Palin originally posed for this photo for a feature in Runner's World magazine, where it would seem more in context, though it still features some not-so-innocent ideological associations, from Palin's cheerleader-y stance, to the American flag next to her. On the cover of Newsweek, however, the choice of photo, critics say, is "sexist" and "demeaning." When presented alongside a critical story about her as "bad" for America, this presentation of her in short shorts, pigtails and with a smile seems intended to disempower her, make her out to be a joke.
In conjunction with the Walsh article, this would seem to be another example of how the mainstream media is able to make powerful statement through images- statements which often rely on stereotypical understandings of race, class and gender, as they relate to power. Palin is presented as having less power by being presented in a sexualized manner (despite what you think of Palin herself, and the fact that she posed for this photo in the first place). Just as Hillary Clinton was pushed (and perhaps shaped herself) as having masculine characteristics in order to be taken seriously as a contender, in order to make sense of her as a female candidate, so too did the characterization of Palin as sexualized (maybe even as a "super-mom" who could nurture a nation?) seek to make sense of her as a female candidate.
The main point of the Walsh article is that even supposedly objective mainstream media representations of race, class and gender often serve to reinforce the primacy of white male hegemony. We rely on commonsense understandings of race and gender, which generally aren't that complicated or nuanced. This is true across news and entertainment media.
The general point should be made that it is not that one image is likely to have that much of an impact, but that we can better understand how our society talks about these issues through their representation in the media. How powerful do you think media representations are?
