Newsweek exploits Bachmann, female politicians

Newsweek exploits Bachmann, female politicians

Jill Burcum
Minneapolis Star Tribune
August 8, 2011



The news magazine that recently featured Sarah Palin in a Hooters waitress-like outfit is at it again.

This time, the female presidential contender with the this-candidate-can’t-be-taken-seriously cover shot is Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann, who is currently leading the latest Iowa poll, stares out from Newsweek magazine’s Aug. 15 cover. Unlike Palin, who wore a form-fitting, breast-amplifying hoodie, Bachmann is at least dressed for success with pearls and a nice jacket. The trouble isn’t what she’s wearing. It’s her intense, off-kilter look.

The headline underneath a smiling, no-so-angry photo of Bachmann with the blaring, evil witch caption: “The Queen of Rage.” It might as well say “Crazy Eyes.’’ Bachmann’s eyes are open wider than normal — just for the record, I’ve had portrait photographers tell me to do the same — her smile is forced, and her chin tilted unnaturally upward.

The photo isn’t just unflattering. It goes way beyond that, making the three-term Congresswoman look unbalanced. It’s the kind of photo you expect to see in a political attack ad, not on the cover of a mainstream news magazine. And that’s the issue here.

Bachmann’s politics unquestionably are suspect. This page has criticized her numerous times, most recently for her reckless position against lifting the debt ceiling.

But running a cover photo that makes her look like a loon — and not the nice Minnesota state bird — crosses a line, especially for a once-venerable news institution like Newsweek.

It’s unclear if the photo was chosen for this reason. In an emailed statement, Newsweek officials said the photo was not doctored in any way, and was shot in Washington, D.C. by Chris Buck.

It was chosen, according to Creative Director Dirk Barnett, because “Candidate Bachmann has emerged as a legitimate voice as we look ahead to the 2012 elections. We felt it was an important moment to have her on Newsweek’s cover.’’

But it’s hard to believe that the photo session with Buck didn’t yield photos that didn’t make Bachmann look like a kook. Or, that there weren’t other usable photos out there of this limelight-loving presidential frontrunner.

Picking this one makes Newsweek look like a partisan tabloid just as the Rupert Murdoch phone-hacking scandal has disgusted the world and revealed how some British tabloids abused the freedom of the press. Newsweek is now run by Brit Tina Brown.

The Bachmann photo isn’t likely to deter her legions of followers. She is much brighter than the national press gives her credit for. She is also sincere in her beliefs, which makes her a powerful saleswoman for her positions, no matter how wrongheaded they may be.

For Bachmann supporters, the magazine photo just fuels everything they already believe about the mainstream media’s biases.

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is also raising fair concerns about unflattering photos of other conservative women, among them Condoleeza Rice. I’d say that the many ghastly shots of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s cankles and pantsuits through the years suggest gender is the issue, not politics.

Women in the public eye not only get evaluated for their views, but for their looks. Consider Minnesota politico Vin Weber’s recent statement about Bachmann’s “sex appeal.’’

Those who dismiss this as political correct pablum should first have to show a cover photo equivalent of a male politician.

Until there’s one of Mitt Romney on a bad hair day, Tim Pawlenty mid-yawn or New Jersey’s supersized Gov. Chris Christie tucking into a sandwich he doesn’t need to eat, the debate is far from over about the double standard for women candidates.

Jill Burcum is a Star Tribune editorial writer.

Yet another hit job by the mainstream media.

Apparently they just hate conservative women and are not at all adverse to displaying their naked bias in advancing their liberal agenda and taking down any challengers to it.

I want to add that the Star Tribune is a very liberal paper as is the editors. It takes one of their female editors to point this out.

TexasBlue wrote:Those who dismiss this as political correct pablum should first have to show a cover photo equivalent of a male politician.

Translation: I'm making a claim, it's your job to disprove it.

Sexism here is a real stretch. Bias? Absolutely--the goal is obviously not to make Bachmann look good. Sexist bias? That is indeed political [sic] correct pablum, and it's lolarious to see conservatives, who claim to loathe political correctness, suddenly so touchy about such little nothings.

I've seen that look on Bachmann's face dozens if not hundreds of times. She wears it quite often. The image of those eyes bugging out powerfully communicates her batshit insanity. Yes indeed, the photo might as well say "Crazy Eyes."

There is nothing "sexist" about this.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Those who dismiss this as political correct pablum should first have to show a cover photo equivalent of a male politician.

Translation: I'm making a claim, it's your job to disprove it.

Sexism here is a real stretch. Bias? Absolutely--the goal is obviously not to make Bachmann look good. Sexist bias? That is indeed political [sic] correct pablum, and it's lolarious to see conservatives, who claim to loathe political correctness, suddenly so touchy about such little nothings.

Who says she's a conservative? I read her bio here and I can't put a finger on her. Maybe it's woman thing????

kronos wrote:I've seen that look on Bachmann's face dozens if not hundreds of times. She wears it quite often. The image of those eyes bugging out powerfully communicates her batshit insanity. Yes indeed, the photo might as well say "Crazy Eyes."

There is nothing "sexist" about this.

I don't think the woman is nuts or batshit at all. Extreme? Maybe so. I don't think she's going to get the nomination either.

Notice that I don't lump the extreme wingers of the Dem party as crazy or batshit. Wrong maybe? Yep.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Those who dismiss this as political correct pablum should first have to show a cover photo equivalent of a male politician.

Translation: I'm making a claim, it's your job to disprove it.

Sexism here is a real stretch. Bias? Absolutely--the goal is obviously not to make Bachmann look good. Sexist bias? That is indeed political [sic] correct pablum, and it's lolarious to see conservatives, who claim to loathe political correctness, suddenly so touchy about such little nothings.

Who says she's a conservative? I read her bio here and I can't put a finger on her. Maybe it's woman thing????

I'm not talking about the author. I'm talking about how conservatives in general are happy to fly the PC flag when it suits them.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:I've seen that look on Bachmann's face dozens if not hundreds of times. She wears it quite often. The image of those eyes bugging out powerfully communicates her batshit insanity. Yes indeed, the photo might as well say "Crazy Eyes."

There is nothing "sexist" about this.

I don't think the woman is nuts or batshit at all. Extreme? Maybe so.

I disagree, the woman is nuts or batshit, or both. She claims God speaks to her--and she doesn't mean it metaphorically. She claims to receive visions directly from the big guy. Just like Moses and Abraham of old:

Michele Bachmann wrote:We were praying one night, a girlfriend and I, not Marcus, and the Lord gave each one of us the same, exact vision. And it was this: It was a picture of me, marrying this man, in the valley where his parents have a farm in western Wisconsin.

And we got that word, we were praying in the Spirit, I'd been baptized in the Spirit, we were praying in the Spirit and the Lord showed us that, and I just said, "Well, Lord, that's really strange, I'll just put in on the shelf."

And I put it on the shelf, put it in His hands, and said: "You make the calling sure."

I had no idea: at the same time, the Lord was speaking to my husband, and He showed my husband, he was repairing a fence on the farm where he worked, and the Lord showed him in a vision that he was supposed to marry me.

^Source.

She's not just saying "God told me to blah blah blah" in the generic, obviously metaphorical way W. Bush did. She's saying God himself personally, simultaneously transmitted specific, identical visions to three people, one of whom was thousands of miles away (and I'm unclear as to whether she had even met him at that point). She is essentially claiming to be a prophet! There's no way to interpret this metaphorically.

Also, speaking of sexism, check out this little gem:

Michele Bachmann wrote:And from there, my husband said "Now you need to go and get post-doctorate degree in tax law." Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says: Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.

Is there even any point getting up in arms about (perceived) sexism toward a woman with an attitude like this?

What's she doing running for president, anyway? That would seem to be an inappropriate position of authority for a woman. At least if you believe as she does. Based on what she said, it seems to me that Marcus Bachmann is the real candidate. Michele's just the public persona.

TexasBlue wrote:I don't think she's going to get the nomination either.

Unfortunately, I think she has a pretty good shot. I'll give credit where it's due, she's got more charisma than Romney and Pawlenty combined.

TexasBlue wrote:Notice that I don't lump the extreme wingers of the Dem party as crazy or batshit. Wrong maybe? Yep.

Notice I say this about Bachmann, and Bachmann only. This isn't just some slur I throw out at people I disagree with. I'm not that kind of guy. I hope that's obvious to you by now.

I don't think I've ever thought any politician was this nuts.

Sarah Palin's not nuts.

Bachmann?

Now she's nuts.

There's some on the right who use PC to suit them (as in the "sexist" BS). I don't buy into it myself. Never did.

As for nutz, I still don't think she is. Is she extreme? In the religion venue, yeah. In the fiscal venue, no.

I still don't think she has a shot at the presidency. Many on the left do for some reason. I don't, because she won't appeal to moderates. She doesn't appeal to me other than I think she's a babe.

I've said it numerous times on here.... if (when) Rick Perry announces his candidacy, he's the man. My money is on him.

I maintain that this is simply liberal media bias on display. Apparently liberals especially fear a conservative woman. Perhaps that's because they fear that it's finally time for a woman to become president and that last thing they want is for that to be a conservative woman.

Either way, it's just liberal media bias on display. The "sexist" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

dblboggie wrote:I maintain that this is simply liberal media bias on display. Apparently liberals especially fear a conservative woman. Perhaps that's because they fear that it's finally time for a woman to become president and that last thing they want is for that to be a conservative woman.

Either way, it's just liberal media bias on display. The "sexist" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

too naffing right... when they come in the guise of such people as Bachmann or Palin