Jon Stewart on this week’s Newsweek cover featuring Michele Bachmann

Newsweek featured Michele Bachmann in this week’s issue and put, how shall we say, a rather unflattering photo of her on its cover.

Her supporters, unsurprisingly, lashed out but even many of her opponents are calling foul with Terry O’Neill, president of National Organization for Women telling the Daily Caller that the cover’s blatantly sexist because a man would never receive such treatment.

Elsewhere, at Salon, Joan Walsh says the cover’s not sexist, writing:

[Newsweek editor Tina] Brown has nothing to apologize for. Newsweek picked a striking photo that distilled Bachmann to her newsworthy essence. It’s also simply true that Bachmann does something very interesting with her eyes when there’s a camera in her sights. Sometimes she’s looking at something off camera, as she did when she delivered the Tea Party rebuttal to the State of the Union, which makes her seem distracted and/or demented. Often she just keeps them open impossibly wide and unblinking, which led Chris Matthews to ask her memorably if she was hypnotized on Election Night 2010.

Slate’s Jack Schafer has a different take. He supports Brown’s decision to run the image, but chastises her for pretending to be innocent of stirring up the pot:

There is nothing remotely unfair about making a strong visual statement about a profile subject if that graphic treatment harmonizes with the copy… The transgression comes only when the editor pretends—as Brown has with the Bachmann and Diana covers—that she wasn’t playing let’s-goose-the-public with sensationalist images. Obvious lies, such as Brown’s about merely trying to convey “intensity” with the Bachmann portrait, end up conveying contempt for the reader. And that’s not a pretty picture.

For more, New York Times Caucus blog covers the back and forth over whether the cover’s sexist. 

But what thinks you: Is the cover fair game or sexist?

  1. tapisdorientpascher reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
  2. rosiedoestumblr answered: When does she ever not look psychotic?
  3. cardiganism reblogged this from fuckyeahthedailyshow and added:
    No, I’m sorry, it’s not sexist, it’s simply impossible to cover up crazy.
  4. stalinwasabasicbitch answered: Jack Schafer his it right on the head.
  5. marleymagaziner answered: Pretty sure Brown would do the same thing to a male candidate. If it were Obama making a weird face would it be racist? I think no. Moving on
  6. teenmachines reblogged this from fuckyeahthedailyshow
  7. betweentimidandtimbuktu answered: It’s to distract people from the real issues like a birth certificate. News is entertainment. The bias is towards sensationalism.
  8. iamagoddamnanimal reblogged this from fuckyeahthedailyshow
  9. abakkus answered: fair game, hands down.
  10. fuckyeahthedailyshow reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
  11. futurejournalismproject posted this