09 October 2008

Seriously? Up in arms over facial hair and pores?

I've said time and time again that Fox (Faux) News is a joke, but here's something else to add to the arsenal. Their latest target: Newsweek for not retouching a photo of Sarah Palin on the cover. Here's a closeup:
According to Fox (Faux) News, this is a "slap in the face" that shows Palin's "unwanted facial hair, pores, [and] wrinkles." Why can't the treat her like Barack Obama and practically put a halo around his head, as the host suggests.

According to one of their guests, the problem isn't just the un-retouched photo, it's that the headline reads "One of the Folks (and That's the Problem)". Instead of saying the obvious, that the point of the headline is to suggest that Sarah Palin is seriously lacking in any meaningful political experience, the good people over at Fox (Faux) News believes Newsweek is making a demeaning statement about the way she looks. Because ordinary people are ugly, or something to that effect.

One of the three people discussing the cover (I believe it was the one who was about to throw a tantrum) made the statement that this photo "highlights every imperfection that every human being has." Great point! I guess it never occured to them that the picture makes her look more real, maybe even more accessible to the American people at-large. It obviously hasn't occured to them since the same woman thinks that "any woman that sees this cover would be shocked and horrified," probably because women don't want to look real, but like ridicoulously smooth-skinned dolls. It seems like Fox (Faux) News is more concerned with making sure women are airbrushed to be unreal representations of men's "dream woman" than to do their job, which is supposed to be NEWS.

But if they reported on real news, they won't have time to talk about such a liberal elitist magazine that insults the "folks" in America. Julia Piscitelli from American University summed it up best - "What's wrong with showing women the way they actually look?"

Have a look at the discussion:

No comments: