And it drives Michelle Malkin — who's been crazy-eyed herself — crazy.
This reminds me of why I wouldn't let Isthmus photograph me when it did a cover story about me. I figured they'd take a lot of shots and pick one that made me look crazy or bad in some other way.
But I wasn't striving for media coverage, and Bachmann is. She's got to take what she can get. The media is (mostly) liberal. Deal with it. You've got to manage your face if you want to get elected.
Now, the truth is — I've heard this from a friendly professional photographer — that you should make an effort to open your eyes really wide. It's usually the drooping eyelids that make you look bad. I said I thought it would look weird, and he was all: Trust me. It won't. But he was committed to getting a good photograph, and I'm sure he discarded the shots where I took the eye-wide advice too far.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९० टिप्पण्या:
There's an alternate cover here.
They were trying to get her in mid-sneeze but took the photo a hair too early.
Remember the snake eyes they put on Condi Rice?
Tina Brown. What can you say.
Ann, that photo was not posed for. You make it sound like she blew the portrait. You should know better...
Newsweek.
Sad.
No worries, they'll be gone soon.
"Ann, that photo was not posed for."
It looks pretty obviously like the product of a posed portrait setting. Where do you get info to the contrary?
"You make it sound like she blew the portrait. You should know better..."
I *am* also advising her to control her face for all sorts of photos that may be taken. People are out to hurt her, and they will use what they can get.
There's an alternate cover here.
An inconvenient photo? Hilarious!
Michelle Malkin ends her story with a collection of Obama picts, each with a halo around his head. The chosen one gets the religious icon treatment. Amazing....
Followed the link to Malkin's blog, and found myself more interested in her anti-Hatch screed.
Tina Brown is a dirty bottom raker and she will use whatever she can get to self promote and create controversy. Journalistic principals you say? ...they laugh with derision as they quaff another cocktail at a Southhampton beach party.
Michelle Malkin does an excellent takedown of Newsweek. I liked the contrast of all those covers with a halo around the blessed Obama......As agitprop, though, I think Newsweek fails. It's too obvious and manipulative. It would make one more suspicious of Newsweek than of Bachmann....Bachmann is a good looking woman. When you see such an unflattering picture, you know you're being had.....Incidentally, I bet that's why Christie is staying out of the race. He has two children of impressionable age. You don't have to photoshop Christie to make him look fat. He probably doesn't want his kids to grow up surrounded by demon images of him.
Tina Brown eyes!
This is another example of why I cancelled my subscription to Newsweek after subscribing for 30 years. Newsweek tries hard to pick photos that portray conservative women in a less than positive (or even neutral) light. Do you remember the Newsweek cover of Palin . . .
You can't control your face enough if the photographer is out to get a weird picture of you. They move the camera to get a weird angle, snap you while you're looking at the makeup person, snap you while you are about to answer their question, and there's a bad photo.
First, maybe she just is crazy...just a thought. And second, to call the media "liberal" is to beleive that large, multinational corporations and the CEO's that run them are "liberal"...really? The reporters report the news the editors tell them to report and the editors take their orders from the executives. Their is a difference between "liberal" and "not crazy".
No matter how much you "manage your face", you still have to blink and if you show any expression at all, there will be moments when it looks odd.
The MSM needs to be called on it, every time, when they pull crap like this.
It's not Bachman's eyes that make her seem a little nutty to me.
In contrast, Obama is totally calm and sane and has a halo, and he's leading us right off an economic cliff.
In other news, Newsweek corporation is still worth one dollar.
Really, sanity and education are completely overrated in politics.
If you want to combat this kind of stuff, better educate Americans so that they aren't so gullible to being manipulated by the media pros.
I don't care what side you are on, when the media says to swallow, you usually will. If not for this side, then the other side.
"...I *am* also advising her to control her face for all sorts of photos that may be taken. People are out to hurt her, and they will use what they can get..."
LOL! The DOW is taking a shit, the S&P downgraded our credit but Bachmann should worry about the paparazzi making her look bad.
No wonder the country is fucked.
All photographers are flaming lefties. Don't trust them.
I'm no fan of Michele Bachmann, but she hardly seems like a rage-filled person to me.
Newsweek obviously wanted a picture of her not looking at the camera, to continue the fun the left had after her SOTU rebuttal. She's too stupid to look at the camera!
BTW - this is typical Althouse blaming the victim.
Mean Girl! Tina Brown with her lap bitch, Andrew Sullivan.
"The Queen of Rage" is a nice title for the article too.
Newsweek was sold for a buck. Less than the cost of a roll of toilet paper and not as valuable.
Barack Hussein 'Herbert Hoover' Obama is in control. God help us all.
I realize that I've been conditioned to distrust any politician who looks good on a magazine cover. I'm hoping the GOP front-runner takes up smoking at press events, throwing his suits in the washing machine, and shaving only once a week.
Bachmann always goes into a trance when asked a question. Then she answers a question she wished she would have been asked instead.
I am not a fan of Michelle Bachmann in general, but I've noticed the 'crazy eyes' effect in nearly every photograph or video of her that I've ever seen.
...including the benign, "good" photo that Malkin includes.
I tend to focus on eyes (they're one of the few parts of the female anatomy that you can't get in trouble for looking at), and while I can say that my desire not to vote for Ms. Bachman is completely separate from matters involving her face....they certainly don't help.
"It looks pretty obviously like the product of a posed portrait setting. Where do you get info to the contrary?"
I don't have "info" to the contrary, just my gut. No one looks like that on purpose. A face may look like that in passing, and a photographer shooting fast shots may catch someone's face like that, but that's not a purposeful portrait. It's either photoshopped, or it's a face caught in transition... it's NOT a portrait. It's meant to make her look bad.
ps... Michelle Bachman is a beautiful woman...
I *am* also advising her to control her face for all sorts of photos that may be taken. People are out to hurt her, and they will use what they can get.
Hard to do, Professor, when photographers (even those not interested in manipulation) can fire off a rapid series of shots in quick time.
I've directed many a photo shoot with professional models ... hundreds upon hundreds of shots. Of course, unlike Newsweek, we are trained to toss the obviously unflattering ones.
Even with crazy eyes Michelle Malkin still looks smoking hot. Ahtchy-mahtchy.
National Review puts up unflattering photos of Dems in its magazine and on its website. I especially love the ones of algore. I have no problems with lampoon-type photos. In fact, it's probably a healthy sign for our society that we can lampoon our leaders in this fashion. Probably not the case in Iran or North Korea. Even in Europe you might run afoul of some new decency standard. I say gimme M. Bachmann's crazy eyes every day of the week. Doesn't make me think less of her or anyone else.
Newsweek is fast turning into a Berkeley campus newspaper.
I suggest they start having it mimeographed.
What, is it 8 pages long now?
The problem is not putting up crazy eye photos. The problem is believing crazy eye photos prove she's crazy.
The problem is not putting up crazy eye photos. The problem is believing crazy eye photos prove she's crazy.
Exactly. And not understanding that entities and individuals do this to manipulate us. Millions don't understand that concept and even more aren't capable of ever recognizing when it's happening to them.
Crazy? I'll tell you what's crazy.
The earnest belief liberal's have that by giving up ever larger chunks of our money and liberty to the government our lives will be improved.
Now THAT'S fuckin' crazy.
I sort of agree with Ann that Bachmann needs to think a little bit about how she looks at public appearances. But ultimately she just needs to be herself, and if that means lots of crazy eyes, then so be it. It'll be up to her to convince the voting public of her other talents and potential.
I think she'd be better served to figure out how to laugh it off so that it loses potency. Not necessarily embrace it; for example, if she intentionally made some face like Gene Simmons of KISS, then I'd start to think she was a nut job. But if she would just do some sort of JFKish or Reaganish self-deprecatory thing, that would start to defuse it.
All in all, though, this reinforces to me how tough 'diversity-loving' and 'open-minded' groups are on conservative women and blacks. Just brutal. I guess women have truly achieved equality in this country if they can be so publically vilified without recourse to the vilifiers; Hillary and Sarah Palin Exhibit 1 and 2 respectively.
I saw this on Morning Joe this morning- the usual cast of trained librul seals got a big laugh out of this mag cover.
And right after a segment about how unjust it was for S&P to downgrade our bankrupt fed govt, Bloommberg and Rendell appeared to recommend we spend another $2 Trillion in the next ten years on infrastructure. The denial [about our spending problems] shown by our ruling class is unbelievable.
All in all, though, this reinforces to me how tough 'diversity-loving' and 'open-minded' groups are on conservative women and blacks. Just brutal.
Right. We'd never see this kind of thing on say, Drudge.
Pragmatist said...
First, maybe she just is crazy...just a thought. And second, to call the media "liberal" is to beleive that large, multinational corporations and the CEO's that run them are "liberal"...really?
Well, if you assume "the CEO's that run them" define the content and approach of every news story.
Would you like me to post the political donations by party for some of these corporations, or can you just admit you're lying?
The reporters report the news the editors tell them to report and the editors take their orders from the executives.
This silly speculation has no foundation in fact. But even if it did, it has nothing to do with the framing or content of a story.
You can go back to having your head in the sand now.
You almost got me to read Newsweek. Almost.
I won't read that rag until I open a Dentist office, never subscribe, and wait for it to show up in my mailbox.
@Pragmatist
I've heard this lunatic argument before. Journalists work for big corporations, therefore they're conservative. Uh-huh. Depends on which end of the political spectrum you hail from , doesn't it? Though one would be hard pressed to exactly locate where you might belong on it-- it looks to me there's no there there.
P.S. You forgot to add /sarc after "Pragmatist"
"And second, to call the media "liberal" is to beleive that large, multinational corporations and the CEO's that run them are "liberal"...really?"
Heh. Jeff Immelt, Summner Redstone - do you think these guys are conservatives?
"...Heh. Jeff Immelt, Summner Redstone -do you think these guys are conservatives?..."
Let's not forget the creator of CNN, billionaire Ted Turner. An arch conservative that made Reagan look like Marx.
Librul media example # gazillion:
Comcast bought NBC. NBC hires Fat Eddie Rendell as a political commenter. Comcast's bigwig and Exec VP is David Cohen who was Fat Eddie's chief of staff when Rendell was mayor. When Obama had a campaign fund raiser in Philly a week or so ago, the event was hosted by the same David Cohen at his Chestnut Hill home.
Exactly. And not understanding that entities and individuals do this to manipulate us. (11:17)
Correct. As the mediaswine endeavor to turn our democracy/republic to government by the gullible.
Oh, dear--am I the only one who thinks the photo doesn't really even have crazy eyes? I certainly understand Malkin being sensitive about the issue, given all the crap she gets, but seriously what's wrong with the cover picture of Bachmann? Looks perfectly fine to me.
"I've heard this lunatic argument before. Journalists work for big corporations, therefore they're conservative. Uh-huh."
Tyrone, Pragmatist isn't arguing the reporters are conservative; he's arguing the corporations that own the newspapers and magazines and television stations are conservative, and they dictate the editorial slant of the content they publish.
Reporters don't get to write what they please and have that material published as is; they must meet the editorial dictates of those for whom they work, or they're not published.
This is not to say there are not liberal or left news organs, but only to recognize that, a few lone exceptions aside--Rolling Stone, for example--mass market news organs on whole are generally centrist or subtly right-leaning in their news slants; the overtly partisan organs--of the left and right--are typically independent publications that appeal to niche audiences.
Those are the lying eyes that are solely responsible for the "New" recession.
That is the recession that started 3 months ago when the stimulus grants of Chinese cash ran out.
The commenters in the media, and El Rushbo too, are all touting the Emory Psychology Professor's article like it is another Tom Paine Common Sense pamphlet.
Obama is toast, which means:
Hilary will run, and
Perry will run.
I almost subscribed to Newsweek after they put Tina Brown in charge. But almost immediately, I noticed that she was not taking that rag anywhere special and so I passed on my first impulse.
Thank God there's still a Wall Street Journal.
Oh, dear--am I the only one who thinks the photo doesn't really even have crazy eyes?
I don't think they are crazy eyes, they are not looking at the camera eyes.
What's weird is the story is supposed to be about "The Queen of Rage", but the eyes are definitely not rage-filled eyes.
They're just throwing whatever they can against the wall knowing something will stick. Because she's just wacky, unlike that history making Nancy Pelosi or that up and coming Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
Cookie:
So you really think the NYT and the Philly Inquirer and the LA Times are center right or maybe even conservative? And ditto for Dan Rather and Bob Schiefer and Chris Mathews and Wolf Blitzer and David Gregory?
Light from upper right casting a hair shadow on her forehead, yet dark shadows in the corners of both eyes. Someone did a lot of work to get that photo and I am not convinced it was all with the camera.
Pragmatist isn't arguing the reporters are conservative; he's arguing the corporations that own the newspapers and magazines and television stations are conservative, and they dictate the editorial slant of the content they publish.
Who cares?
It is utter rubbish and silly.
Or are you going to pretend that Mary mapes and tailwind are conservative approaches to news?
MayBee...She is an actual woman. That gives us only two possibilities. Either she is crazy or she is a seductress.
Palin already has seductress cornered, so Bachmann is crazy.
When you change channels on Comcast's digital, the channel you're on freezes momentarily until the next channel appears. When a man is talking and his image stopped mid-sentence he always ALWAYS ALWAYS looks like a total ⨗∩⊃≮∣⨇⨭ goofball, who simply cannot be trusted. It's hilarious. The women, however, always look pleasant and sensible when frozen mid-sentence. This tells me that women are much better at projecting while speaking than men. <-- contains 98% of fact.
"...Cookie: So you really think the NYT and the Philly Inquirer and the LA Times are center right or maybe even conservative? And ditto for Dan Rather and Bob Schiefer and Chris Mathews and Wolf Blitzer and David Gregory?..."
When your political ideology is a few steps to the left of Lenin, its not hard to view those folks as conservatives.
Keep in mind, Obama wants higher taxes, more spending on social welfare, restrictions on domestic oil production and a desire to spread the wealth yet Cook believes Obama is a staunch Republican.
Go figure.
"So you really think the NYT and the Philly Inquirer and the LA Times are center right or maybe even conservative? And ditto for Dan Rather and Bob Schiefer and Chris Mathews and Wolf Blitzer and David Gregory?"
I have never read the LA Times or the Philadephia Inquirer, so I cannot comment on them. I would consider the NY Times' news reportage (as opposed to their op-ed page) to be center or center/right in slant, yes.
Dan Rather is probably personally a liberal, but as anchor for the CBS Evening News--which I did not see often with him in place--I doubt he had much leeway to convey anything more than what most news programs are: headline services.
I could not tell you where Schieffer lies on the spectrum...I'd guess center or a tad center/left. Wolf Blitzer strikes me as decidely right leaning, Chris Matthews seems politically incoherent and all over the map, and David Gregory, again, I couldn't say.
Patterico.com has another interesting discussion of an article mentioned on the this cover re Pellicano.
They don't just lie with images.
Once your eyes are opened to this degree of propaganda, there's no going back. As time goes on, the MSM has lost so much credibility. I doubt they have much impact in 2012.
They did it to themselves.
"Wolf Blitzer strikes me as decidely right leaning, Chris Matthews seems politically incoherent and all over the map, and David Gregory, again, I couldn't say."
HAHAHA
No, they are all progressive democrats.
LOL. It's so funny how even the NYT is called right wing by some folks.
I bet they do not endorse the GOP presidential candidate in 2012. Your definition of right leaning must include most of the left.
"...Wolf Blitzer strikes me as decidely right leaning,."
Hahahahahaha...snort..hahahahahaha!
Great, now I have the hiccups.
"No, they are all progressive democrats."
I don't know how you know that or if is even so, but the personal politics of individual reporters is not, as previously stated, at issue. What determines news coverage is the editorial slant of the management.
...mass market news organs on whole are generally centrist or subtly right-leaning in their news slants; the overtly partisan organs--of the left and right.... (11:54)
I repeat: government by the gullible.
It is incomprehensible that an intelligent man's view of the world can warp so far to the left that he sees "mass market news" entities as "centrist or right-leaning" and states it as fact.
On NPR this morning, all the NPR hosts cared about the downgrade was "how will this affect President Obama"? Cokie Roberts responded [paraphrasing here] "oh he's fucked!".
Of course, Cookie probably think s NPR and Cokie Roberts are right wing too so nothin to see here.
phx said … Right. We'd never see this kind of thing on say, Drudge.
And Hot Air as well, (started and sold by M. Malkin. Same thing on Malkin's site, for that matter). I'm quite tired of seeing the same unflattering photos of liberal politicians recycled, the most unflattering photos available, purposefully making them appear as insane as possible, put up for every single item relating to that individual. Notable targets Cynthia McKinney (formerly),S. Jackson, Pelosi, Wasserman and H. Clinton. Often multiple items on the home page, ever with the same photo and for years on end.
I get it that one example here is the so-called MSM and the others are blogs, but so what?
"On NPR this morning, all the NPR hosts cared about the downgrade was "how will this affect President Obama"? Cokie Roberts responded [paraphrasing here] "oh he's fucked!".
Of course, Cookie probably think s NPR and Cokie Roberts are right wing too so nothin to see here."
I don't see how this can be seen as either a "right" or "left" perspective; it's typical beltway babble, where personalities matter and discussion of the "the game" and who's up and who's down takes precedence over substantive policy discussion or analysis.
I don't see Cokie Roberts as being anything more than an elitist insider and repository of beltway gossip and received ideas, a slightly less grating Peggy Noonan.
Of course, my impressions of any of these people are general; I barely pay attention to them and do not watch any of them except by chance...they offer nothing of interest.
What determines news coverage is the editorial slant of the management. (12:36)
"The editorial slant of management"? Whatever that means.
I think you mean the political orientation of management.
However,it is clear from your writing that unless the news entity is owned by the state, a la the old Pravda, you will conclude that it is, at best, centrist.
You do realize that you are a left-wing extremist, don't you?
@Robert Cook
Man, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you're an extreme left-winger and that this is what induces you to call Wolf Blitzer (Wolf Blitzer!) center right. Most of the lefties that I've met seem to think that they, and only they, are middle-of-the-road, unbiased and mainstream while all right-wingers are extremist. Quit deluding yourself, chappie.
Oy. An ad for Lasik surgery to cure myopia. Right on the cover!
Newsweek is now in Tina Brown's hands. So, no. I'm not surprised at the cover. When they did Sarah Palin ... she looked gorgeous to me, anyway.
And, you can't take a bad photograph of Martha Stewart, either.
This "buggy" photography stuff is right out of Disney. Right out of MYSTIFICATION ... where no one shits. And, no one farts.
It sells like crazy. Merchandise just walks off the shelf.
(Alas, Disney has upped its prices, though. If you want a day in one of their parks you have to fork over $150 per person. Not counting what you pay for the space in the parking lot!)
Newsweek, however, is a cheap investment. If you keep this copy. And, the one done with the Sarah Palin article. And, the one done telling the maid's story about DKS.
Because it is all a business, I know what Tina Brown can do. And, I know candidates for public office "submit." Because the publicity that gets generated is "worth it."
I still think Boehner and McConnell crapped out at the poker table. If this was a real battle, those two would have been carted off the field on stretchers. To sick bay.
Is Bachmann now the doctor that shows up? I miss MASH. It was the winning story out of Korea. "HAWKEYE" is actually what lots of Americans have. No matter what gets reported in the press.
A news organization with 99% democrat journalists and editors covering 99% of stories in a way tilted towards democrats is still considered 'right leaning' by some of the Kos DU types.
I don't know if they really mean it, actually. It's just silly. They might be trying to distort the narrative and make it seem like both sides have a legit beef (which is absurd).
Regardless, anyone saying Newsweek isn't hard hard hard core left wing, and damn near deranged in their leftward bias, has no perspective at all.
"Regardless, anyone saying Newsweek isn't hard hard hard core left wing, and damn near deranged in their leftward bias, has no perspective at all."
How is NEWSWEEK "hard hard core leftwing"?
Some examples?
I'm moderate. I say Newsweek is just hard hard core left wing, not hard hard hard core let wing.
Bachmann always goes into a trance when asked a question. Then she answers a question she wished she would have been asked instead.
Just like Obama. Just like every politician. Never watched a debate, have you?
No one is out to hurt Michelle Bachmann; she will simply hurt herself with her kookie ideas. She will not win the Republican primary let alone a main election. The odds would be similar to Dennis Kucinich winning.
What is scary though is when Romney gets the Republican nomination [and he most likely will] he chooses Bachmann as his running mate. That is a ticket that actually could win. Romney pulling in the moderates and Bachmann pulling in the crazies.
I've heard Congresswoman Bachmann speak live a few times. A great speaker who is nothing like her haters portray her at.
Best speach? Wish I had a video camera when she spoke at the Stand With Israel rally at the Jewish community center in Minneapolis.
Matt, are you serious? The Democrats hate here so much that they even are attacking her for taking in 23 foster children.
Matt said: What is scary though is when Romney gets the Republican nomination [and he most likely will] he chooses Bachmann as his running mate.
Your politics are closely aligned with those of Andrew Sullivan. Throw in your regular and longstanding Palin hatred and I wonder whether you don't in fact represent him here in some capacity.
If the market keeps crashing and unemployment keeps rising, she will not be the only one with crazy eyes. I vote she embrace the image. Rev up a chain saw and tell the crowd that she wants to remove Obama from the White House. Also it would help if instead of saying ummm, the way Obama does during his pauses, she would gaze at her chain saw and laugh manically.
Tina Brown would not allow a conservative woman to look remotely appealing, if it was at all within her power. How unfortunate for her efforts that they seem to BE so...appealing. For instance, Bachmann IS crazy, but she's really very pretty. She also strikes me as generally mean-spirited, in a really petty, righteous sort of way (Can't stand her and never have been able to.), unlike Sarah Palin, whose inner kindness just glows. Bachmann's got that dang pinch-faced thing going.
If Brown wanted to make a point, she could could have done so honestly. Liberals' machinations are so transparently pathetic.
Robert Cook--Re media bias, would you be interested in the findings of a UCLA political-science professor published in a Harvard journal?
Or would that be too much like quoting Faux Noise?
The headline is also perplexing. The Queen of Rage?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I really haven't seen Bachmann fist-pounding lecterns and upending tables at speaking engagements, or storming off sets during interviews.
Perhaps she's channeling some of that good Tea Party rage, you know, that rage against public littering.
WV: fierses. Hmmmm....
Am I the only one who wonders whether there was some photoshopping going on?
...and maybe it was the best of the lot.
I'm sorry. But she looks like Charlie Manson in that picture.
http://anamericanstory.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/michelle-bachman-has-the-crazy-eyes/
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा