People don't trust us ... why again?
"The Dish Rag," over at latimesblogs.latimes.com, waxeth snarky on Newsweek's cover photo selection:How did Newsweek get
Sarah Palin to pose with a rifle?
How did Newsweek convince Gov. Sarah Palin to pose with a rifle for its cover?
Simple. It didn't.
Instead, it used an archive (fancy speak for old) stock photo of her taken back in June 2002 and used it for the cover without her knowledge.
...Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can't you shoot your foot off like that?
Short answer: Correct. It didn't. A slightly longer answer could go: "Governor, would you put down the shotgun* and pose with a rifle for our cover, please?"
This doesn't appear to be the fault of the desk, but it does look another installment in the long string of evidence for running everything -- no matter how fresh or snarky -- under a pair of jaded editorial eyes.
* "That's the correct (safe) way to carry one too," Strayhorn notes.
posted by fev at 3:40 PM
3 Comments:
Ummm. Surely you don't have to get a politician's permission to put their picture on the cover of a magazine?
And that is so obviously a shotgun.
No, I'm kind of baffled that someone at the LAT would have thought there was an issue with using the photo. (Not that there aren't any potential ethics clains in such a case, but that this instance is so far away from any of them as to be really goofy.)
In practical terms, I think this would be pretty close to using a 2002 photo of Obama shooting baskets (which his brother-in-law mentioned at the convention). Except even the LAT probably wouldn't call a basketball a football.
It certainly is a dumb "scandal" on a number of levels. If the Newsweak folks wanted to reinforce the perception that she's a gun-totin' hick who probably drinks likker out of a jug with three Xs on it, well, they are preaching to the choir. As for the folks who don't mind that Palin may be a gun-totin' hick, etc, they are probably wondering about make and model of the firearm in question.
The LAT folks handed the stick to their detractors with the shotgun miscue, and the critics in congress assembled pounced.
Fred and I agree - just because it's on the web doesn't mean it should escape the draft/edit process. Looking like an idiot on the web is no different than looking like an idiot in print.
Jane's no longer prints their excellent desk reference but recent issues are still available in used book stores. The shop up the street has three copies for less than $10.
Remember Tuchman's Law: It's not what you know but how fast you can look it up.
Post a Comment
<< Home