The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

farensultanaasa — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 05:41:15 -0000

MikiPro Ltd specializes in “Ex-Demo” and “Ex-Lease” IT equipment. We source, install and comprehensivesive almost all IT equipment. No countwhat did you say? Did you say? Your IT needs are we gain you covered. If you are looking in favor offavor of on-site hardware and software repairs/maintenance, servers differentferent or be withh workerer, wine waiteraiter parts, wine waiteraiter support, be withh workerer laptops and desktops, or merelyly data backups and security we will be able to be introduced tontroduced to your needs. Please visit our positiontion and knowing many more in favor offavor of Miki pro.

server lease

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Seyha — Tue, 03 May 2011 05:29:26 -0000

Dear: Sir/Madam
Hi... I would love to perform you that your website is so nice and I am very interested to it due to it is sharing many good point such as: knowledge , more experience , good idea and more benefit to other website in oder to following to your model.
Thank to you for sharing
Best regards,
http://girlbeautiful.info

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Jillian C. York — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:57:09 -0000

DamnYankees,

I think you're onto something. I'm still not down with how Newsweek went about this, but the point remains that Sarah Palin is pretty much an empty vessel. It's objectifying her AS A WOMAN that frustrates me.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Jillian C. York — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:54:18 -0000

TNC, I fully agree with your point, but I don't consider this a free speech issue. It's not a matter of being free to say anything - after all, am I not perfectly free to call Palin a hypocrite? - it's a matter of respectful criticism going a lot farther than pure sniping (which unfortunately, in this country, typically does not).

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

smilly124 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:16:31 -0000

Kate,

Sorry about the sarcasm. Just trying to stir the pot a little.

Don't take it personally.

I 'm not a big fan of Palin, either. I think a lot of her following has to do with the same "hero worhship syndrome" that swept a good number of people into voting for Obama, just in the GOP.

I follow the "what-have-you-actually-accomplished" not the "you-can-charm-people-so-I'll-like-you-too" line of thinking.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

C. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:26:28 -0000

You're wrong about Arnold. The guy is constantly using weak bodybuilding analogies to describe everything that happens in California politics. And he's as vacuous as Palin.

He may be, but it wouldn't be a cheap shot because he is in fact serious, it'd be a cheap shot because they were using an image which is appropriate in one context, and placing it in another, implying that the image was taken for different reasons than it was. If you took a photo of my laughing poolside during my honeymoon, and used it to illustrate a story whose theme was whether I was ready to take over a company, that would also be the same kind of cheap shot. At least, that's my take.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

JTHC — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:53:37 -0000

For those who think this is just fine and Palin is at fault for even posing in such manner, consider that a lot of public officials grant interviews to Runner's World. Here's one with David Paterson:

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-410--13069-0,00.html

What would you say if Newsweek did a cover story on Paterson and used that photo, along with some critical headline? Would you say that Paterson was just a vain dumbass and got what was coming to him?

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

adin — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:11:37 -0000

It seems to me that she is promoting her own objectification. The notion of sexism, as well as racism, has evolved over both historical time, and contextuality. If she is is 'using' her sexuality for self-promotion her problem becomes our problem simply because sex is a draw. It's interesting conundrum. The issue of her future political viability is not a function of her sexuality, however. I think most people understand the difference.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

vdjenkins — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:11:13 -0000

I haven't seen this explanation so far, so I thought I'd post it here. Everyone is discussing this picture and whether or not Sarah Palin has a legitimate complaint. There's also a bashing of Newsweek for printing it, because many think it has nothing to do with the title or the point Newsweek is trying to make. The evidence being pushed for this is the fact that it came from the magazine Runner's World, and was part of a larger set of photos taken for the magazine; it would appear that there is a disparity between its intended purpose and its use by Newsweek.

But I disagree with that. I disagree precisely because of the evidence, the larger body of photos.

If you'll look through the slideshow, all of the photos, save the last two, actually depict Sarah the runner. There's the hair tied up, the stretching poses (save for #2), the background of the running environment. It is believable and an actual depiction of a runner in her running environment, dressed as one and behaving as one. But picture 7, the one that has graced Newsweek's cover, shows a Sarah Palin posing in a statue-esque pose, her hair down, leaning against an American flag, with a couple of Blackberry's fanned out in her hand. Gone is the running environment, the stretches, the form of a runner in her element, and instead is a runner in a room, surrounded by symbols of patriotism and service pride ( the flag on the window) and technology. It doesn't fit. She doesn't fit. Not as a runner. It’s confusing. It's an image of a person who is supposed to be one thing, but all the accent details don't match, and out comes this discombobulated image of a runner that's hard to take seriously or believe. If she is a runner, it will take a lot more than this photo to prove it to me.

And that is precisely the point.

The problem with Sarah is that she is a politician that doesn't act like a politician, speak like a politician, even perform or look like a politician. Her acclaim comes from those that identify with her because they see something of themselves in her; an argument can be made that they project themselves onto her and see that, they too, can aspire to the highest positions of the social hierarchy. For her detractors, everything she does is criticized because she isn't their idea of a politician; she doesn't look, act or perform the part very well at all. She even calls herself a rogue, perhaps emphasizing the point. But as roguish as she is in mentality, appearance and actions, and no matter what image she thinks she's projecting, instead Sarah Palin the politician ends up projecting the image of someone who doesn't fit in our nation's politics, a discombobulated image of a politician that's hard to take seriously or believe. It's Newsweek's point, and it's Palin's problem. I think the photo and its placement on the magazine's cover artfully portray what they intend to. And you either agree with it or you don't.

The talk of it being sexist is perhaps taking things a bit too far.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

aperson — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:10:02 -0000

Sarah is vaccuous (stupid) and a self promoter. She's a public figure and fair game to be attacked.

Newsweek is the same. This instance of self promotion, an unrelated 'sexy' cover from another magazine, used to gain attention. Not for journalism's sake but to promote an anti-conservative ideology. They are vaccuous when it comes to other views. 'See, we think Sarah Palin is personally stupid and selfish therefore conservatism itself is'. Rush, Beck, Cheney, Gingrich, et al A liberal vaccuous self-promoter? They will reather be defended. Hey, have at Palin, go for it. Newsweek, just give the same treatment to your ideological partners or change the moniker to 'Masquerading as News-Week'. Or just keep losing readers, either way.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

fdm — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:18:36 -0000

As a woman, did I find Newsweek's cover tasteless - yes. But I put the blame on Ms. Palin. Repeatedly during her interview w/ Oprah/Walters, she described being "handled" by the McCain Campaign. What kind of VP candidate 'lets' herself be handled?

She posed voluntarily for the cover and chose the outfit. She could have covered her legs, wore looser clothing, lost the flag. But she did not. She is ALWAYS in public in a skirt, which accentuates her appearance. She is an attractive women, yes, and if she wants to be taken seriously, she should find ways to play that down. Wear a pantsuit, cut her hair, wear less make-up, lose the 'sexy-librarian' look, tone-down the lip gloss, stop winking.

Secretary Clinton and Rep. Pelosi are taken more seriously because they are older and (relatively) less attractive. But they also present themselves more professionally. Clinton definitely moved up in professionalism when she cut her hair and started wearing pant-suits. They also don't pose in exercise gear for a fitness magazine.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

JamieMc — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:17:42 -0000

I have three thoughts on this one:

1. Sarah Palin is being portrayed as being unserious because she is unserious. Her conservative fanbase see here as a pretty, nonthreatening "pitbull with lipstick" who simultaneously reinforces traditional gender roles while making liberals mad. That cover is a perfect satire of what she is and is therefore appropriate.

2. Women in politics should not be held to different standards than men in politics, and the focus on Palin as a "hot celebrity" isn't doing us feminists any favors. Newsweek's cover is therefore wildly inappropriate, even the point being made is a bit more sophisticated than some detractors give it credit for being. (They are making fun of, not celebrating, Palin's mild flirtations with cheesecake. Thy might have been done better showing some of the rather flashy getups she wore on the campaign trail. The point could be made without the sexist undertones.)

3. TNC gets extra points for the Ice T reference.

I totally get what TNC is saying, and he's right. But I think the point being made with the cover is fair. BUT since the contents of the magazine weren't really related to the point the cover is making, the scales ultimately tip inn TNC's favor. If there were a serious exploration of the gender issues raised by the event that is Sarah Palin in that magazine, that'd be a great cover. As it is, it seems like an unfair and sexist bit of editorializing. And the fact that it's "controversial" isn't hurting Newsweek one bit, which makes it worse.

Of course, it's really hard to take the outrage of media conservatives seriously. When Rush Limbaugh makes a joke that Barack Obama is a big scary black man who is going to analy rape him (as he literally has . . . to the point where I think I know more about Rush's fantasy life than I want to), it's "just a joke! Come on guys!!! Dont' be so uptight!!" But a photo of Sarah Palin that SHE DELIBERATELY POSED FOR AFTER SHE WAS A POLITICAL FIGURE is used, it's "horrible, just horrible."

We should take offense at Newsweek's error, but on behalf of feminism, not on behalf of this absurd little person.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Guest — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:38:13 -0000

Palin posed for these images willingly -- as part of her own self-objectification. Newsweek simply turned the image upside down, figuratively, by redisplaying it in a different context. The cover speaks volumes about Palin's image management, how she perceives herself, and how she wants others to perceive her. I thought it was a brilliant take by the Newsweek editors.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

LarryGeater — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:11:24 -0000

Thanks for this post.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Kate — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:58:42 -0000

smilly124, did I say ALL conservative women? No. I used the anti-suffragettes as an example of the fact that there have been, and still are, plenty of women who are against women having rights, and you can define 'rights' as having the right to run for governor, receive equal pay for equal work, or have control over their reproductive health, etc. Does this mean that ALL conservative women are like this? No. Just as not ALL 'liberal' women abhor cleaning or housework. As a progressive, liberal woman I've never had a maid and I love to cook. But that's not the point. There are many, many conservative women who love Sarah Palin. They love her for a bunch of different reasons. They love that she's promotes 'traditional' values (whatever the hell that means). They love that she's a mom. They love that she's sexy. They love that she's got power. They love that liberals hate her. There are probably several hundred other reasons beyond these. Just as there are many, many reasons why some liberals don't like her. I can name a dozen myself.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

LarryGeater — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:58:23 -0000

@ Persia

I was in error about the timing. That is my faulty memory.

But any politician who wishes to persue office at any point in the future wether male or female would do well not to pose for beffcake or pin-up photos next to a crumpled flag.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

tale103108 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:54:12 -0000

I do not see the 'sexism' here at all. Sarah is a runner, she wears running clothes (shorts and sneakers). What did you expect, skis and a parka? The author is suffering from delusions. Please spend your talents on writing about topics of grave concern to all of us - hunger in this country, costly wars, etc. I am not a Sarah fan. But you display a mental disorder, not a political opinion, when you see this as 'sexist'.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Southerner — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:36:47 -0000

I haven't read through all these posts, nor have I read any of what Newweek wrote about why it used the Runners World photo. So I may be repeating what someone else has already said. But FWIW:

Whatever else Sarah Palin is, she's a public figure. She has sought that public attention, and she has benefitted greatly from it.

Public figures have always been held to different standards because of the presumption that they sought public attention and have benefitted from it, and because of their stature the public is allowed to comment about their lives. Among those differing standards is the expectation of privacy that everyone else has. If you constantly seek to put yourself in the public's view, you don't get to cry foul when something goes public that you don't like. It's a different story if you're not a public figure.

Yes, when Sarah Palin posed for the Runners World photos, she did so with the understanding that the photos would appear in a special interest magazine devoted to runners. And yes, had the photos been shot for another magazine, she would have dressed differently. But as of today, she's still seeking the attention, she's still a public figure, and she's still fair game for public comment. When you're in her league as a celebrity, you don't always get to control how your image is used.

I'm a little puzzled by Newsweek's choice of photos. I read somewhere that someone suggested that the photo of her winking might have been more appropriate and I agree with that, but I'm not sure how the winking photo is any less "objectifying" than a photo of her in rather modest running togs. Plenty of busy working moms like her wear this kind of outfit to the grocery store.

Seems to me that Sarah should know by now that any time she steps in front of a camera and allows her image to be reproduced, it's out there. To those who are complaining about Newsweek using this photo, what was their reaction to the infamous New Yorker cover cartoon of the Obamas last year?

No doubt there are people who disagree with my opinion that there's nothing wrong with the photo that Newsweek used. I understand that. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk decision here that Sarah Palin has somehow been wronged by Newsweek.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

David — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:11:13 -0000

Any of the three pictures that Newsweek used might - MIGHT - have been ok to make a point about what is clearly one aspect of Palin's unseriousness, her use of sex appeal as a substitute for policy knowledge. But by ONLY using 'sexy Sarah' shots, they weaken their critique of her. She claims a good part of her governing experience was from being mayor of Wasilla - why not a picture of the tiny, part-time Wasilla City Hall? Or something from the bizarre event when she resigned as Governor? By exclusively emphasizing her physicality, Newsweek seems to be saying that is the only problem. If Sarah Palin started wearing a burkha, would we have to take her seriously? No. But glancing at Newsweek might suggest something different.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Im-Not-ted — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:08:53 -0000

Adding to Angie's point regarding magazine subscriptions, I have been on the fence about Newsweek since the relentless Sarah Palin series last year where subscribers wrote to the magazine to demand she not be on another cover.

Someone at Newsweek has a Sarah fetish. That person needs to ask Sarah for a date (or whatever) and leave the rest of us out of it. Today, I decided I will not renew my Newsweek subscription because I am tired of sharing dreams of Sarah that belong to someone else.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

smilly124 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:05:06 -0000

Are you trying to say that all "liberal" women don't like to cook and keep a clean house? It must be all take-out and maid service for the Democrat women. (too literal?)

Anti-suffragettes? From the turn of the (last) century? Come on! Really?

How is that relevant today? I'm trying to grasp your point but I think that connection is reaching a bit. Just a bit.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

Anne Studholme — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:52:27 -0000

Thank you both! And I'm rethinking my former omission of the black, shiny, casino-cocktail-waitress-style shorts. Not really so Princeton, after all (though the top is). Particularly at her age, around here she'd have those gams covered in black, slightly flared, long clingy pants of a thickish but smooth and matte knit material with plenty of Lycra in it. Still shows off one's trophy-wife-firm butt and thighs, but without violating one's husband's right to keep the entire view to himself. Bare legs would suggest one was perhaps a divorcee. That may be part of what's appealing about Palin as a person -- she's loyally married (to a man her own age!), and yet not as a consequence at all inhibited or matronly.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

sv — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:50:48 -0000

I agree with this.

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

SapphireCate — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:49:30 -0000

Some people don't want to shoot fish in the fail barrel, they think it's faster just to drink the brine the fish swim in. Thing is, that shit is way less healthy than fish.

Did I take that metaphor too far?

Re: Freedom Of Speech, Just Watch What You Say

LogopolisMike — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:49:18 -0000

and by "mone" I meant - emphasis was added by me, not that I actually wrote it...no more posting with my iPhone