This entry was posted on Friday, February 5th, 2010 at 3:11 am and is filed under wordpress, youtube, News Media, sports, Video.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
SI’s Swimsuit edition is not ’sports’ but it certainly is ‘illustrated.’ The challenge is to find a swimsuit. And at least with the Vonn cover the only skin showing is her face. While her posture in the photo seems to be offensive to some, it is as the linked report suggests a ‘tuck’ position common in downhill skiing.
Rather than sexploitation it merely points to the fact that sex sells. To repeat the argument often expressed by those who reject the exploitation criticism Vonn was not likely forced to agree with the cover photo selection.
But hey, I’m just throwin’ stuff out here. Like the ‘controversy’ over photo selections of Sarah Palin that caused a minor spat over the last few months. I’m thinking she wasn’t asked if it was okay. To me, that is closer to exploitation even though the shots were used in another publication by approval of the subject. We could go on I suppose.
February 5th, 2010 at 4:42 am
So, what’s the controversy? Now at least I know one person follow at the Olympics:-)
February 5th, 2010 at 5:20 am
Answer=sexploitation
February 5th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
As if sexploitation is anything new for Sports Illustrated. That cover photo is definitely … well.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
SI’s Swimsuit edition is not ’sports’ but it certainly is ‘illustrated.’ The challenge is to find a swimsuit. And at least with the Vonn cover the only skin showing is her face. While her posture in the photo seems to be offensive to some, it is as the linked report suggests a ‘tuck’ position common in downhill skiing.
Rather than sexploitation it merely points to the fact that sex sells. To repeat the argument often expressed by those who reject the exploitation criticism Vonn was not likely forced to agree with the cover photo selection.
But hey, I’m just throwin’ stuff out here. Like the ‘controversy’ over photo selections of Sarah Palin that caused a minor spat over the last few months. I’m thinking she wasn’t asked if it was okay. To me, that is closer to exploitation even though the shots were used in another publication by approval of the subject. We could go on I suppose.