Newsweek’s cover of Sarah Palin in shorts draws a range of critics
Sarah Palin posed in gym shorts for a photo taken for Runner’s World magazine — and months later it shows up as the cover of Newsweek, for a story about Palin and politics.
The whole incident is being called unethical, sexist and perhaps even illegal. (Daily Finance reports that the photographer may have violated a contract when he sold the photo to Newsweek.)
The Washington Post’s Jocelyn Noveck quotes Kenneth Irby of the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla., as saying the cover decision was based on magazine sales. “The main consideration for covers is, what will draw attention?” There’s no question that people will pay a lot of attention to this cover.”
The Post’s article — “Palin and her fans irked by cover shot in shorts” — continues:
The issue, Irby said, is one of context. The photo is accompanied by the headline: “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She’s Bad News for the GOP - And For Everybody Else, Too.” And that leads to a whole different interpretation, Irby noted, than if you were looking at it in Runner’s World, where it originally ran in August.
“The image is not sexist,” said Irby, who specializes in visual journalism. “The words are more damaging and questionable. The powerful pairing is the issue. Why did they use this photo — where half the frame is her legs — when they had thousands to choose from?” In his own opinion, Irby said, “It’s a pretty underhanded shot at her credibility.”
Juding by her Facebook entry on the matter, Palin apparently concurs with most of Irby’s comments. But she disagrees on one: She says the cover is sexist. Palin writes:
The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention — even if out of context.
Newsweek’s response to the controversy? The official statement from editor Jon Meacham as reported on Newsweek’s political blog The Gaggle:
“We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. 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.”
Steve Parker is the deputy managing editor for news, and oversees the Post-Dispatch's front page. STLtoday's online news editors are on his newsroom team. Parker has been at the paper since September 1980. 
She’s definitely bad news for the GOP. Her actions are the antithesis to some key conservative talking points, such as carrying out your responsibilities and standing up and assuming fault for your own mistakes.
Rotert,
–Wrong, but she’s definitely bad news for the “donkey” set, or more colloquially fitting, the jack-ass set. How else can you explain the lefts’ attempts at destroying her?
–Newsweek and the photographer who took the shot, and signed a one year moratorium on it’s reuse, can’t seem to figure out who is the culprit, and how it got illegally on the cover.
Photo District News has some additional reporting on the contract status of the image, and links to the photographer’s blog where he discusses the images and the shoot:
http://www.PDNPulse.com/2009/11/runners-world-dont-blame-us-for-newsweeks-sarah-palin-cover.html
Please let me add a couple of other thoughts about photos from editorial photo agencies and how they land in publications and website. I worked as a picture editor at one earlier in my career.
I’d bet it’s pretty simple, really, how Newsweek got the image — it’s standard in the photo industry for photos to be sold by a photo agency on behalf of a photographer after the original use of the photos have been fulfilled.
Newsweek probably got it through the photographer’s agency, Rappaport, which has a selection of images from the shoot on its website. Rarely is the photographer involved in the sale of second-use rights through an agency; it’s common for a photographer to learn of a sale only when paid by the agency for the sale.
The confusion about the embargo likely exists on one of two elements:
– if the assignment contract included that restriction, was it communicated to the agency, or was that overlooked or concealed?
– if the restriction existed, did it apply to the entire shoot, or just to what are known in the business as near-frames? Near-frames are photos that are nearly identical to ones that the assigning publication used in print or on the website, and are often subjected to these kinds of restrictions. It more unusual, although not unheard of, for an entire shoot to be subjected to a resale restriction.
I’d suspect that sooner or later we will learn more details on these questions.
Be very careful of your words, here, folks. In case you’re new, you should be aware that the editors here like to forward your comments to your employers.
*She* posed for the picture, regardless of the context. If she looks stupid, and disrespectful (for *resting her arm* on the freaking American flag!), it’s nobody’s fault but her own. Regardless of whatever “embargo” might be in place. Would her response be any different when the photo is available for stock use in a few months? Would you see any other potential Presidential candidate posing for a publicity shot in such a manner, let alone getting UPSET when someone uses it?
I’m posting from home, PD editors — my wife can be reached by phone if you have to tattle to someone about anything possibly objectionable in this post.
Where is the National Organization for Women? Why aren’t they protesting this cover as sexist? Oh, that’s right- they only protest liberal causes. Plus, Sarah Palin decided not to abort her baby with Down’s syndrome. That really set back women’s rights!
Just one more reason not to buy Newsweek. A leftist rag that who’s only value is for toilet paper in an outhouse.
Ms. Palin is continuing to do a great job for the Democrats.
She’s great for the GOP and for those of you who don’t like her are Democrats who are very scared.
You should be scared. Very scared. ‘Cause she’s gonna take a big hack out of you, women who will wake up and see the light. ‘Cause Hillary sure hasn’t, she’s a dull 20 watt bulb.