We received the Sept. 8, 2008, edition of Newsweek magazine in the mail today. My wife brings it to me and asks, "What is wrong with this cover photo of Palin? Look at the white mark on her eyeglasses."

I looked and thought maybe some of the ink had rubbed off in the mail but no. So, I went to the Newsweek website and saw the photo there and sure enough there's the white mark on her glasses.

Then I noticed this comment from a reader:

Posted By: anthony manzella @ 09/02/2008 7:42:52 PM
Comment: My wife and I were disappointed with your cover photo of McCain and Palin. You had a perfect photo of Obama and Biden. Your photo of McCain and Palin had a white strip over her eye glasses. That fact made the photo look bizarre. Why did you allow that to happen? It forces readers to opine that you are either in the tank for Obama or that you are sexist--or both. We are cancelling our subscription.

Mr. Anthony Manzella
Los Angeles

That's weird. I'm waiting to hear what Newsweek has to say about the photo. It does look a bit odd.

- Dave

The reflection? They think it's deliberate to make her look bad? Seems kind of a bizarre thing to get upset about to me.

Apparently so, Levi. Maybe Anthony is related to Rick.

It looks bad. Definitely shouldn't make the cover of a widely published magazine. But I can't imagine people look at that and instantly think conspiracy.

Not sure if it's just the online copy or not, but the lighting in that photo is terrible. Are there deep shadows like that in print?

It's just the online copy.

I love it when they write "we're canceling our subscription" over a light reflecting in a pair of glasses. Can you say "overreaction?"

Taking a photo of someone who wears glasses is very tricky. I know. I wear glasses and unless I take them off or tilt my head to one side, I get a reflection. I imagine the subscription canceling folks would have protested if her head was tilted to one side or she wasn't wearing her glasses.

A reflection caused a major multi-car accident on the freeway on an old episode of CHIPS.. I stopped watching tv because of that...

Newsweek's "photo-journalist" must have been there with his "Brownie"

Even if it is an online version, it shows an appalling lack of the professionalism one should expect from a national weekly "news" magazine. If they can photo shop the body hair off a model in "Cosmo", they could have fixed this, had they wanted to. It should come as no surprise though, as the journalism on the inside of Newsweek has similar shoddy qualities when it comes to the facts.

From the magazine:

McCain and Palin took a moment after their first joint appearance in Dayton, Ohio, to pose for our cover, which was shot (as was the Obama-Biden image in Springfield) by Nigel Parry.

If their implication is that the subjects were treated fairly when compared to the Obama cover, then they are clearly wrong. Assuming Mr. Parry is a professional photo-journalist with the proper equipment, he was capable of delivering 10's or 100's of pictures of the event to his editors. Their choice of this photo for the cover was unprofessional at best or at worst, a blatant attempt to make the subject matter look common.

They should have also photo shopped about an inch of jowl off of McCain.

I had no idea the Repubs were such a bunch of f%#*&^g whiners. You're doing it even better than the Dems.

Here's some honest person-on-the-street comments regarding the choice of Palin as VP:

http://www.theonion.com/c...alin_as_vp

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton (edited 9/3/2008).]

Having dealth with a number of professional news photographers I can tell you that you get about 10 minutes to shoot a picture like that and it's usually in a terrible setting...like they stepped off the stage and are in the dark area surrounding the stage. No studio, no extravagant setups with flash stands and backdrops. It was probably that photo or nothing at all. Plus, news publications have extremely strict rules about photoshopping...you can't do it. period. that's why it wasn't removed. It is a bad photo, but I doubt it was intentional.

Let me get this straight. A reflection in somebody's glasses will cause voters to change their vote from the Republicans to the Democrats because voters base their selections on quality of photographs of candidates. That seems to be what the hysterics are saying. That a reflection in someone's glasses is that important.

Personally, I vote on issues, not photographs, but I guess some people make their political selections based on a picture.

Amorette! Look very closely at that reflection. Do you see what I see?





ALIENS!

the reflection.... i thought it was Obama....no wait....
you just can't please some people. only ones that should get upset if they wish to waste the energy is McCain and Palin....

Although I don't think it would necessarily change one's vote, there is definite history in photo alterations on magazine covers for effect as is seen here:



And is referenced here:

http://www.authentichisto...azine.html

Cheers!
FH

Digital photographs are so easy to edit with software these days, they could easily have removed the reflection. That it took this incident to determine that Newsweek and the rest of the MSM are in the tank for Obama is more amusing than anything else about this. They are and have been and it has been painfully obvious for a long time.

Again, I think it's poor work. Not evidence of a conspiracy.

This is what conspiracy looks like

More comments on that cover photo from the Newsweek site:

Posted By: MESpeidel @ 09/03/2008 11:50:02 PM
Comment: I too, like Anthony Manzella, was very disappointed in the cover of the our next President, McCain and Vice-President, Palin. As Editor in Chief, how did you allow the cover with the defaciing white strip go to press? I grew up reading Newsweek and have subscribed on & off all of my adult life. Even though the Newsweek of the past is gone & you have become somewhat left wing I still enjoy reading it- I may now have to reconsider why I subscribe. How could such an historical moment as the first female Rebublican vice-presidential candidate not warrant your full attention to the details of the cover of your magazine?

Please send me an un-defiled copy of this issue, I am sure that a photo without the white strip exists- did you mean to completely diss Republican subscribers to Newsweek by letting this faulty copy go to print? Reprint the Republican Convention Issue and re-send it to all of your subscribers!
Thank you,
Mary E. Speidel

Posted By: MESpeidel @ 09/03/2008 11:40:36 PM
Comment: I, like Anthony Manzella, am very disappointed in your cover photo of our Next President , McCain, and his Vice-President, Palin. How did you, as Editor in Chief, allow a faulty cover like that go to press? This is the first women ever nominated by the Republican party and Newsweek did not see fit to edit the cover photo! I grew up reading Newsweek and, although it has become a somewhat left wing publication, I still enjoy reading it but if you can't get this historic cover right I may need to re-think why I subscribe once again. As a subscriber I would like a clean copy of this edition of Newsweek without the defacing white strip across Governor Palin's face! The numbers on my label are:
#NWM0260482674/7#38 13APR09
Mary E. Speidel

I note the US Weekly cover photo with Palin and baby that Rick posted has the following URL:

http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/usnewscover.jpg

Now if that cover actually appeared on U.S. News magazine and not US Weekly... then that would be worthy of claiming "conspiracy". On US Weekly, not so much.

- Dave

So you're ok with media cheerleading, just so long as it isn't news media.

Is it ok for news media to be sexist in their coverage?

Rick, are you suggesting that US Weekly and U.S. News and World Report are comparable publications?

Is it ok for news media to be sexist in their coverage?

Are you asking me? Do you know sexist when you see it? Some have suggested that sexist is picking a VP candidate not because the candidate is the best choice to lead the nation but rather because the candidate's gender gives you a better chance at winning the election.

Some have suggested that sexist is picking a VP candidate not because the candidate is the best choice to lead the nation but rather because the candidate's gender gives you a better chance at winning the election.

Some have suggested the issue is moot when that VP is more qualified than the alternative P.