.jpg)
or this?
We purchased it from an agency, yea?
So when Sarah sues Newsweek, Newsweek can sue their agency.
This hiding and passing the buck is convenient.
They are everywhere.
This is how Newsweak got the pic...the photographer broke his contractual agreement not to sell the image until August 2010.
The first few sentences you blame Sarah, then admit someone else broke their contract, thereby breaking the law.
But it’s sarah’s doing, right? Right.
I will be doing the ‘happy dance’ when a bunch of you lyin rags fail.
STUPID ARTICLE
Nothing offensive about the photo.
I continue to be dumbfounded at absence of limits past which the Media will stoop to discredit Sarah Palin.
They truly deserve to go out of business.
Such Vile Wretches as I cannot remember.
It's interesting that Sarah sells better than H!, or Mmb0, or Pelosi, or etc.
Whether a decision is actually right or wrong is frequently viewed as irrelevant.
Sarah Barracuda Palin, Mmm, Mmmmm, Mmmmmm.
That Palin picture REALLY worked for Runners World......They set sales records and increased subcriptions when they published The Palin article.
NEWSWEEK wanted some of the same.....desperately.
I read the article and someone is lying. This is the email I got back from Runners Magazine this AM:
From: rwedit@rodale.com
Mary: On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page. Runner’s World did
not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s agent, without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission.
Runner’s World Reader Service
Teeny-tiny??? Am I looking at the right picture?
I love the picture, and you know, it just adds fuel to the fire and puts Sarah Palin even more in the limelight. Most of them will never admit it, but I’m convinced many liberal-leftie women (womyn?) hate Palin simply because she’s so attractive. Not just pretty but thin and athletic...just mentally (I know, it’s scary) compare her with say, Hillary or Nasty Nancy...or (dare I say it)...Helen Thomas!
Even “womyn” who claim to be feminists can be as petty and snarky as any.
or this?
Lying bastards. There is a poll on that page. Everyone should go vote. Newsweek is winning so far.
For starters, anyone who thinks there is anything indecent or inappropriate about Ms. Palin being photographed in shorts, is being ridiculous.
The liberals are actually talking about this. Are they kidding? After Clinton was getting ***** in the oval office while talking about the troops? And the liberals wanted to give him one too for abortion???
A pair of running shorts. Give me a break.
I don’t see anything wrong with the picture. she is a runner. She is pretty. She has a good figure. she is attractive.
No one seemed to object with the picture of John Kerry wind surfing or catching a football. What the hell is wrong with Newsweek that they seem to think this is a damaging photgraph. I have copied it to my screen saver. and I will buy her book, give her campaign a donation, and vote for her again if given an opportunity. I will not vote for Romney and his ilk under any circumstances.
Sweet. Some media punks commit a legal and ethical violation.
Sarah, sue their backasswards off.
How come there wasn’t a similar outrage when Obama was photographed nude from the waist up and plastered on the front pages of newspapers?
There is nothing wrong with the photo itself. It was shot for a different purpose than what Newsweek stole it for. The use of a photo portraying an ex-governor, ex-vice presidential nominee as a school girl with great legs is a childish way of showing they don’t take her seriously – to me, that’s what sexist and offensive both.
*Those* are supposed to be teeny tiny shorts? Those are *not* teeny tiny shorts. I’ve seen a lot teenyer tinyer shorts on mothers at their sons T-Ball games, and no one was “scandalised”.
Typical...Those who read Time, or Newsweek, fill their minds with slime and shit.