TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › It's got to be pretty obvious...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's got to be pretty obvious...

post #1 of 18
8/9/11 at 12:55pm
Thread Starter 
when even ABC notices the dirty tricks at Newsweek!

Newsweek Cover "Sexist?"
Reply
post #2 of 18
8/9/11 at 5:18pm
I don't think the picture is especially unflattering . Obviously the headline is but that's politics as usual.
Reply
post #3 of 18
8/10/11 at 5:14am
I think the picture is a little unflattering, she's a pretty woman, that picture is crazy eyes looking. Also the "Queen of Rage" title is fairly nasty.

I am the Queen of rage. How dare they?
Reply
post #4 of 18
8/10/11 at 8:34am
It's all in the context. . .if her supporters put that picture on a magazine, they would say she looks "transcendent" or is "gazing into the future". But if her opponents put that picture on a magazine, it's "crazy eyed".

I've seen a lot worse on political mailings. It seems that a primary political tactic is to find the worst picture ever taken of your opponent, then say that he looks like that because he's making faces at minorities or is disgusted by babies or some other silly rot.
Reply
post #5 of 18
8/10/11 at 7:50pm
Thread Starter 
But this wasn't a "political mailing." It was a national news magazine. Is it their job to make Republicans look as ridiculous as possible?

I found it interesting that even NOW didn't like it. I've seen the photo, and it does have an "odd" look about it. However, I can't compare it to the real thing, since I wouldn't know Bachman if I ran into her in the tea aisle at the supermarket.
Reply
post #6 of 18
8/10/11 at 8:36pm
If it's not an altered photo, then what's the problem?
Reply
post #7 of 18
8/11/11 at 8:22am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
If it's not an altered photo, then what's the problem?
Who knows if it's altered? The problem is that they purposely chose a bad one. Is this really a mystery to you?
Reply
post #8 of 18
8/11/11 at 8:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Who knows if it's altered? The problem is that they purposely chose a bad one. Is this really a mystery to you?
Ok, and so? If it's an actual photograph then it's no issue. If they altered it, then there is something to complain about.
Reply
post #9 of 18
8/11/11 at 8:28am
Definately unflattering, but I don't see how it's sexist.
Reply
post #10 of 18
8/11/11 at 8:34am
Thread Starter 
I guess you'd have to ask NOW, who said that.

It's an old trick in political ads to choose photos of your opponent to make them look crazy. I guess after all the years of the "Laughing Chimp" photos, people have forgotten that that is a campaign trick, and not suitable for news organizations that are not supposed to be arms of a political campaign.

Again...it wasn't I who noticed it. I'm reporting what the mainstream media is saying about it.
Reply
post #11 of 18
8/11/11 at 8:42am
Newsweek doesn't appear to be campaigning for anyone...they merely appear to be pointing out the one of many they feel is a complete nutcase.
Reply
post #12 of 18
8/11/11 at 10:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Newsweek doesn't appear to be campaigning for anyone...they merely appear to be pointing out the one of many they feel is a complete nutcase.
That's not their job, either.

However, since Newsweek is now the size of a Weekly Reader, and just about as well-run, I guess it's not that significant.
Reply
post #13 of 18
8/11/11 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
That's not their job, either.

However, since Newsweek is now the size of a Weekly Reader, and just about as well-run, I guess it's not that significant.
Why isn't it? Now that they've merged, they are the print equal of Fox News, as is, mostly opinion. Why do you feel it can be one's bread n' butter, but not the other's?
Reply
post #14 of 18
8/12/11 at 8:49am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Why isn't it? Now that they've merged, they are the print equal of Fox News, as is, mostly opinion. Why do you feel it can be one's bread n' butter, but not the other's?
What? Newsweek and Weekly Reader merged? When did this happen?

And will it raise the intelligence level of BOTH their readerships?

Reply
post #15 of 18
8/13/11 at 5:21am
Newsweek cover of Bachmann sexist? Get real
Quote:
Now when I see stories discussing her makeup and whether she is sexier than Sarah Palin, hell yes, that's sexist. Even trying to suggest she will take Palin's supporters implies that she can only compete for women voters.
Reply
post #16 of 18
8/13/11 at 5:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I agree. It is a ploy to discount their intelligence by talking about their looks. Sad that only somewhat average looking women are given respect for their minds.
Reply
post #17 of 18
8/13/11 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
What? Newsweek and Weekly Reader merged? When did this happen?

And will it raise the intelligence level of BOTH their readerships?
Na, they merged with some other "periodical" either this year or last. I'm at work and can't really spend a lot of time looking for which one, but I'll find out fer' ya.
Reply
post #18 of 18
8/13/11 at 7:37am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Na, they merged with some other "periodical" either this year or last. I'm at work and can't really spend a lot of time looking for which one, but I'll find out fer' ya.
The Daily Beast.

One editor, Tina Brown, for the two of them.

Why does "Newseek and Daily Beast Merger" sound like a standup joke to me?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breaking Mews
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › It's got to be pretty obvious...