<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; photoshop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/photoshop/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:00:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Radio Station Promotion Promises Rihanna and Chris Brown &#8220;Together Again&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/radio-station-promotion-promisses-rihanna-and-chris-brown-together-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/radio-station-promotion-promisses-rihanna-and-chris-brown-together-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photoshop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radio promotion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WPGC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Do you wish that Rihanna and Chris Brown would put aside their differences and resume their abusive relationship already? No? Then you&#8217;ll hate WPGC&#8217;s newest concert promotion!
WPGC 99.5, a D.C. hip-hop and R&#38;B station, is currently airing a concert promotion that uses the theme of &#8220;bringing Chris and Rihanna back together&#8221; in order to get [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/11/Picture-23.png"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-7483" title="Picture 23" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/11/Picture-23.png" alt="Picture 23" width="420" height="275" /></a></p>
<p>Do you wish that<strong> Rihanna</strong> and <strong>Chris Brown </strong>would put aside their differences and resume their abusive relationship already? No? Then you&#8217;ll hate WPGC&#8217;s newest concert promotion!</p>
<p><span id="more-7482"></span>WPGC 99.5, a D.C. hip-hop and R&amp;B station, is <a href="http://www.wpgc.com/pages/5577853.php">currently airing a concert promotion</a> that uses the theme of &#8220;bringing Chris and Rihanna back together&#8221; in order to get people to listen to the radio.</p>
<p><span id="blurb_body">In truth, the concert is offering up tickets to see Chris Brown in D.C. and Rihanna in London, so WPGC is only bringing Chris Brown and Rihanna within 3600 miles miles of each other, but look! They creepily Photoshopped a picture of them together, so it&#8217;s almost like the real thing. &#8220;95.5 is brining Rihanna and Chris Brown together again&#8230; sort of!!&#8221; the promotion announces. &#8220;win tickets to see Chris Brown in DC and qualify to see Rihanna in concert in London! Everytime you win Chris Brown tickets you qualify!&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span>And just in case you didn&#8217;t get that it was a joke about how Chris Brown beat up Rihanna and wouldn&#8217;t it be great if that was still happening: &#8220;</span><span id="blurb_body">Bringing Chris and Rihanna back together&#8212;-within legal restraining order limitations of course&#8212;-From 955 PGC!!&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span id="blurb_body">I understand that the only thing that might make someone excited to win Chris Brown tickets anymore is the possibility of also winning Rihanna tickets. And hey, I would love to win a couple of free tickets to see Rihanna in London! But this promotion is so offensive, I&#8217;m not sure I could really muster the strength to pick up the phone to be the 9th caller here. Who is the target audience for this? People who truly want to watch Chris Brown in concert, travel a few thousand miles to watch Rihanna in concert, and in the meantime think about how awesome it would be if those lovebirds could make it work? Or people who think domestic violence is so totally hilarious, this strange virtual double-billing is worth the joke? Who knows: Maybe Chris Brown&#8217;s team just wanted people to know that he was back on tour again, since it&#8217;s not like he can make much news on his own without invoking the shining stardom of the girlfriend he beat up nine times.<br />
</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/radio-station-promotion-promisses-rihanna-and-chris-brown-together-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inappropriate Cleavage Photoshop Corner</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/13/inappropriate-cleavage-photoshop-corner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/13/inappropriate-cleavage-photoshop-corner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Sexist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inappropriate cleavage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photoshop]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Via JJB Blog: What is wrong with this Chilean water heater ad?

Answer after the jump.


]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2008/10/11/a-very-unfortunate-production-mistake/">Via</a><strong> JJB Blog</strong>: What is wrong with this Chilean water heater ad?</p>
<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2932812067_092f92ea7c.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>
<p>Answer after the jump.</p>
<p><span id="more-212"></span></p>
<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/2932824797_a38371aff6.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="263" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/13/inappropriate-cleavage-photoshop-corner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sarah Palin, Lip Hairs and All</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/09/sarah-palin-lip-hairs-and-all/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/09/sarah-palin-lip-hairs-and-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Sexist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsweek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photoshop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=192</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
The Oct. 13 issue of Newsweek features an up-close-and-personal photo of Governor Sarah Palin on the cover. The photograph (above), by Nigel Parry, is a tight shot of Palin&#8217;s face. In person, the image is more striking: the wrinkles are deeper, the stray hairs darker, the pores more defined.
Fox News yesterday had a field day [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://i38.tinypic.com/14aalw2.jpg" alt="" width="379" height="502" /></p>
<p>The Oct. 13 issue of <em>Newsweek</em> features an up-close-and-personal photo of Governor <strong>Sarah Palin</strong> on the cover. The photograph (above), by <strong>Nigel Parry</strong>, is a tight shot of Palin&#8217;s face. In person, the image is more striking: the wrinkles are deeper, the stray hairs darker, the pores more defined.</p>
<p><em>Fox News </em>yesterday <a href="http://www.popandpolitics.com/2008/10/08/right-wing-response-a-weekly-roundup/">had a field day with this one</a>. (video below)</p>
<p><object id="mediumFlashEmbedded" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="305" height="275" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="name" value="FOX News" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="flashvars" value="playerId=videolandingpage&amp;playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&amp;categoryTitle=undefined&amp;referralObject=3143210" /><param name="src" value="http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf" /><param name="wmode" value="false" /><embed id="mediumFlashEmbedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="305" height="275" src="http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf" wmode="false" flashvars="playerId=videolandingpage&amp;playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&amp;categoryTitle=undefined&amp;referralObject=3143210" bgcolor="#000000" name="FOX News"></embed></object></p>
<p>&#8220;Have you seen the latest cover of<em> Newsweek</em>,&#8221; asked the anchor, the disgust evident on her face, before introducing her two pundits:<strong> </strong>&#8220;Republican Media Consultant&#8221;<strong> Andrea Tantaros</strong> (hated it) and<strong> Julia Piscitelli</strong> of American University (thinks you guys might be exaggerating a little bit).</p>
<p>Tantaros called the cover a &#8220;gross slap in the face,&#8221; objecting to the fact that the photo appeared &#8220;un-retouched.&#8221; Said Tantaros, &#8220;it highlights every imperfection that every human being has, but we&#8217;re talking unwanted facial hair, pores, wrinkles.&#8221; The anchor chimed in, saying, &#8220;When they put you up close and personal on a magazine, even the gorgeous super models in the world, <em>they retouch you </em>to get rid of the normal flaws that human beings have. That&#8217;s what they do in the magazine business. They didn&#8217;t do it for Governor Palin.&#8221;</p>
<p>The cover was particularly grating to Tantaros when compared to <em>Newsweek</em>&#8217;s cover shots of <strong>Barack Obama.</strong> &#8220;After <em>Newsweek</em> has done so many favorable covers of <strong>Barack Obama </strong>that make him look presidential, that are clearly retouched. He looks flawless,&#8221; she says, adding: &#8220;He looks perfect, Julia. He looks perfect.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;This is reality,&#8221; countered Piscitelli, after noting there was no evidence that an Obama cover had been retouched, either. &#8220;Demanding that political figures get retouching like super-models on the cover of news magazines is going a little far. What&#8217;s wrong with showing women the way they actually look, especially a woman as beautiful as Sarah Palin?&#8221;</p>
<p>I agree with Piscitelli that it&#8217;s absurd to ask news publications to adhere to standards set by fashion magazines. Photoshopping women&#8217;s bodies and faces&#8212;a process that takes even the most beautiful women in the world and distorts them to flawless, often anatomically impossible Barbie dolls&#8212;is out-of-control in women&#8217;s magazines; we don&#8217;t need <em>Newsweek</em> reinforcing an absurd standard of beauty on politicians, too.</p>
<p>But Tantaros raises an interesting point when she describes Obama&#8217;s photos as &#8220;flawless&#8221; and &#8220;perfect&#8221; (even though my guess is that Obama wasn&#8217;t Photoshopped, either). Obama and Palin are two of politics&#8217; most beautiful people, but the playing field for political playboys and girls is uneven: When women show flaws, they&#8217;s called unattractive; when men do, they&#8217;re called &#8220;rugged.&#8221; (And when they&#8217;ve got <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/08/29/obama-youve-got-something/">spit on their mouth</a>, they&#8217;re called &#8220;Internet Gold.&#8221;) So even without a delicate post-shot softening, Obama is a lot closer to &#8220;perfect&#8221; from the get-go. It&#8217;s not because Obama is implicitly more attractive (though he is, for the record, extremely, achingly attractive). It&#8217;s because he&#8217;s a dude.</p>
<p>Still, let&#8217;s take a moment to remember why the standards of beauty for women are so absurdly, unnaturally high in the first place. Oh, right, it has something to do with Photoshop (<a href="http://jezebel.com/gossip/photoshop-of-horrors/heres-our-winner-redbook-shatters-our-faith-in-well-not-publishing-but-maybe-god-278919.php">Exhibit A</a>, <a href="http://jezebel.com/5059335/photoshop-of-horrors">Exhibit B</a>, <a href="http://jezebel.com/5053507/photoshop-of-horrors">Exhibit C</a>).</p>
<p>There is one point where Tantaros and I agree. Tantaros objects to the headline &#8220;She&#8217;s One of the Folks (<em>And that&#8217;s the problem</em>),&#8221; saying it&#8217;s an &#8220;insult [to] the folks of America [to] call that a &#8216;problem.&#8217;&#8221; I think<em> Newsweek</em> did well in putting a real Palin shot on the cover. But by pairing that &#8220;real&#8221; photo with the assertion that Palin&#8217;s &#8220;realness&#8221; makes her unqualified to be president (true),<em> Newsweek </em>also implies that Palin&#8217;s physical realness is a &#8220;problem&#8221; (problematic).</p>
<p>To recap: Showing real women, flaws and all&#8212;good thing; using a woman&#8217;s physical flaws to illustrate flaws of character, politics, and experience&#8212;bad thing.</p>
<p><strong>MORE:</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/17/sarah-palins-entire-existence-is-sexist/">Sarah Palin&#8217;s Entire Existence is Sexist</a>..</p>
<p><strong>More on Nigel Parry: </strong>Parry also shot Palin for <em>Newsweek</em> during the Republican National Convention, alongside McCain. For the July 16 issue of Newsweek, Parry shot Barack Obama (the photo is <a href="http://prnwire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/07-08-2007/0004621314&amp;EDATE=">in black-and-white and not-so-close-up</a>). Check out Parry&#8217;s <a href="http://www.nigelparryphoto.com/">other work</a> here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/09/sarah-palin-lip-hairs-and-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
