6 thoughts on “Sexist-crazed NOW prez scolds Newsweek

  1. I don’t know – something about the eyes are the mirror of the soul.

    If that’s what the eyes show…. well…

    I think most of our experiences, especially under George W. Bush, were to have photos staged that glorified the figure, making it “holy”. Remember the “halo effect” photo – and other?


    But one photo of Bush and a baby apparently escaped Karl Rove’s censorship:


    And there was the case of two NY Times reporters who did critical pieces and wound up having their teeth yellowed and dark circles put under their eyes by the time their segment actually aired.


  2. Oh good, a guy – omo- criticizing a womens org standing up against sexism in the media. Oh, yay.

  3. I’m a bit puzzled, “Guest”. I presume you’re talking about me, since “RD” is “riverdaughter”. Anyway, my view on the subject is that we should be aware that for a long, long time pictures, photos, cartoons, etc., have been used to provide unusually flattering or unflattering impressions of a given subject. Sometimes, an ethical question could arise for a photographer who was not otherwise out to do a “hit piece” – should a photo express the subject in the best possible light – or – what if an otherwise neutral photographer sees something in the subject that causes alarm? Should that be edited out or not?

  4. I’m befuddled about the whole photo mess. The photo looks fine to me — what exactly are they objecting to? I think NOW was objecting more to the title of the article, “Queen of Rage,” than to the photo. Would someone please explain what is wrong with the photo?

  5. I’ve seen several sort of wild-eyed photos of Bachmann – she really needs to learn to control that expression. But the fact that we’ve seen so much of the awkward-photo treatment on her, HRC, Pelosi and Palin – far more than on the menz – is depressing. Coupled with “Queen of Rage” I think it is unquestionably sexist.

Comments are closed.