For your convenience, ">here's the cover.

Sorry, HTML fail somehow.

http://www.theimproper.com/Images/Art/sarah%20palin%20newsweek%20cover.jpg

Are they freaking kidding me? No only do I have to watch a winking, flirting beauty queen but now she has to be airbrushed as well? It would be amazing to see what Fox news could do if they were actually a news organization.

Lacking genuine complaint or commentary, conservatives play the martyr over something that happens to people of all political affiliation.

And seriously, what does being unairbrushed have to do with being folksy?

Actually, the picture of Sarah Palin is pretty good. Are people really this petty that they will pick apart a picture until the person's image is screwed in their mind? And here I thought most people looked through rose colored glasses at people other than themselves...

http://www.theimproper.com/Images/Art/sarah%20palin%20newsweek%20cover.jpg

oh noes! not... PORES!!!! quick hide them! nobody's supposed to know those things actually exist in real life!!! wait.... WHAT? WRINKLES??? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm waiting for a "How DARE you not retouch that photo of McCain to give him a bigger crotch! What, are you trying to emasculate him? They did it to Bush too, when the poor guy had to resort to a real codpiece just to fight against the liberal media!"

I get Newsweek in the mail. I must say I was surprised at the facial hair and pores. It was not what I was expecting--all previous covers of her had been more flattering. But that is what makes this cover different. All the other covers of her (too many in my opinion) have been bland and boring. I also reacted with pleasure to the cover. I like that it was a completely strait up portrait. It jived perfectly with what the article theme about the average, normal person in America. No retouches, no special treatment. So the pictures wasn't traditionally beauty-fulfilling, but it was a wonderful artistic statement.

I was surprised to (kind of) agree with Fox News about the halo over Obama's head. That's certainly better treatment than I remember McCain getting. But I think it's balanced out by the fact that Palin has so often graced the cover of Newsweek of late. Far more than Obama or Biden has been featured.

So, Republicans say they want Gov. Palin to be taken seriously and not subjected to that nasty sexism (that they just discovered as soon as it affected them)... but they also want to make sure that she is seen as unnaturally beautiful and as a sex object. Make up your mind, kids. And as everyone else has said, of course, that picture isn't even unflattering... they are seriously grasping at straws.

This from the network that basically won't put a woman on camera unless she's blonde and wearing a miniskirt.

Yet more proof--as if we needed more--that, much as the right wing suddenly loves crying sexism, it doesn't actually realize what sexism is.

I think the point is that newsweek airbrushed Obama's and Clinton's face when they were on the cover, and I think a lot of you know it.

If the tables we turned and it was Obama or Clinton who were not airbrushed and instead Mccain did, there whould be quite an uproar.

I thought one of the things that we were supposed to love about Palin is that "she's just like us." Well, guess what? "Us" doesn't walk around flawlessly airbrushed.

I would have never noticed that it wasn't retouched if they hadn't pointed it out.

I concur; I would have assumed it *was* retouched.

I subscribe to Newsweek, and I had already seen the issue and even read the article. I didn't even notice. Even once it was pointed out I had trouble seeing what they were talking about. Yes, you can see the "flaws" in her skin and her facial hair. I think this is a good thing - we should all see what real people look like. Maybe less people would have body image issues if they saw more "real people" in the media.

But the more I looked at the cover, the more disconcerting it became. I actually started to think it WAS unflattering. This has totally shown me how screwed up my (over) consumption of media has made me. I actually started to think that an ACTUAL PICTURE is unflattering. Just because it isn't airbrushed. Wow - I did not know I was so far gone. And it took Fox News to point this out to me - this is the first time I have ever wanted to thank Fox News for something. ICK!

This has totally shown me how screwed up my (over) consumption of media has made me.

analog - Doesn't it just shock the hell out of you when that happens? It's like I delude myself into believing I am immune to all of it, but then..zing! my thoughts betray me. At least you recognized why the picture was disconcerting to you. No one is immune from this crap and that's why we have to keep up the good fight!

It's cute how they're grasping at straws. All the facial hairs in the world won't save them come November.

I love that FOX would get upset about things being shown as they are.

This is hysterical, trivial and absurd.

http://www.iwanexstudio.com/

click on "portfolio"

I went through and looked at each individual one. It was sad, because in a few of the pictures, they actually looked much prettier than in the airbrushing ones. And a lot of the airbrushing just makes them look awkward and fake.

I noticed that the cover was a close-up and not retouched. I thought it was pretty cool. Go Newsweek. And ha, Sarah Palin has dark hair on her upper lip... oh, just like me! Does that make her one of the folks?

janetmiddleton, I see your point, but they didn't say "The problem with this cover is that you retouch everyone but Sarah Palin." They said, "The problem with this cover is that it is not retouched"--as though retouching is a basic right. That's not so cool.

Another Barack Newsweek cover: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/Picture_10-12.jpg

Yeah, look how smooth and flawless his skin is! Observe how they removed every pore and stray hair and OH WAIT, NO THEY DIDN'T.

Clare - janetmiddleton is a troll, I wouldn't waste your time trying to reason with her/him.

Um. This is some crazy shit, yo. If you look at any of the Obama covers, it's obvious they didn't retouch them - he looks natural, with flaws and pores and lines, etc. I think it's great that Newsweek decided to treat Sarah Palin the same way they treated Obama, by not retouching her picture just because she's a woman (I'd be way more annoyed if they airbrushed her to look blandly pretty). Maybe Republicans are annoyed that by seeing her flaws, men won't be suckered into voting her because she looks like a beauty queen?

I'm not afraid to say it, but, Sarah Palin, evil, fake feminist that she is, still looks beautiful on that cover. Retouching creeps me out. (I love how right above this is the Angelina Jolie breastfeeding cover, where she looks so natural and beautiful.

Fox News is just not good at this feminist thing, are they?

Newsweek a liberal elitest magazine? Simply because its headlines "She's one of the folks and that's the problem?" Quick, someone give the Republican strategist woman on the right a clue. The article isn't criticizing folksy folks or Joe and Jane Six-Pack; the reference is instead to the tactical style of the McCain-Palin campaign. Yet another example of the right-wing media spin to make everything look like a dirty liberal elitest conspiracy.

Somehow, I don't think showing Palin, flaws and all, will do much to dissipate the wet dreams of Republican men of the right.

Fox News is just not good at this feminist thing, are they?

The "news reporting" thing, either.

I think my favorite part was the complete disgust of the anchorwoman. Seriously, she brandishes that Newsweek like it's a...I don't even know...dead rat or something. Magazine covers are often unflattering, this website does a whole series on them:
http://gofugyourself.celebuzz.com/go_fug_yourself/fug_the_cover/

Well they sure as hell can't promote her knowledge or experience. Since it turns out she doesn't look as good (politically) on the campaign trail as she does on paper, they've got to ensure her one surefire selling point - her physical attractiveness - stays unchecked.

(I'm not suggesting that Palin should be judged by her appearance, but I just find it too hard to believe those little winks and nose crinkles aren't intended to make her appear cute and flirty in order to draw male voters.)

HA-HAA! FOX and Republican bimbos complain about the corporate media not airbrushing the pit-bull’s insane face. What’s the matter---afraid Nazis and hicks won’t wanna fuck her no more?

My retirement plan just lost 50% of its value.

Do they really thing I give one flying piece of rat shit about a magazine cover?!

Thank god I'm too young to retire. Pitty those who are.

My retirement plan just lost 50% of its value.

Do they really thing I give one flying piece of rat shit about a magazine cover?!

Thank god I'm too young to retire. Pitty those who aren't.

Actually, in a way, janetmiddleton is right. If they showed someone like Hillary Clinton like this, there would be an uproar - amongst the right, which would use it for further sexist attacks on Hillary.

Fox News is secretly infatuated with Barrack Obama. They think he's perfect, acne scars and all. They think Sarah Palin is imperfect for a few wrinkles and lip hair I can't even see, though. I guess they hate her!

The great irony here is that in O'Reilly's Obama interview, the lights were carefully placed so that Obama's face appeared darker, with shadows around his eyes and the mole on the side of his nose accentuated. And Fox has shown pictures of left-leading journalists retouched so their teeth are yellow, bigger ears, receding hair, etc. (Jacques Steinberg, for example). Pot? Kettle? Black?

btw this is my first Feministing post. This is one of my most favourite sites.

LOL fox news. what are they going to get fussy over next--that people question her qualifications? oh, wait...

grumpgirl.blogspot.com

For fucks sakes! This is just stupid! This is the kind of crap you get when a misogynist runs the station!Rupert Murdoch must eat crap to spew it out like this at such a predictable level.

this is pathetic! i love how it didn't even OCCUR to them that SOME women are OKAY with having a few flaws and looking like a "normal human being." jesus christ.

And Fox has shown pictures of left-leading journalists retouched so their teeth are yellow, bigger ears, receding hair, etc. (Jacques Steinberg, for example). Pot? Kettle? Black?

That was one of my first thoughts, too, monacairdiscool.

It's a shame they couldn't airbrush her appalling record and inexperience.

It's a shame they couldn't airbrush her appalling record and inexperience.

Too funny! Seriously, too funny...I choked on my fish.

Palin was just found responsible for abusing her executive power in the Alaska "Troopergate" scandal. Here's the article from the Anchorage Daily News:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/552393.html

Thanks, Shelby. ^.^

It's a "gross slap in the face", eh? Yeah, how dare they use her real face!

hehehe..

"It's a shame they couldn't airbrush her appalling record and inexperience."
lol-seriously.
I didn't know being pretty was a prereq. for being a shitty VP canidate anyway.

What are you talking about, Trina? Dick Cheney is a notorious beauty.

I couldn't even get through watching it. These are the issues women are supposed to care about??!!! These are the women we get to see on the media, bickering about such superficial, trivial issues?! Wrinkles are good on a politician. They suggest experience. The cover is not what annoys me. As usual, as much as I dislike her, Palin is gorgeous. It is that this is even getting airtime. And Obama has had his fair share of exposed wrinkles and pores. Sheesh.

Didn't you love when the woman on the right-hand side loudly talked over the one on the left, holding up the magazine and saying "This is mortifying! This is mortifying!" then shook her head disapprovingly? Then the woman in the middle says "the viewers get upset when people talk over each other" and defects to the one doing the talking-over! Gold.

I also like the fact that the subtitle of this piece is "Newsweek under fire for cover pic of Senator Palin," as though Fox is presenting an objective news story about criticism of the picture, and not simpy the (only?) ones who are stamping their feet and screaming about it.

"Any respectable magazine should be doin' a little retouching if you're gonna have the extreme close-up on anybody's face."

Really? There I was thinking it was the the smoothed-out, over-airbrushed faces that tagged some magazines as trashy, and honest, revealing close-ups that tagged others as having taste and substance. But there you go. Thanks, Fox, for re-educating me on that one. I'll know to get my reputable political coverage from the tabloids from now on.

Although I do kind of get why Fox is kicking up a fuss, because they are acutely aware of the importance of doctoring (or not doctoring, I guess) photos in order to convey a particular impression:

http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=10837

"Shit, these guys look pretty ordinary and inconspicuous. In fact, they look too Goyish to belong to the liberal elitist Jew-controlled media. Everybody knows Jews have bruised eyes and big noses. Aha! Photoshop!"

I thought it was a pretty humanizing. I liked the choice.

i'm feeling worn out by this. as much as i want to feel grateful for all of the amazing changes that have occured politically this election year i am still feeling pretty tired.

i live in new york city in my own personal feminist bubble. not that i don't experience my share of sexism on a down right regular basis, but i have to admit its of a somewhat different brand. when i see women on national television bickering about a realistic photograph, by that of course i simply mean an actual photograph, of someone running for vice president while not once mentioning anything about her views on any of the major issues i just get disheartened.

& i'm sure it was no accident that the two women on the right, ahem, certainly seemed to typfy a certain type of woman physically, whereas the counterpoint to this ridiculous, & really irresponsible discussion, was of a less "standard" physical beauty.

we have come so far, haven't we? why can't i see three women on a natioinal news program discuss something other than physical appearance & its manipulation as a dis?

have i mentioned that this is my favorite blog? seriously, it keeps me sane.

i'd like to pitch in to create the feministing news network. who's in?

I don't usually find the time to pay attention to the cover of Newsweek, so I was shocked to follow the link to Obama's cover. Is that real?

"The New Face of Terror?"

Word placement fail.

I don't usually find the time to pay attention to the cover of Newsweek, so I was shocked to follow the link to Obama's cover. Is that real?

"The New Face of Terror?"

Word placement fail.

My biggest problem with Fox's piece is that they used Newsweek's "un-perfected" cover of Sarah Palin and the title of the article
"She's one of the folks;And that a problem"
And construed it as a sexist attack against palin instead of a critical examination of her policy ideas.( Havent read the actual artcle yet so maybe I should say that, but you know what I mean)

Is it just me or is Fox trying to discredit and throw the sexist sham on everyone else to turn Palin into a martyr?

BTW, I thought that was a really good picture of her.

This reminds me of the sex and the city episode where carrie has her pic taken for a 30 single and fabolous article where the magazine ninjas a ? at the end of the title. Except that was a horrid pic of carrie with a ciggy and mocha.

It is interesting how they are screaming about the unfairness of her face not being airbrushed and then acknowledge that they don't know if Obama, Clinton, or anybody else had their faces airbrushed or not. Are there still "middle of the road" people who watch fox news anymore? It seems like a dumbed down and less funny (depending upon how you look at it) version of The Daily Show for the far right.

I thought the 1/2 of the face shot was the artists comment on Palin having 1/2 a brain.

By the way, this airbursh/photo issue is a non issue for me. I am riled up about the hate mongering going on @ McPalin rallies, and the fact she has a pending lawsuit, fighting the listing of the Polar Bear as an endangered species, based on the fact she thinks the science of global warming is questionable. Add drill baby drill & the love of war & what's not to dislike?

SO silly! I saw, I think, Time magazine from back in early September - I thought her 'close up' looked worse in that untouched photo. I didn't hear any crying back then.

It's real life. They need to deal with it.

"I'd like to pitch in to create the feministing news network. who's in?"

MEEEEEEE!!!!!

After I submitted this story to feministing, I was dismayed that the coverage of the story wasn't limited to Fox. One of the female anchors from MSNBC also complained about the lack of airbrushing about 6 times over the course of a couple hours.

I'm sure it's *horrifying* to someone who spends much of her time on camera to imagine a world without airbrushing, flattering light and lots of makeup - I remember some of them complaining (only half-jokingly), when HD tv was growing in popularity, about all the plastic surgery they were going to have to get now that we'd be able to see all their flaws close-up.

It's ridiculous. People are people, not cartoons. It bothers me to see women who are clearly successful and sharp grow outraged about someone *not* being airbrushed. We have a long way to go yet.

Agnes, thanks for the airbrushing link. I knew models had a lot of airbrushing on their faces and skin ... but for some reason it didn't occur to me that airbrushing would be used to make someone look skinnier or more shapely than they actually are. And you know? I really thought all of those pictures were damned good before the airbrushing. Wow, airbrushing really is just completely disgusting.

As for Palin ... I can't believe how much time is being spent talking about her appearance. We are talking about a person who will be #2 in line for the presidency if McCain is elected! I wouldn't care if she weighed 300 lbs and has warts all over. What she looks like doesn't matter!

Yeah, it's totally the media's fault that Obama is hotter than Palin.

Although that Republican was pretty cute until she started saying such nonsense.

"I'd like to pitch in to create the feministing news network. who's in?"
Where do I sign up?

Agnes: I loved seeing that airbrush site. That is unbelievable, no wonder women's self perspective is totally skewed and messed up.

I think this Palin picture is a step in the right direction. Could we please start seeing realistic pictures of women?

Why are the folks at Fox News getting so bent out of shape over the Newsweek cover? TIME did their own Palin cover, that when looked at closely, you can tell that it wasn't airbrushed at all. The upper lip hair was missing but the spiky little white chin hairs were completely visable. See for yourself.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080915,00.html

It's hard to imagine that someone could look so much like Tina Fey yet be so unattractive. Brains and personality must count for more than I thought.

I'm actually stunned.

So...they want her to look...less...human?

(Btw, I think it's funny that they keep saying how it's so bad, and yet you can't see on TV so you have to just "trust them".)

As Gweem pointed out- There's an Obama Newsweek cover where you can see his huge-ass pock marks on his cheek. Does that make me want to vote for him any less? No! But it does prove that they don't airbrush out every flaw (and btw, to do so for a political figure is completely unprofessional anyway).

I'm very happy that the other woman is saying that it's ok for women to look "untouched." the reason why the other two women are pissed off is that they think men look good natural but women are UGLY and DISGUSTING naturally :)

I am most astounded that no one in that clip brought up how sexist it was that Palin's appearance is so important. If this was a male candidate, would we be having the discussion about whether or not his pores look big?

I don't even know if this is worth discussion. I just think it's hilarious.

The woman on the right just filled my entertainment quotient for the week.

Wow. It's so disheartening to realize the full extent of how so many women enthusiastically help to reinforce society's bottom line for women...that we are ultimately summed up by our appearance, and that women in their natural state are always unacceptable. Women complain about how oppressive it is, and then aggressively embrace that standard, and go to great lengths to not look like themselves. I have stopped subscribing to women's magazines because I asked myself why the hell I was paying money to be bored and offended by infinite falsified photos of women. There's no art in that blandness, no character, no individuality.

It's funny, too, because already Palin is wearing a face full of makeup, which men generally don't, and aren't expected to. So not only does the standard for female appearance take for granted that a woman's face will be masked in makeup, and the look of makeup is what is considered beautiful, not a woman's face, it's now a requirement that it be heavily altered in other ways. Sigh. I wanna move to another planet.

I say fire their representative!
She is what makes women have a bad name in self obsession and insecurity.
I wouldn't CARE if I was in that position of power, what the hell my spots looked like on a magazine cover, for I am not an airhead or supermodel. I'd be too big headed and I'd KNOW people respected me as more.
Though Palin thinks she is a supermodel with that winking shit... burn her and her rep.