The photo was taken for runner's world and she posed for it. It's not one of those photo-shop jobs.

Is it sexist? I don't know.

I think Sarah has to make up her mind if she is a celebrity or a politico. If she poses for cheesecake shots and then demands the respect of a future president it's just not going to work. Nor is requesting no publicity when she's on a publicity tour. She complains about the media's use of her kids, but she uses her children as props. They were on Good Morning America this morning telling what a great Mom and cook she is.

I read Dee's trinket comment and I agree with it. We are living, breathing women of substance out here who really don't want to have Sarah Palin establishing policy for us.

I think the fascination with Palin is bad for women in general. I complained about this before spurring the ugly, old lesbian diatribes from the holier than thous, who couldn't believe anyone could find one thing to criticize about Palin. I think there is entirely too much fascination with Palin's form and moose hunting skills and not nearly enough in her policies or competency.

My question is Is She Now a Politician? or is she just another Lindsey Lohan, Jessica Simpson, Kim Kardasian...

She's not Governor of Alaska anymore and she's out shilling a book. Actually, she chose to quit governance. I think she is a complete product of the media now and the cover is implying that also.

For the record, I think it is more sexualizing than sexist which is an even worse thing.

More later...

I think it's subtle, but i think it's there. The photo and the caption seem designed to highlight two things about Sara Palin.

1. She's cute. (Which i think is true, but politically irrelevant.)

2. She's silly and not very bright, and i think it's mostly the caption that implies this. (For the record, I think this is also true, and VERY politically relevant.)

My issue is that by linking the two, they seem to be very subtly implying that she's silly and ignorant BECAUSE she's cute. i.e. a bimbo. Which is sexist. While i get that it's really subtle, and not everyone is going to see it (the people who designed it may not even see it) i still think it's there.

It reminds me a little of the JP who wouldn't marry the biracial couple. You don't have to have an intent to cause harm to be capable of a biased action.

Newsweek, fighting for survival, drifts toward irrelevancy

Jeff Bercovici
Nov 16th 2009 at 1:00PM

About a year ago, media critic Michael Wolff predicted that Newsweek would go out of business "sometime around the fourth quarter of next year" -- i.e., right around now. That doesn't look like it's going to come true. But nor does it look as far off the mark as Newsweek's parent, the Washington Post Co. (WPO), might hope.

Last week, the magazine laid off a dozen employees in its third round of staff downsizing in less than two years. But Newsweek is shrinking in other ways as well: Ad pages are down 29% year-over-year, while the circulation guarantee is slated to be reduced to 1.5 million in January, down more than 50% from its pre-2008 level.

The New York Times (NYT) sees "glimmers of progress" in all this, noting that the Washington Post Co.'s magazine division -- meaning Newsweek, more or less -- has managed to substantially slow the rate at which it's bleeding (although that's a far cry from becoming "slightly more profitable," as the Times's media blog erroneously puts it).

But those glimmers are faint enough. Newsweek's current strategy is to court a smaller, demographically more elite audience by offering them a product less like the newsweekly of yore and more like The Economist: heavy on opinion and analysis, light on reporting. It's also to harness the power of the blogosphere and the 24-hour cable news cycle by stirring the pot with attention-grabbing stunts, like an issue guest-edited by Stephen Colbert, and this week's cover, which features Sarah Palin in a pair of thigh-revealing running shorts.

It's far from clear, however, what Newsweek gains by trading journalistic heft for something as ephemeral as buzz. That Colbert issue didn't sell especially well on the newsstand. And while the phrase "Newsweek Sarah Palin" made an appearance in Google Trends Monday morning, the attribution of that cover photo -- originally taken for Runner's World -- only serves to underscore the magazine's lack of pull. Palin herself panned the cover, and Newsweek, in a Facebook message, calling it "sexist" and "out of context."

Time magazine's Person of the Year issue may be something of a joke, but at least it's a signature joke. (Like DailyFinance, Time is -- for now -- part of Time Warner Inc. (TWX).) Newsweek could use a similar franchise to distinguish itself. Otherwise, it risks becoming just one more voice in the media cacophony, with ever less to say, and saying it ever louder.

This story was updated on Tuesday, November 17 to include Sarah Palin's reaction to the Newsweek cover.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/16/ ... relevancy/