Oh, Sarah

This story will probably inappropriately dominate the media news cycle in the coming days, so forgive me. The issue is that Palin and her supporters are alleging that Newsweek's cover is sexist because it uses a rather out-of-context picture of Palin -- originally taken for Runner's World -- on the cover to accompany a feature that pretty much eviscerates the politician.

(See the cover and Newsweek's statement here.)

Before we even address the charges of sexism, there are a lot of questions here. Is it unethical for Newsweek to use this photo? Sure, Palin posed for it, but certainly never expected it to be used in this c0ntext. This speaks to the conversation we had in class last week, where the consensus seemed to be that you shouldn't take stock photos and use them out of context.

I would argue that this is a little different. First, and perhaps most importantly, Palin is unquestionably a public figure, so those rules don't necessarily apply. Second, Palin voluntarily stood for this bizarre photo, with legs and BlackBerry and flags and all. This fits with the theme of Newsweek's story and bolsters its contention that Palin is very much into empty symbols and constructing her own rather bankrupt personal narrative. Palin (and her supporters) was fine with the leggy photo when it fit that narrative she wanted to project, but now that's being used for a critical story, it's sexist. There's something strange in that logic.

As the Columbia Journalism Review points out here, it's also a logistical fallacy to suggest that a photo is sexist just because it shows a little leg. More sexist than the photo. Gawker adds that Palin is fine with using her sexuality when it benefits her, but then quickly hides behind it when it does not.

The Newsweek cover is many things -- funny, ironic, mean-spirited, clever -- but not inherently sexist.