As malkin points out (but sort of ignores in her thesis) the photographer did the same type of artsy angle for Bill Clinton, so I think that the choice had more to do with "le vision as le artiste" and less to do with "liberal photo bias."

But hey, rage on. It gives Eric Alterman wood.

I'd like to have seen her in black leather poised on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

Or if she had borrowed Condi's "Matrix" ensemble.

It could be the ProtestWarrior picture represents an infiltration of the Time editorial staff. Frankly, this is almost as good as Evil Bert posing with Osama.

Also, I never really noticed the size of her head in the cover picture. I think I was distracted by those long legs...

Oh, Bill... you grow tiresome with your daily splashes of "cold water contrarianism."

I'd like to have seen caricatures of shrieking liberals with hateful signs and throwing pies at her in the background.

They really, really, really, hate Coulter. Go to DU, they're used to Bush, I doubt they'll ever get used to Ann Coulter.

You don't have to go too far to see the differences, Ace you even posted about this in the last election.

Rember this cover compared to this one ?

How about this, and this compared to these ?

I still have the 1995 TIME magazine with Rush Limbaugh on the cover. For a bunch of non-believeing Liberals, they sure tried hard to make him look like the devil himslf. The pic looks retouched, they added to his menacing expression and put curling smoke coming out of his mouth which Limbaugh says was not there. But inside the pix really look tampered with. In one of them he appears so slug-like it looks very unnatural, and there's snot in his nose that looks like it was put there after the photo was taken. But the good news is: the Ayatollah Komeni and Kim Il Jong received fair treatment on the cover.

>Or if she had borrowed Condi's "Matrix" ensemble.

LOL! Exactly. That outfit definitely conveyed the right message of who is boss and who should be boss.

>more to do with "le vision as le artiste" and less to do with "liberal photo bias."

Can the two be separated? Any "artiste" who could come up with a vision like that of Coulter had to be a lefty liberal. (Bet the "Dusty Girl" photographer is a Republican. )

I think there was some fish-eye happening here, too.

This is still my favorite glamour shot. Check out them crow's feet. Her face looks like a mocassin.

Delphiguy

Yeah, TIME tried to make 'ol dogface John and the Breck Girl look as good as possible, and they tried to make W look bad. But W looks bad enough sometimes and needs no help from TIME.

Also, Coulter should know by now that when they want to make you look sinister, they skip the distortions and break out the black and white.

That may be the phtographer's style, but her unflattering expression proves they went for the shitty photo.

Allah
The Hillary is too good to be true!

On Hillary's cover, TIME wasn't covered up.

On W's cover his head is framed by the letters "T" and "E" & he has little red horns sticking out of his head. TE = The End, Terminal Equipment, etc.

Those lefty-liberal TIME people are sooooo sneaky.

:->

For pete's sake. It's a nice picture of Ann.

Are you guys for real?

You really think there is something sinister about that photo?

She could have chosen different shoes however. Besides being ugly, they make her look like she's part Yeti.

Gack. Say what you will about Time, they sure didn't play to their bias by prettifying that shot of Hillary. Of course, you'll notice they cropped it just above the cankles.

Ace, the photo editor is in charge of choosing photos, along with the executive editor. This is standard practice at every magazine. If Coulter believed otherwise she was mistaken. In fact, she would have signed a photo release form effectively handing the rights to her photos over to TIME. There is never negotiation with any "star" except on wardrobe and makeup. However, TIME is notorious for notoriously appending photos. Case in point, O.J. Simpson. But that's not what happened here.

A picture is worth how many words?

I actually like the photo but it's obvious they're saying something worth oh, I don't know, about a thousand words or so just how they feel about Ann.

It reminds me of the award winning Tom Petty video for "Don't Come Around Here No More". Wouldn't libs like to finish off Ann the same way Petty dealt with the subject of that video.

Sweet Mary and Joseph ... it's a cover photo! If they did it to the President or the Pope or something you might be onto something, but this woman distorts herself for sport and public attention ... she's the GOP court jester, and she loves it! It pays the bills, after all. And anyone taking any of this seriously (including her absurd reprimands) just doesn't get it. Crying "liberal media" is WORKING THE REPS! ("Oh, oh, they're not being fair! Come on, give us more favorable coverage or we'll cry and bitch until you do. WAAAAAHHHH!")

Working the refs may be underhanded a/o lame, but it sometimes works.

haha..they finally figured out the PW pic was in support of Coulter...took them long enough

>Sweet Mary and Joseph

Didn't you just LOVE that picture of Kerry that Drudge had up for half of last summer? The one from the cover of "Unfit to Command"?

I sure did.

"It reminds me of the award winning Tom Petty video for "Don't Come Around Here No More". Wouldn't libs like to finish off Ann the same way Petty dealt with the subject of that video."

Yes! I was going to say it made her look like a weird Alice.

But... she did choose her wardrobe, presuably.

Bill from INDC said, "As malkin points out (but sort of ignores in her thesis) the photographer did the same type of artsy angle for Bill Clinton, so I think that the choice had more to do with "le vision as le artiste" and less to do with "liberal photo bias."

Michelle Malkin said, " Fans noticed the cover photo's strange distortions.. and "Drudge follows up here with reax from Coulter and also mention that the photog--"Platon"--snapped the notorious Esquire magazine cover photo of Bill Clinton, shot at Monica Lewinsky-level.

Bill, I don't see anywhere that Michelle Malkin set out an "artsy" thesis. First" fans noticed" and "Drudge" mentions the Bill Clinton shot.
Bill, where did you get your information that Michelle was establishing-but failing to follow-the "artsy" theme?

It's a perfect picture of Ann as the anti-Clinton (y'know, her legs are together)

I think it's a great pic from teh standpoint of communicating a point of view (as opposed to a flattering glamour shot)

Ann is what she is, and that pic is a great representation of her place in our society (the anti-Clinton)

Compare this with the cover article on Kerry/Edwards "The Contenders"?

All lovable and rosy cheeked...metrosexuals ready to lead.

Hillary is gonna have to get *HEAVY* into the Botox before the next election.

I think the picture of her highness Ann Coulter is unrepresentative of reality, not top mention how it proves the Liberal bias of all media. She hasn't had her legs crossed in 10 years.

*cough*
Ummmmmm, Ace? Who's Kim Il-Jong?

Kim Il-Jong is a famous South Korean tranny-hooker and Starcraft live-action reenactor if I'm not mistaken.

Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

"...Now, sometimes cankles can be cute..."

Sir,

Perhaps on animals with three or more lges, say a Clydsedale horse. But not on a human female.

rcl

I happen to like the photo. The shoes, in particular, will make liberals wonder just how they feel after she shoves them up someone's rectal area. They seem made-to-order for the "my foot, your ass" mentality. Love 'em.

And I'd pick on Hillary's cankles, but mine are worse *sob*.

Bill, wasn't the GQ that did that picture?

I thought of the same picture. The difference was that Clinton liked his.

I think Ann is her own worst critic. She's a pretty lady, though, and they must have worked hard to make her look "bad." Even with that stupid angle and lens, she still looks far far better than any liberal counter-part on a good day.

Later,
bbeck

Even though I love my country and hate Liberals I have to say that Coulter is the ugliest cunt I've ever seen. In fact I'm willing to bet she was once a man, probably a Liberal, who hates America.

I have a lot to say about this issue. As a conservative and a professional photographer who has photog. friends who have photographed major politicians and world figures for such magazines as Time and other such pubs., I tend to notice some trends.

First observation about this Coulter cover, it that the photographer is the this guy named Platon, who did the Clinton cover of Esquire, or whichever magazine it was that had the infamous crotch shot. It made some sense that Ann had her legs crossed rather than a lewd, sexually provocative posture. The thing about Platon is that he used extreme angles as compared to other more traditional shooters for Time, such as Gregory Heisler, who shot the other infamous cover portrait for Time, of Newt Gingrich in which he was made into a monster with greenn and magenta gelled lighting.

Two of my NYC photographer buddies often shoot politicians and they have made angelic, heroic shots of none other than Wesley Clark, Hans Blix, Al Gore's daughter and others. When I compare and contrast these portraits with the others that these photogs. have created of Michael Bloomberg (shot from a low angle to show the skin bulging out of his tight collar)...or Bill O'Reilly (shot to look like a total buffoon with an awkward expression on his face) or simply to place a dumb looking image of President Bush on their website.....there is an absolute mission going on in the media to make these conservatives look like evil morons. Photographers make biased images the distort normal looking people and photo editors help out by picking these distorted images to further their vision.

Don't take my word for it, look at these two websites for the evidence.

www.evankafka.com

www.saundersjonathan.com

Vlad ... is that you??

Boris....?
Did you take care of moose and squirrel?

It's not like they were doing a photoshoot of Mother Theresa. The goal of any good photographer is to capture the essence of a person -- their personality.

Now the Convervatives are pushing their "liberal media bias" theory into the realm of photography? And all of this to defend poor Ann Coulter? Oh, that poor innocent woman (barf). If anything , she should be seen as the posterchild pariah for the Conservative party. Lately, Conservatives don't sound like the pre-election fighters I once knew -- instead they sound like a bunch of victims. It's very strange.

"Lighten up Francis."