|chumbucket - 2008-10-08 |
no world economy crisis to talk about, no post-debate analysis, no news from Lebanon...nothing going on worth talking about but this
|charmlessman - 2008-10-08 |
Our viewers get confused if people do things.
|Genesis - 2008-10-08 |
I didn't know they had viewers.
|IrishWhiskey - 2008-10-08 |
They are outraged at they DIDN'T distort her image?
As vapid as the token moderate on the panel is, at least she pointed out that there's no way the psycho wingnut has a subscription, or has ever read anything that supports evolution and tolerance for the gays.
|phalsebob - 2008-10-08 |
This is clearly a slant against Republicans as Newsweek is not owned by Murdoch yet. Liberal Bias!!!
Newsweek is traditionally slanted against Republicans and protective of Democrats (ask Monica Lewinsky), so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they left the photo untouched on purpose. You don't have to be swayed by the breathless griping of Fox's The View to see how it's more nasty-looking than the average magazine close-up.
|buttnutt - 2008-10-08 |
From the people who edit photos to make people that disagree with them look uglier.
By the way, they barely touch on how the main article is about her "folksiness" not being a good quality or being a VP as well as being completely unqualified.
|kennydra - 2008-10-08 |
Stop giving her special treatment because she's a woman! She's a politician and a real person!!!
I want to choke these bitches. SO BAD.
|mouser - 2008-10-08 |
So, they asked a fatty hamster face if Palin is pretty? What can she answer?! It's biased reporting!
-4 because this is stupid.
|FABIO2 - 2008-10-08 |
I knew some whoring whorey actor whores and even they knew FOX news was a total joke and wouldn't touch anchor offers from them.
I can't imagine what it must be like working with people who do accept.
|Konversekid - 2008-10-08 |
But wouldn't this actually personify her more, and support the average women. Plus the only reason anyone would care if this is airbrushed should be because they want to fap to it and there are no guns or shots of her body in it, so I don't see why anyone would bother.
|citrusmirakel - 2008-10-08 |
Jesus Christ, this is actually a plea for news organizations to be LESS substantive and to focus on surface issues.
Also, your title is irritating.
|Cleaner82 - 2008-10-08 |
How deeply strange. Not too long ago you had women complaining about too much airbrushing in photos. To me in spite of the (undoubtably) trivial nature of the material it's funny to see this girl ready and eager to marginalize women.
|Jeff Fries - 2008-10-08 |
I agree with them but the people who work at Fox News have so much self-hatred that every word that comes out of their mouths sounds faggoty and stupid and you just want them to stop talking and resign.
|cognitivedissonance - 2008-10-08 |
They say that real beauty comes from within.
|DMKA - 2008-10-08 |
Wait, they're upset BECAUSE IT'S UNTOUCHED???
Five stars for "unwanted facial hair".
|Frank Rizzo - 2008-10-08 |
|Desidiosus - 2008-10-08 |
Henceforth all cameras pointed at Sarah Palin shall have great globs of Vaseline slopped on the lens!
So sayeth John McCain!
|fluffy - 2008-10-08 |
Hm, maybe I should give Newsweek a second chance.
|goethe re scape - 2008-10-08 |
Those amateurs at Newsweek! Fox News shows them how's it done: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=38965
|Aunt - 2008-10-08 |
your sexist title is so ridiculous and unnecessary.
I thought it might be intending to make fun of Fox News suggestion that the untouched photo looked terrible. But I agree, its a bad title.
|Blaise - 2008-10-08 |
Fox News - Airbrushing out Republican blemishes for over 10 years.
|Hooker - 2008-10-08 |
Five star for the stupid cunt claiming it's a slap in the face. Don't worry, baby, the camera doesn't have to move in; you're ugly enough on the inside already.
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2008-10-09 |
Fox logic is not real logic.
|RomancingTrain - 2008-10-09 |
5 for the title.
|Bort - 2008-10-09 |
It's over nine thousaaaand!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|