Newsweek's non-explanation explanation

Everybody knows about the non-apology apology -- when a public figure says, for example, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" rather than "I shouldn't have made that racist comment, and I apologize for doing so."

It turns out the non-apology apology has a sibling: the non-explanation explanation.

This week's issue of Newsweek features a cover photo of Sarah Palin wearing short running shorts -- a photo that was originally taken for a recent issue of Runner's World, and which has no obvious connection to Newsweek's coverage of Palin. Earlier today, Media Matters' Julie Millican has explained the problems with that cover:

Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear." 

Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin's exercise habits.

As Julie noted, Newsweek's lousy judgement extended beyond the cover: The magazine also ran a gratuitous photo focusing on Palin's legs, and another photo of a "disgusting Sarah Palin-as-a-slutty-schoolgirl doll."

So what does Newsweek have to say for themselves?  The magazine's editor responded to a question from Politico's Michael Calderone, but he couldn't even muster an "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" non-apology apology:

Editor Jon Meacham responds in an email to POLITICO: "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

That's a textbook example of the non-explanation explanation.  Read it again, and tell me: What does it mean?  Meacham wants you to think he's explaining the cover choice, but he really isn't.  

How, exactly, does putting Sarah Palin on the cover in short shorts "illustrate the theme of the cover"?  (Let's assume Meacham meant the theme of the cover article; saying you choose a cover photo to illustrate the theme of the cover is more than a bit circular.)  Meacham doesn't say.  What is that theme?  Meacham doesn't say.  

How does the leg-centric image of Palin's legs "convey what we are saying"?  Meacham doesn't explain.  What is Newsweek "saying" with the article and the photo?  Meacham doesn't explain.

It's a refusal to explain, dressed up as an explanation.  

Another recent example: When Washington Post reporters Chris Cillizza and Dana Milbank produced an infantile and unfunny video calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" and describing a wife suing for divorce from a cheating spouse as a "bitter woman from hell,"  they tried to explain the controversy away by saying the video was "satire."

But they didn't say what it was they were supposed to be satirizing.  That's probably because what they were doing quite plainly was not satire; it was simply a couple of jerks sitting around making mean-spirited and sexist comments.  There is a difference.

It's satire ... The photo illustrates the theme of the cover ... These things are designed to look like explanations; to win credit for addressing the issue and to cut off further questions and to justify bad behavior.  But they aren't actually explanations at all.  They are a refusal to deal with criticism in a forthright way, and should be recognized (and mocked) as such.  Just as we all recognize the non-apology apology for what it is.