If you are a woman and you're running for vice president, is there such a thing as WANTED facial hair?

How f'ing DARE they show her as she really is!
Voters won't vote for someone who has a chick-stache©!
This is sexist! They airbrushed the leg hair off of Obama!

(thumbified for the sheer indignity of poor Sarah's lip-fro)

Great headline. A face oddity indeed...

All these problems with the economy and what does Fox think is worth airtime? No wonder we're in the mess we're in. They should pull these people out and put in some economists to jabber all day. The whole point of 24 hour news would seem like it's to get people informed at any hour of the day or night, but this coverage would seem to put the lie to that. I think the real reason these people are here talking about this silliness is to put a good face on the economic mess their party has made.

Around the 2:50 mark of this video, the Faux newsmodel begins to speak over the woman on the left, who is identified as being from the "Women in Politics Institute". A few moments later, the woman on the right, an identified Republican Media Consultant begin to speak over the woman on the left. The newsmodel in the middle stops the woman on the left, who seemed to be moving towards a fair and balanced point to allow the poor media consultant to show her dignified outrage, saying that people get upset when "we allow people to speak over each other".
This is the drivel of the 24 hour news cycle. I am continually amazed at the people who accept this crap as "news" to the point of even being able to quote it in public. Its like embracing a Marvel comic book as your source of information regarding neighborhood crime statistics.

I dunno, I thought she looked nice.

I mean, I'm no Republican, and certainly no Palin supporter, but whatever else you can say about her, like "she is pure, concentrated evil," you've got to admit she's a damn fine-looking woman.

I should look so good in extreme close up.

And if I were Sarah Palin, I would be giving a BIG sarcastic thank-you to my "friends" in the Republican camp for pointing out my facial hair , oil-filled pores, and wrinkles, which might otherwise have passed unnoticed (and evidently did this reader at least). You know, since she must read Newsweek at the speed of light while she's studying "all of them" other newspapers and magazines, Palin might not have ever known about this verging-on-treasonously unflattering cover shot, if not for the boneheads of the Women in Politics Institute!

How about this: Whoever wins the presidential race passes a law that henceforth, all photos that appear in the mass media must run as-is. No doctoring of any sort. No touching. No retouching. Let's be an as-is nation! Pores and hairs and warts and all!

Are you kidding me? With everything going on, these bimbos are outraged over an unretouched photo of Sarah Palin? Give me a break! Thanks for reminding me why I don't watch Fox News.

What I find most upsetting about this vid is the way the anchor (forget her name--hate her) just makes completely unfounded statements about whether or not either candidate has been airbrushed and ignores that there have been severe close-ups of Obama in the past. No, she doesn't ignore it; she disputes it.

This is what passes for journalism at FOX. If we gave this premise to a middle school class, they would know to get samples of other Newsweek covers of both candidates and find out what the official Newsweek policy was about airbrushing cover figures. If they didn't get the info, they wouldn't go on air with a rant--they would wait until they had the information. This is basic journalism.

So Faux News has begun pore-gate to avoid poor-gate.
Classic.

Great post!

While we're at it, here's what passes for math at FOX. Please, please go here--it's hysterical:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTkqosRiyYo

The abbreviation OMG cannot convey the magnitude of this injustice. It must be spelled out, in all caps, with pause between each word for emphasis and finalized with an exclamation point.
OH...MY...GOD!

Sounds like an overreaction. But is it done? Yes, all the time. Magazines, newshows are constantly using images to make candidates look good or bad. Almost always to make conservatives look bad, in the case of Fox, liberals look bad. A typical example might be Hillary Clinton. During the Clinton years, virtually all photos would try to make her look good. During the primaries, I bet you would find a lot more unflattering photos.

The fact is, journalists are biased. All of them. The only way to not be biased is to not care or have feelings about a candidate or party, which is fairly rare. Bush rarely gets a flattering photo, though he's so goofy in general, it isn't hard to make him look moronic. But in general, most photos of conservatives in the mainstream press are intentionally pasted to make them look evil or monstrous. You saw the cover of Barack. You will almost never see a bad photo of him.

There's one on the net showing him smoking, but 10 to 1 you will never see it in Time or Newsweek. Or the Washington Post of New York Times. Are the actual networks owned and run by giant corporations? Yes, but the print media is about 95% left leaning. Get any issue of Time magazine and compare pictures of the members of parties and one always looks menacing, or in the case of Bush, stupid, the other thoughtful and hopeful. The reverse would be Fox. What Fox does is what the media has done for decades. Manipulate public opinion. Journalists routinely do this. Magazines, papers, network shows have one leaning or another, sounround themselves with likeminded individuals then slant virtually everything they cover. The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Fox have one side. Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, Washington Post another. Does it mean they never criticize a candidate for their side? No. But you will never see a prolife opinion in the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, or virtually any other mainstream article by a journalist. How many articles have you read against gay marriage or affirmative action?

Palin and these Fox News women have really broken the 'glass ceiling' and shown that women in politics and the media can be just as stupid as the men.

Is this the same Fox Network that doctored photos of the New York Times writer and editor behind an article mildly critical of Fox? On that occasion, Fox didn't think Jacques Steinberg looked Jewish enough so they widened his nose, grew his chin and pulled his scalp down. Steven Reddicliffe looked too healthy and happy so they gave him dark bags under the eyes, a balding dome and a misshapen head.

Hmmmm . . . a portrait of Dorian Gray? I am inspired to do a bit of photoshop.

Oh wait . . . when she looses, perhaps she can model for Oil of Olay, Elizabeth Arden or whatever company it is that has the slogan "because I am worth it".

With all the depressing news about the economy, perhaps it might be fun to create a thread where we can share our ideas for a winning advertising campaign with this idea in mind.

These women are buying into the cult of appearance as a means to judge and dismiss another women - which is a twisted form of self-loathing - does not justify comments here being sexist towards them. I mean bimbos?

Sarah wanted unfiltered media, and she got it! Good for them.

Paula Williams

Since Palin is a former beauty contest competitor, and has some experience with applying make-up, I suspect, and since she may be accompanied by a stylist when she goes out for these photo shoots - can she (or Fox News for that matter) really blame what the lens captured? For what it's worth, I thought she looked pretty good for a mother of 5.

And honey, you - the one in the middle of the YouTube bit - just wait until HDTV hits you squarely in the face. You are going to want to use airbrush foundation, mineral powder, and a gauze screen to get your face to look the way you seem to think it should look on TV or a magazine cover. HDTV will show where your hair follicles emerge, not just that you have pores!

What a STUPID red herring!

In this age of increasing HD adoption, I would say that both women and men in politics should get used to the idea of their pores and wrinkles being on display, unless someone's come up with a way to retouch C-SPAN live!

When I received my Newsweek I did think it odd that they would plaster her face so largely like that, and was a little worried of what people on the subway would think if they saw me reading it. Then I noticed that not only up close but from afar, there is something just kind of creepy about her. She may seem like a fresh, pretty face at first, but the longer you look, the more obvious her flaws and almost scary domineering presence. Funny about the Fox News bit (more entertaining than informative, as Fox so often is); every time "Angry Republican Chick" opened her mouth, I really did want to slap her in the face.

jimgalt, I get your point and don't disagree. Well, I should say I agree that overtly biased news organizations deliberately use techniques to make cover subjects look good or bad. I don't agree that NEWSWEEK falls into that category. I dispute your notion that there was a concerted effort to make her look bad. As I mentioned, there have been severe, unattractive covers of Obama too. If there is a subtle, unconscious bias in the exact person making the choice, well, that's a different matter.

But what do you say to my previous post about the journalistic standards of FOX in terms of even running this story? If they do it themselves, as you say, then why are they acting so outraged at someone else's doing it? And they appear to have zero facts about it--what the particular standards of Newsweek are and what the other covers about the candidates contain. It's just the shoddiest of journalism. I can't stand it.

Sorry to double post, but wanted to agree w/ LT: The fact that there are women angry about women in media NOT being airbrushed is a slap in the face to a generation of self-respecting, natural women, who have worked their whole lives to convince the world at large that women are more than just objects.

OK, I'm now embarrassed to be a woman after hearing these ladies ranting.

Though I'm no fan, Sarah Palin is beautiful in the photo. Plus, Obama never looks airbrushed to me on magazine covers. I even pulled out a few Newsweeks with him on the cover. WTF are they talking about?

Nah, we don't have to be embarrassed to be women, but if I worked at FOX "News" I would be.

I was not aware that the VP post was now a Beauty Contest and Sarah Palin's Sponser was Faux News. I think the Witches Coven that was doing the complaining should stop being petty. Oh wait, when one has nothing of substance to address, this is the level you fall to. Maybe a little Moose Fat would correct those pesky flaws.

"If you are a woman and you're running for vice president, is there such a thing as WANTED facial hair?"

Ha, Jodi, that was funny!

Since Sarah indicated in the Katie Couric interview that she reads....let's see....she um, reads, gosh darn, what does she read.....? Oh well, suffice it to say, she won't be reading this magazine, so why worry?

You have missed the obvious solution.

We must work as a society to evolve and re-define "flattering", "beauty," etc. to only 'search within results' of WHAT IS.

Best title evar!!1!

Glad you enjoyed it, Mark. I've been waiting for someone else to "get it."

I thought this was a joke. This should be filed under who cares anyway? I would rather hear about the decision in Wasilla that has shown she abused her office.

So....

Facial hair and big pores disqualifies her for the vice presidency how?

They're whining and bashing the media because they don't have anything more substantial to offer.

That she has physical imperfections is irrelevant, but that she is "one of the folks" IS a problem.

If I had a heart problem, "one of the folks" would not help me. I would need a cardiologist.

Our nation is very sick, in large measure because of the abuse it has suffered under the Republicans. I'm thinking it makes more sense to deliver it into the hands of a constitutional scholar and experienced legislator, rather than into the hands of an erratic septuagenarian and "one of the folks," thanks very much.

Please take a look at my last comment. You're re-inventing the wheel in another small variation, that one dilemma has not been resolved in hundreds of years. We are thinking about it the wrong way for progress (i.e. happiness) about that subject to ever naturally occur.

Of course, I'm late getting to this post, but it has been a fascinating read, with good comments. I admit, I couldn't get past the first minute or so of the video. I got the Newsweek at home, un-retouched cover and all and didn't think twice about it. I'm not going to comment on whether Newsweek should or shouldn't have retouched it.

Here's what BOTHERS ME about this exchange:

The "analyst" says - it highlights every imperfection that every human being has...unwanted facial hair, pores, wrinkles

hmmm....Imperfections?

If every human has them (and believe me, most of us women over 40 do), we could just as easily argue that highlighting these expressions of our humanness or "battle scars" or even, natural markers on one's face are a celebration of life.

Pores, no pores. I don't care. All I want is Caribou Barbie's ass kicked back up to Alaska. Hopefully in the bush somewhere so we never hear from her and her phony ass again.

Yes, my friends, the Publicans and their cohorts are finally grasping at pours!

And Lainey, that Youtube video was hilarious.

The August TIME magazine had untouched pore-ridden, wrinkle/blotched faces of Obama and McCain. Nobody complained about that.

Who really cares, when the blotching thinking of Sarah Palin is already so evident?

Tony!
Caribou Barbie... I LOVE IT !!!

What a trio of Ditz's. Three people acting IQ/common sense deprived. The world is falling apart, people are starving and dying everywhere because of the Blunders many of us saw coming from the Bushites, and this is what they see as an Apocalyptic event?

We should all look so good. And I just loved loved loved the 2001 reference.

I'm getting my first taste of digital TV and I think it's going to do wonders for the self-esteem of us plebes. I can hardly imagine what revelations HD will bring if I ever break down and buy a new television.

When we and our children and grandchildren realize that those glamorous folks on the tube are pretty, but not perfect, it's going to boost the mood of every Nielsen household.

Now, if I could just get past how damn white Sarah Palin's teeth are.

I'm still looking for the picture of Obama with a wrinkle in his shirt or suit. To look that perfect all the time, requires a little help.

Why even waste any time on this at all? I honestly, wouldn't have even noticed the imperfections if they hadn't of pointed them out. She wanted to be considered a "Real" American. I mean, why do we have to be subject to such nonsense? People also take shots at McCain for looking old. This Republican woman in the video is obviously "acting" like she is just soooo appalled, making a much bigger deal out of it than she needs to. I notice the double standard and how women are supposed to look flawless while men can look wrinkled because it ads character to their face. Perhaps it's better that they show a political female the way she really looks as to be taken more seriously as opposed to some perfect barbie sex symbol which is unrealistic anyway.