Yeah, guess I agree, Don't think it's a flattering photo, but I can see myself choosing to run it were it offered. Eye catching; plays up her length. My guess is that Coulter doesn't like somewhat, but is decrying it cause it'll gin up controversy and heat surrounding her.

I think my biggest surprise to the reactions though, is that they exist. I mean, I can remember the time when Time covers mattered, but that was.. how long ago? Seriously, do people still think those weekly newsmags are cultural movers still? And do the same people still sit around the wireless on Saturday nights thumbing though the 'Evening Post?'

I vote for the sexy glamour shot.

1. The photo seemed typical Coulter, typical Time. I think it works pretty well to get attention.
2. It's evocative if you either know something about Coulter, or if you have a knee-jerk reaction to the far-more problematic tag, "fair and balanced she's not... enrages the left and delights the right...." Calling her unfair and unbalanced is a bad but effective ploy, and that she enrages left and delights right is misleading about the sort of polarization engendered by "Ann Rant."
3. Kvetching does strike me as rattling the cage, but if it keeps 'em off the streets, it's hard to complain.

Thanks for saving me a post Bill. I too thought of Alice when I saw the photo, and wasn't all that impressed or depressed by it. Ann is a brilliant writer, but I think this kerfluffle is much ado about nothing, and Mrs. Drudge needs to get a grip on this one.

If I was the photog using this lens, however, I would have gone with Ann in black leather pants and tanker boots hunched toward the camera with a look of malice in her eyes.

If you are going to go for the "vaguely wicked, smug and powerful" look, you might as well go full-bore.

Spot on, Bill. Much ado about nothing - I like the shot. If anything, it should be MORE evil.

The only consideration - Ann's shtick is to blast liberals, and the media - so if Time does an article on her, she kinda HAS to gripe about something, doesn't she? Just like showing her in a pink room full of Barbie's isn't "Ann", neither is a quote from her saying, "Really, Time did a wonderful, balanced job", is it?

I'd have preferred a shot that distorted her in such a way to make it look like she eats hamburgers every once in awhile.

Humph. Lighten up, indeed. When I saw that photo on Drudge yesterday I thought it looked distorted, but COOL. They made Ann look like a super-elongated fashion model and her shoes are HOT! Yesss! Must find out where she got those...

Thanks for the post. I thought the complaints were infantile at best.

Now, when will you go through her writing the way you do with the "liberal" media and thoroughly note her distortions, lies and plagerism?

Now, when will you go through her writing the way you do with the "liberal" media and thoroughly note her distortions, lies and plagerism?

No, as I don't typically read her.

Go to these sites that document Coulter's rather "liberal" use of the truth.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php

I have no problem with legitimate disagreement. But Coulter is a prime example of someone who blatently lies on a regular basis and no one of the right calls out her out.

She needs a Persian cat (preferably named Mr. Bigglesworth) to sit in her lap. It'd complete the whole evil-genius look.

This photo gave me the feeling of one of those "Laugh-In" skits with Lilly Thomlin doing the little girl in the giant chair. It was meant to make Coulter look like a whiny child, perhaps a bit braty.

Or perhaps the readers are supposed to look like the whiny children with the wise sage dispensing wisdom.

Now I remember why I stopped getting Time.

The photographer did it excuse is as lame as the dog ate the homework one. Conver photos are selected by editors. If the editors assign a wack job photographer to do the shoot, it means the editors wanted a wacked out cover photo. They got what they wanted.

Right David, it's all an EVIL CONSPIRACY!!

TO MAKE ANN COULTER LOOK BAD!!!!

SSSSHHH - wait ... I think ... yes, I think ... they can ... hear us. You know, them.

I like Ann and I like the picture but there's definately a thousand words worth of message in the presentation.

Ann's feeling about a relatively less than flattering shot is understandable from a personal vanity POV. If that look is what they were going for I wish they had let her mug for it. A wicked grin would have worked better than the smirk.

I've seen critcisms from the left for the story and criticisms from the right for the photo. The lot of them can go soak their heads, as far as I'm concerned.

The story was Standard Profile # 106 ("Caustic in Public, Kind of Nice in Private"), and the cover photo is Standard Cover Photo #203 ("Low Angle of Powerful Woman on Throne.")

Nothing remarkable about it to my eye.

--|PW|--