in public without a shirt? The only time one is required to be without a shirt where others can see you is at a pool or the beach as far as I can tell.

Well, for starters, one is writing books throwing her former campaign aides under the bus, and touring to promote said publication, and one is not.

I don't remember any photos of Clinton, who personified "media whore" when he ran, having a shot of him winking, playing the saxophone in the band on Arsenio on the cover of Time Magazine. If there was ever an appropriate time and opportunity to call out media whorism, that was the time - and Newsweek wasn't up to the task apparently.

Your point? If Time or Newsweek thought that'd sell magazines, it would be there. It's not sexism. It's capitalism.

..and the pose and the wardrobe was specifically themed to the magazine in question. The photograph was appropriate for it's intended, and agreed upon use.

I have no idea about "racy", but it was inappropriate for a non-biased news magazine seeking to report the facts about serious matters.

Why? It's a photo of Sarah hamming it up for a photo op. Seems perfectly appropriate to the 'news' of Sarah's impact to me. So I guess at best, you can say it's a matter of opinion.

That's like saying there isn't a difference between an indoor pool and a church because they are both inside buildings. I'm pretty sure that the people who subscribe to the news magazine and the sports magazine will be able to educate you on the differences of the publications in question if you aren't capable of figuring it out yourself. In one, you often times find people running around in shorts engaging in athletic activities. In the other, you mostly see people engaged in serious matters, wearing appropriate attire.

And gee, yet there's Sarah Palin in both of them. Fancy that!

It really is no different than someone deciding to wear a bikini to church. At the beach, it really isn't "racy" or inappropriate. At church, it is. Sarah Palin was invited to go to the beach, but when she got there, Newsweek replaced the beach with a church to try and use her gender to make her appear not as serious.

You're correct, SHE decided to pose. Same as someone deciding to wear a bikini to church. SHE CHOSE to use her persona as Sarah Palin to gain publicity in a running magazine. SHE put on the bikini and took the pictures, and then invited all the churchgoers over to take a look. Then she gets her running shorts in a bunch when the churchgoers actually pay attention? Sheesh!

You are sounding like a textbook sexist. Hey..she probably deserved to be raped too, because she wore clothes to the beach may be sexually appealing and it's her fault what happens to her when she dresses that way.

Wow, so now you're drawing a comparison of this to rape? Talk about apples and oranges!

NO ONE puts themself in a position to be raped. LOTS OF PEOPLE put themselves in a position to be trivialized. It's not sexist to expect everyone, male and female, to accept accountability for their actions.

Really, it's Sarah's fault Newsweek trivialized her because she choose to pose for a photo that was appropriate and reasonable for it's intended use. How dare she do that and not expect to be belittled because of it.

Correct. She is accountable for her actions. She put that photo in the public domain. From that point on, it's not only her choice about what's 'reasonable and appropriate'. She gave that up. So for her to whine about it later is, well, whiny. I thought Republicans were all about personal responsibility?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This is the comparison in question.

Obama isn't "whining" and crying "sexism" because the same thing that happened to Palin didn't happen to him.

That was a response to your initial comparison. Do you care to retract it?

Not to mention, I wonder what Sarah would say if she got a cover like that Obama one, saying she's 'hot'. Since we're getting all politically correct, would that be sexist?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Since we're getting all politically correct, would that be sexist?

Interesting point. I can't believe how PC conservatives are.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Well, for starters, one is writing books throwing her former campaign aides under the bus, and touring to promote said publication, and one is not.

One had members of their campaign throwing her under the bus first, one did not. Palin isn't the one who had only been in office for a few years with few real accomplishments and already had written two or three autobiographies (one of which there is evidence was co-wrote by a terrorist).

Obama is essentially a creation of the media. You don't get to be a bigger whore than that.

Your point? If Time or Newsweek thought that'd sell magazines, it would be there. It's not sexism. It's capitalism.

As evidenced in this thread, another magazine did think it would sell. I'm guessing Time and Newsweek didn't think it was appropriate for Obama, but Newsweek thought it was okay for Palin. That's a double standard.

Why? It's a photo of Sarah hamming it up for a photo op. Seems perfectly appropriate to the 'news' of Sarah's impact to me. So I guess at best, you can say it's a matter of opinion.

I've explained why that isn't the case. I'll get naked in front of my wife. I'll even let her take naked pictures of me if she likes. That doesn't mean I consent to those pictures being put on the cover of Newsweek, or that it's all my fault if Newsweek engages in unethical behavior and violates my privacy by putting private photos I never intended to have published on their cover, as part of some agenda they have.

You're correct, SHE decided to pose. Same as someone deciding to wear a bikini to church.

Deciding to wear a bikini on the beach (what Sarah did), isn't the same as having someone else change the venue without you knowing and you showing up on a beach. Sorry, that just isn't a logical argument you are making. It's not a question of a difference of opinions, it's a matter of you comparing apples to oranges.

Wow, so now you're drawing a comparison of this to rape? Talk about apples and oranges!

I'm comparing the logic you are using, not the actual circumstances. The argument is one and the same.

NO ONE puts themself in a position to be raped. LOTS OF PEOPLE put themselves in a position to be trivialized. It's not sexist to expect everyone, male and female, to accept accountability for their actions.

Everything she did was appropriate for the purposes intended and consented to.

A third party decided to ignore the fact that she would not consent to the different, non-appropriate use of the photographs she consented, and sought to trivialize her by taking the pose and photo out of it's original context and focus on her sexuality due to the fact that she's a woman. That's nothing that Sarah Palin chose to do. It was done to her by a third party with an agenda.

Correct. She is accountable for her actions. She put that photo in the public domain.

If I say "I want to kill....all terrorists" in the "public domain" and Newsweek puts my picture on the cover with just "I want to kill...." am I accountable for their taking my words out of context to distort my intent as part of a campaign to try and dishonestly manipulate public opinion against me?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

That was a response to your initial comparison. Do you care to retract it?

Not to mention, I wonder what Sarah would say if she got a cover like that Obama one, saying she's 'hot'. Since we're getting all politically correct, would that be sexist?

I'm pretty sure I saw plenty of those kinds of covers. No one said much because the publications in question where things like the National Enquirer.
I remember lots of places publishing the doctored photo of Sarah in a bikini.

That's the sort of thing you'd expect from those types of magazines, same as the Obama cover. You wouldn't expect Newsweek to sink down into them mud like the Enquirer, but that's what they've decided to do. That's why this is different.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The difference is that Obama isn't posting to Facebook whining about how his photo was taken 'out of context', and crying 'sexism'.

This is a brilliant retort for sure. You're right, he doesn't use Facebook. That's what lowly commoners like Palin use to communicate thoughts en masse. Obama on the other hand, is President of the United States with a veritable who's-who of those quick to defend him by indicting the opposition of racism; a President who can and does use a host of other mediums to whine about the media.

But apparently only 'good looking republican women' whine about sexism when it backfires.

No, they whine about sexism when the feminist groups otherwise on standby with eyes moving to and fro looking for offended liberal women remain utterly silent in cases as obvious as Palin's.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

One had members of their campaign throwing her under the bus first, one did not.

Wait, so she was second in command running a disorganized campaign destined to fail? Hm.

Palin isn't the one who had only been in office for a few years with few real accomplishments

Yeah, she pretty much was that too.

and already had written two or three autobiographies (one of which there is evidence was co-wrote by a terrorist).

Obama is essentially a creation of the media. You don't get to be a bigger whore than that.

I thought the comparison was apples to oranges. Are we drawing a comparison again? Or do we only do that when it suits YOUR opinion?

As evidenced in this thread, another magazine did think it would sell. I'm guessing Time and Newsweek didn't think it was appropriate for Obama, but Newsweek thought it was okay for Palin. That's a double standard.

Really? There's a picture of Obama hamming it up in running clothes in front of an American flag? Hm. Haven't seen it.

I've explained why that isn't the case. I'll get naked in front of my wife. I'll even let her take naked pictures of me if she likes. That doesn't mean I consent to those pictures being put on the cover of Newsweek, or that it's all my fault if Newsweek engages in unethical behavior and violates my privacy by putting private photos I never intended to have published on their cover, as part of some agenda they have.

If you sign a contract with your wife (as the photographer) allowing her to use the pictures in any way she sees fit, well, then yes, you give up that right and you are accountable for what happens. On the other hand, if you make an agreement with your wife that they're for private use only, well, then you're in the clear.

Deciding to wear a bikini on the beach (what Sarah did), isn't the same as having someone else change the venue without you knowing and you showing up on a beach. Sorry, that just isn't a logical argument you are making. It's not a question of a difference of opinions, it's a matter of you comparing apples to oranges.

Except that Sarah had a hand in changing the venue herself. She posed as Sarah, the runner and politician, and agreed to have the photo used in the public domain. But this is what she's good at - doing something, and then when it doesn't go exactly as she wanted, blaming everyone but herself.

I'm comparing the logic you are using, not the actual circumstances. The argument is one and the same.

I think the words you like to throw around, 'apples' and 'oranges', are appropriate here.

Everything she did was appropriate for the purposes intended and consented to.

A third party decided to ignore the fact that she would not consent to the different, non-appropriate use of the photographs she consented, and sought to trivialize her by taking the pose and photo out of it's original context and focus on her sexuality due to the fact that she's a woman. That's nothing that Sarah Palin chose to do. It was done to her by a third party with an agenda.

Again, except that she'd already consented for the photos to be used publicly. She POSED for them. It's not like some paparazzo happened to snap her in an 'inappropriate' moment. Once she did that, she gave up the exclusive right to decide what contexts are and aren't allowable. But again - couldn't be her fault! Everyone is just supposed to like her! How dare they use her own constructs against her!

Is Newsweek using the photo to trivialize her? Perhaps. But hey - that's what freedom of speech is about - they have a right to express that. It's then up to the public to decide whether that's credible or not. Seeing as how the people who like Sarah disapprove and those that don't like her approve, I'd say this basically falls along party lines. Sarah has tried to discredit them, but only seems to (predictably) have the support of her base. So -- FAIL.

If I say "I want to kill....all terrorists" in the "public domain" and Newsweek puts my picture on the cover with just "I want to kill...." am I accountable for their taking my words out of context to distort my intent as part of a campaign to try and dishonestly manipulate public opinion against me?

Well, they're free to do that. And the public is free to judge their credibility by buying their content or not.

And then you could whine about it if you like, and the public can judge your credibility, as well as your whininess.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a brilliant retort for sure.

Thanks. I wasn't aiming for brilliant, just appropriate. Good to know I exceeded expectations!

You're right, he doesn't use Facebook. That's what lowly commoners like Palin use to communicate thoughts en masse. Obama on the other hand, is President of the United States with a veritable who's-who of those quick to defend him by indicting the opposition of racism; a President who can and does use a host of other mediums to whine about the media.

Well, then I guess he's smarter about handling it than Sarah. Something tells me that Sarah has a host of supporters that could help her with this too, should she choose to take that approach. She chose a different path, although we know she won't accept accountability for her choice anyway. She'll just continue to play the victim.

No, they whine about sexism when the feminist groups otherwise on standby with eyes moving to and fro looking for offended liberal women remain utterly silent in cases as obvious as Palin's.

So she's looking for support from liberal feminist groups who, in many other cases, she's turned her back on? Yeah, good luck with that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've explained why that isn't the case. I'll get naked in front of my wife. I'll even let her take naked pictures of me if she likes. That doesn't mean I consent to those pictures being put on the cover of Newsweek, or that it's all my fault if Newsweek engages in unethical behavior and violates my privacy by putting private photos I never intended to have published on their cover, as part of some agenda they have.

Then that's Palin's fault for not specifying limits on the use of the photo.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then that's Palin's fault for not specifying limits on the use of the photo.

"...the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek...a spokeswoman for Runner's World confirms that Adams's contract contained a clause stipulating that his photos of Palin would be under embargo for a period of one year following publication -- meaning until August 2010"


Palin photographer breached contract with sale to Newsweek -- DailyFinance

[Wiskedjak]

Well, then. why is she wasting time complaining? seems like there's a pretty clear course of action available to her.

EDIT: ah. it appears that the contract was with Runners World, not Palin. If I were her, as a public figure who's public representation is very important, I would've clauses covering how the photo could be used. especially for a racy photo such as this.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, then. why is she wasting time complaining? seems like there's a pretty clear course of action available to her.

Because it was Newsweek who chose to engage in the sexist ploy, knowing it wasn't something she would consent to, as part of a larger agenda.

Like I said, Obama would bitch if Time put the shirtless photo of him on the cover, and then added some kind of smarmy headline, guaranteed. For a month they couldn't stop whining about how unfair Fox News was and they never did anything as partisan and cheap as Newsweek.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because it was Newsweek who chose to engage in the sexist ploy, knowing it wasn't something she would consent to, as part of a larger agenda.

Ah, predictably, you misread me. The statement you quoted was wondering why she doesn't sue for breach of contract. Below that, I read that the contract was between the photographer and Runners World, not Sarah Palin. Why a politician wouldn't insist on greater control over such a racy photo is beyond me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ah, predictably, you misread me. The statement you quoted was wondering why she doesn't sue for breach of contract.

Probably because it isn't THAT big of a deal and it wouldn't stop the media from engaging in the intellectually dishonest exercises that are part of their agenda, which is the real problem. Why waste a bunch of time and money that won't really solve the problem. All she did was point out the bias and dishonesty Newsweek exhibited. Newsweek knew she wouldn't consent to this, and that the pose in question was never intended for their use.

Below that, I read that the contract was between the photographer and Runners World, not Sarah Palin. Why a politician wouldn't insist on greater control over such a racy photo is beyond me.

A. I don't think it's "racy" in and of itself and really doubt many other people would either. The fact that she posed for it and consented to it's use in the original publication really bears that out. We get back to the "is a bikini racy on the beach, or in a church" debate. She consented to the bikini on the beach, but not the bikini in the church. The photog had a contract which should have made sure she was only seen on the "beach".

B. I'm guessing her lawyers knew that the photographer and Runner's World had a contract which shouldn't have allowed this to happen, and probably didn't think that a magazine like Newsweek would stoop so low. I guess the lesson to be learned is to never to underestimate the media when they have a dishonest agenda to put across.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How many facts did they need to correct in Biden and Obama's books?

Those guys make up the facts as they go along. Didn't you get the memo?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, then. why is she wasting time complaining? seems like there's a pretty clear course of action available to her.

EDIT: ah. it appears that the contract was with Runners World, not Palin. If I were her, as a public figure who's public representation is very important, I would've clauses covering how the photo could be used. especially for a racy photo such as this.

Your honor, it couldn't be rape -- look what she was wearing!

Welcome to 1930 everybody.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Those guys make up the facts as they go along. Didn't you get the memo?

I read it, but when I saw that Biden authored it, I had to check to see if he'd stolen the words from anyone.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The photog had a contract which should have made sure she was only seen on the "beach".

B. I'm guessing her lawyers knew that the photographer and Runner's World had a contract which shouldn't have allowed this to happen, and probably didn't think that a magazine like Newsweek would stoop so low. I guess the lesson to be learned is to never to underestimate the media when they have a dishonest agenda to put across.

The contract was one of exclusivity for one year. After that time, the photograph could be used anywhere. Were I a politician concerned that photographs I consented to might be used out of context (and, really, *every* politician should be concerned about that ... especially those targeted by "gotcha journalism") I'd make damn sure I knew exactly the contexts under which those photographs would be used. Do you think Palin would consent to your bikini on the beach photo without some restrictions on it's use?

That Palin is only concerned about things *after* the fact suggests one of two things to me:
1. That she only thinks tactically (reactive) rather than strategically (proactive). Tactical people don't make very good leaders because they always let the other side make the first move.

2. That she *wants* things like this to happen so she can take advantage of the publicity and sympathy generated.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I read that the contract was between the photographer and Runners World, not Sarah Palin. Why a politician wouldn't insist on greater control over such a racy photo is beyond me.

Runner's World often has photos of people in running attire, so I don't think that it's racy in that context.

As for her obtaining more control of the images, what use is it if those outlets who want to zing her disregard the usage restrictions (as in this case)? Sure, she might have more legal recourse, but the damage is already done once those magazines hit the shelves, airwaves, etc.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That Palin is only concerned about things *after* the fact suggests one of two things to me:
1. That she only thinks tactically (reactive) rather than strategically (proactive). Tactical people don't make very good leaders because they always let the other side make the first move.

2. That she *wants* things like this to happen so she can take advantage of the publicity and sympathy generated.

I don't think either is the case. This is a staff issue. They have to be the ones on top of these issues. It's not like Kate Moss or Brad Pitt are sitting down and negotiating usage deals and limitations whenever they do photo shoots. Their "people" handle that stuff.

Hence, I'd add a #3 to your options: Whoever manages these things on her staff blew it big time.

Was she w/ the McCain camp at the time this photo was taken?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I don't think either is the case. This is a staff issue. They have to be the ones on top of these issues. It's not like Kate Moss or Brad Pitt are sitting down and negotiating usage deals and limitations whenever they do photo shoots. Their "people" handle that stuff.

Hence, I'd add a #3 to your options: Whoever manages these things on her staff blew it big time.

Then Palin needs to do a better job of selecting her staff. Selecting inept staff is *also* not a very good leadership trait.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Runner's World often has photos of people in running attire, so I don't think that it's racy in that context.

I also don't think it's racy, in *any* context, but others insist that it's racy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The contract was one of exclusivity for one year. After that time, the photograph could be used anywhere. Were I a politician concerned that photographs I consented to might be used out of context (and, really, *every* politician should be concerned about that ... especially those targeted by "gotcha journalism") I'd make damn sure I knew exactly the contexts under which those photographs would be used. Do you think Palin would consent to your bikini on the beach photo without some restrictions on it's use?

Again, as I stated, if I where her I too would have assumed that a news magazine with scruples wouldn't have engaged in such a low, and obviously partisan attempt at a "gotcha" as part of their agenda, and that photos that Runner's World had taken for their magazine which consent was only given for their use, wouldn't be used on the cover of some other magazine.

Here we have at least two entities who did something they knew Palin would not have consented to, and knew that she probably would not have consented to taking the photographs in the first place if either publication's actions would have put them on the cover of what WAS supposed to be a serious news magazine. I'm pretty sure they knew she had no idea that sort of bait and switch would happen.

Live and learn.

That Palin is only concerned about things *after* the fact suggests one of two things to me:
1. That she only thinks tactically (reactive) rather than strategically (proactive). Tactical people don't make very good leaders because they always let the other side make the first move.

Most people wouldn't think you have to act tactically in order to get a news magazine to not show bias, sexism and make clear their political agenda. Now it's quite apparent that Newsweek isn't a serious news magazine. They "won" the battle tactically, but lost war. No one's going to really trust Newsweek's reporting on Palin in the future.

2. That she *wants* things like this to happen so she can take advantage of the publicity and sympathy generated.

I doubt it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, as I stated, if I where her I too would have assumed that a news magazine with scruples wouldn't have engaged in such a low,

Then you also wouldn't be well suited for national politics. At that level of politics, you should *always* assume that somebody is going to try to getcha.

Most people wouldn't think you have to act tactically in order to get a news magazine to not show bias, sexism and make clear their political agenda.

National politics is *all* about being strategic. If the person can't think strategically enough just to survive getting to that level, then they can't think strategically enough to get done the job they were elected to do.

Palin should stop dreaming that everyone is going to play nice.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then Palin needs to do a better job of selecting her staff. Selecting inept staff is *also* not a very good leadership trait.

I don't have all the facts, so I will refrain from calling anyone inept. But if a single mistake by an underling proves ineptness at the top, then by that calculus we have perhaps the most inept leader in the history of our nation. Mistakes are made daily by this administration.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

National politics is *all* about being strategic. If the person can't think strategically enough just to survive getting to that level, then they can't think strategically enough to get done the job they were elected to do.

Palin should stop dreaming that everyone is going to play nice.

Did she tell you that she thinks everyone is going to play nice?

Palin is in a fine position. She pretty much is at the top among those who could potentially challenge for the high office. So by that measure, she's been plenty strategic.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, as I stated, if I where her I too would have assumed that a news magazine with scruples wouldn't have engaged in such a low, and obviously partisan attempt at a "gotcha" as part of their agenda, and that photos that Runner's World had taken for their magazine which consent was only given for their use, wouldn't be used on the cover of some other magazine.

That is a very faulty assumption to make for an individual and deadly assumption to make for someone existing on the national political stage.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here we have at least two entities who did something they knew Palin would not have consented to, and knew that she probably would not have consented to taking the photographs in the first place if either publication's actions would have put them on the cover of what WAS supposed to be a serious news magazine. I'm pretty sure they knew she had no idea that sort of bait and switch would happen.

More assumption on your part about a) what Palin would and would not have consented to and b) the intentions of Runner's World to participate in a "bait and switch" operation with Newsweek.


I think a review of the details are in order to tease out some facts from all the assumptions being made.

TRUE DETAILS

• Sarah Palin posed (willingly) for photos for Runner's World magazine
• The photographer who took the photos had an exclusivity agreement with Runner's World
• The photographer who took the photos broke his exclusivity agreement with Runner's World by selling to Newsweek at least one of the photos he took for Runner's World
• Newsweek published on its cover a picture of Sarah Palin; a picture taken for a different publication and to be used in a different context than the one used by Newsweek

ASSUMPTIONS

• Sarah Palin should have better control over image rights of herself
• Runner's World participated in a "bait and switch" with Newsweek
• Newsweek published the context-inappropriate picture of Sarah Palin to try and demean her in a sexist manner
• Sarah Palin's response to the publishing of the photo is whiney

If you are going to continue this debate at least be clear when you are debating the (logically and factually) true details and when you are debating the assumptions.



As for my opinion of this whole matter, here goes.

• Sarah Palin should have iron-clad control over how her images are used in photos she voluntarily poses for
  (i.e.: staged photos as opposed to public and/or impromptu photos)
• The photographer was wrong for breaking his contract with Runner's World and selling the photos to Newsweek
• Newsweek was wrong for facilitating the breaking of a contract between a publication and one of the publication's contractors
  (After this, Newsweek will never be able to complain if one of their contract writers or photographers breaks a contract with Newsweek.)
• Newsweek was wrong for publishing the picture of Sarah Palin in running gear on their cover
  (Whether or not their intent was to demean her in a sexist manner their actions certainly have the appearance of that and publishing that photo contributes nothing to the story they were writing about her.)
• Sarah Palin does come across as a bit whiney in her response to this brouhaha.
  (If she wants to be taken seriously as a figure of national significance she needs to become MUCH MORE thick-skinned. Not because she is a woman but because the national political scene is ruthless and anyone, man or woman, involved in that scene needs to be thick-skinned by necessity.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That is a very faulty assumption to make for an individual and deadly assumption to make for someone existing on the national political stage.


More assumption on your part about a) what Palin would and would not have consented to and b) the intentions of Runner's World to participate in a "bait and switch" operation with Newsweek.


I think a review of the details are in order to tease out some facts from all the assumptions being made.

TRUE DETAILS

• Sarah Palin posed (willingly) for photos for Runner's World magazine
• The photographer who took the photos had an exclusivity agreement with Runner's World
• The photographer who took the photos broke his exclusivity agreement with Runner's World by selling to Newsweek at least one of the photos he took for Runner's World
• Newsweek published on its cover a picture of Sarah Palin; a picture taken for a different publication and to be used in a different context than the one used by Newsweek

ASSUMPTIONS

• Sarah Palin should have better control over image rights of herself
• Runner's World participated in a "bait and switch" with Newsweek
• Newsweek published the context-inappropriate picture of Sarah Palin to try and demean her in a sexist manner
• Sarah Palin's response to the publishing of the photo is whiney

If you are going to continue this debate at least be clear when you are debating the (logically and factually) true details and when you are debating the assumptions.



As for my opinion of this whole matter, here goes.

• Sarah Palin should have iron-clad control over how her images are used in photos she voluntarily poses for
  (i.e.: staged photos as opposed to public and/or impromptu photos)
• The photographer was wrong for breaking his contract with Runner's World and selling the photos to Newsweek
• Newsweek was wrong for facilitating the breaking of a contract between a publication and one of the publication's contractors
  (After this, Newsweek will never be able to complain if one of their contract writers or photographers breaks a contract with Newsweek.)
• Newsweek was wrong for publishing the picture of Sarah Palin in running gear on their cover
  (Whether or not their intent was to demean her in a sexist manner their actions certainly have the appearance of that and publishing that photo contributes nothing to the story they were writing about her.)
• Sarah Palin does come across as a bit whiney in her response to this brouhaha.
  (If she wants to be taken seriously as a figure of national significance she needs to become MUCH MORE thick-skinned. Not because she is a woman but because the national political scene is ruthless and anyone, man or woman, involved in that scene needs to be thick-skinned by necessity.)

That's a lot of text that could have been avoided by just saying...

Palin took the picture because she thought the picture was appropriate for what they said they were going to use it for.

She should have known that her self proclaimed enemies wouldn't care about what she consented to - live and learn

When a publication who pretends to be a news source and not a scribe promoting bias and "gotchas" decides that they need to get dirty in order to ensure their agenda is put forth, Palin calls them on it.

Palin, the victim, is then to blame.

The bitch had it coming! LOOK AT THAT DRESS!!!!

[spacefreak]

You have a good read on things, dcmacdaddy.

However, as it pertains to Palin whining about the episode, I don't know what else she is supposed to say to the myriad of reporters who ask her time and again her opinion on the usage. If the woman doesn't agree with the usage, or if she doesn't like the usage, I want to hear her truthfully tell us what she thinks.

[andi*pandi]

Comparing a photo rights issue to rape is complete and utter bull.

[spacefreak]

Agreed, but in both cases, she did get frucked without giving consent.

I think what one of the posts above was alluding to is the "she was asking for it" defense that we sometimes hear in rape cases because a woman dresses or acts a certain way. But you are right, this episode doesn't even compare to rape.