Michael,

I completely disagree with Julie Ponzi’s criticism of Palin that you highlight in your post.

Palin’s point isn’t that the picture itself is sexist, but that the use of that picture in the context of a “news” magazine is sexist.

Was Newsweek sexist in its use of the image?

If we just look at the cover without any context, we would wonder why a picture of a politician in running shorts is appropriate unless the article is about running or health.  It is doubtful that a picture of Obama in running shorts would be used for a news magazine.

Let’s look at Newsweek’s defense of the cover:

“We chose the most interesting image
available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we
always try to do,? Meacham said. “We apply the same test to photographs
of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are
saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”

What exactly then is the theme of the cover?  What are they saying? 

Is the theme that politicians are into running?  If we look at the text of the cover, the theme is about Palin being bad for Republicans and everybody.  How does showing Palin in running shorts serve that purpose?  Is she a problem because she likes to run? 

Let’s look at the cover story that is connected to the picture.  The article is a left-wing “analysis” of  how Palin and the nutty people on the right that support her undermine attempts to get things done in DC.  That theme has no connection with her being in running shorts.  Newsweek should explain what message it was trying to convey with her in running clothes since one can’t figure it out from the cover story.

Here’s an important passage from the cover story:

“Obama knows the long odds against a right-wing populist winning the presidency, no matter how good she looks in a skirt (or running clothes), brandishing a gun.”

Now I get it.  The article is as sexist as the cover.  If a conservative writer said this about an attractive Democrat, there would be outrage.  The point about her physical attractiveness may be relevant even in a serious political story.  Obama was called an attractive candidate.  However, they didn’t say he looked good shirtless (or whatever).  This article though has to go way out of bounds by objectifying her: “how good she looks in a skirt.”

If Palin were a male candidate, with the same background, does anyone honestly think that Newsweek would have a cover of the candidate in running shorts?  Would they write “no matter how good he looks in jeans (or running clothes)…”

BTW: Note how “or running clothes” is in parentheses–it suggests that the article likely was changed to be consistent with the cover, not the other way around.

In my opinion, Newsweek was trying to convey that Palin is just a “pretty face” without any substance or legitimacy.  I doubt that’s a message they would convey with a male politician, but with a female politician they don’t like, it was perfectly fine. 

Before I get called a member of the PC police, my analysis would be completely different if this were a magazine that didn’t hold itself out as a “serious” news magazine and/or had a history of treating males in the same fashion.