Seattle Times Apologizes to Readers Over Clinton Screwup


I wouldn't go so far as to call it a mistake, since the photo was from the events (when Hillary was not in attendance) though paired with the headline, it could lead to confusion I suppose. Conversely, a stock photo of Hillary instead of the event itself would have struck me as odd.

Their response is a good one though.
Do YOU ever own YOUR mistake?
or even suggest a rewording/clarification? etc

Just wonderin'
She is the first woman to be nominated by one of the two major parties and multiple newspapers, including Seattle Times, put a picture of her husband on the front page. It's completely tone deaf and disrespectful. Apparently the people running that newspaper are mostly men, or this would've been noticed before publication.
I note that the Clinton campaign fixed their error as well. She came out to embrace Obama after his speech, and voila, that was the image on every Page 1. If she'd come out after her husband finished, there would be no controversy.

Provide the picture you want.
@4, The first woman being selected as the nominee for a major political party is a huge deal, and there are other ways to capture the historical moment than by showing a photograph of her husband (!). If the NYT and USA Today can figure it out, it can't be that hard for other outlets to do the same (hint: there were also AN ARENA FULL OF WOMEN THERE):…
@3 They used a photo of Bill because they're idiotic men/trolls (is there a distinction?) like yourself. If a woman has to explain to you why this is sexist, then you're sexist.
I meant @4
@7: By the same token, does it need to be explained to you that calling men indistinguishable from trolls is sexist? The fact that you have your comment history hidden says to me that you're a troll.
@2: Beat me to it.

@3: You're talking about it as if her husband weren't a well-respected former President who had just given a rousing speech attesting to her character and to her drive to improve the lives of others. Context matters.
@7: Right here, you remind me of a charming young lady from my alma mater who directly asked me to define a term, and then accused me of "mansplaining" when I did. You're quite the sanctimonious twerp, you wannabe-Istari.
Fuck I hate my country.
@11, we know, you want to make it great again.
@12, again? It's always been shyte, and is only getting worse.
@9 It's only indistinguishable if you ignore the history of the world where white men have oppressed women and racial minorities for thousands of years.

Definitnion of Sexism.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

Women have been abused my men for too long. We call it fighting back, you call it reverse sexism.

*blink* *blink*

Did you think before you posted that definition? You just hoisted yourself on your own petard. Amazing. I am quite certain you are completely unaware.
For the record, I am assuming you are about 14 and can be forgiven as we all have said stupid things at that age.
@14: No, you nitwit, I just call it "sexism". "[R]everse sexism" is a sexist term in the same way that "reverse racism" is a racist term; both assume that there is an inherent and natural directionality to the discriminatory animus.
You want something to fight against? Fight against prejudice and hatred in all their vile forms, no matter who is being targeted. But like every other social vengeance warrior, you don't actually oppose racism or sexism; you're perfectly fine with them, so long as it's white people (or Jews, of course) and men who are victimized. Hypocrisy most foul.
@14: Well done. You obliterated your own credibility better than anyone else ever could have.

Unhiding your comment history would be the first step in rebuilding it.