All Up In My Snatch

John Aravosis quotes a very apologetic spokesperson from ABC Denver, where a staffer's search for a picture of Paula Broadwell's All In ended in failure: "When the 7NEWS reporter went on the Internet to get an image of the book cover, the reporter mistakenly grabbed a Photoshopped image that said, 'All Up In My Snatch.'" [America Blog]

• [royaltrux]

  I’m too stunned to laugh. I’ll get over it…
  Wow.

• [invictus]

  BWAHAHA!
  Ahem. Right. Sorry.

  BWAHAHAAHAHA!

  OK, got it out of my system now. Maybe.

• [Paul Bruno]

  As my copyrights are violated almost every day without regard I applaud this hilarious situation. 

  • [Teresa Nielsen Hayden]

    Book covers are technically under copyright, but the usual practice is to let anyone reproduce them as long as they don’t alter them — after all, they’re advertisements for the book. ABC Denver’s only misstep was to grab the wrong cover image.

    • [Paul Bruno]

      Book cover distribution is contract specific. The point is, even professionals who know better take what they want without considering the source and the copyrights of that source.

  • [TheOmbudsman]

     News coverage is generally considered “fair use” though.

    • [Paul Bruno]

       The staff member who pulled that photo obviously did not take the time to note the source of the downloaded photo. If they did they would have noticed that it came from a cheeky blog. Best journalistic practices say document your source. If the source is not documented how can anyone be sure the photo is available for use without charge?

       I agree that most news sources can use a promotional book image under fair use but any image of the cover is not the official promotional image. All major publishers use an official promotional image because of concerns about image quality and version, also many book jackets are regional or retailer specific.

      • [royaltrux]

         The staff member who pulled that photo obviously did not take the time TO LOOK AT IT.

        • [Paul Bruno]

           This comment is beyond Like.

• [OldBrownSquirrel]

  In terms of clueless-people-grabbing-images-off-the-net terms, I’m reminded of angry people waving posters featuring both Osama Bin Laden and Evil Bert: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp

  Also, puppet Kim Jong Il: http://boingboing.net/2010/07/29/burmese-protesters-u.html

  • [Marc Mielke]

    Reminds me of this old classic: (wheat donuts, maybe…certainly not cake donuts!)

    http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/shakespeares_sister/shakes5/sogood.png

• [Apocatequil Death]

  This wins on so many levels.

  • [Lexicat]

    And yet, also fails, because, we really don’t need any more lambasting of women because they have sex, because they have sex with people one does not like, or because they are having sex while not having it with one’s self.

    Fuck the anti-slut sentiment. It is anti-woman.

    • [P1rat3]

      While I agree with you in general, I don’t see the laughs being derived from this altered cover as slut-shaming Paula Broadwell. All that happened is that someone added a couple of words to the already pregnant title “All In”, to make a juvenile joke about the adultery that both parties committed in the course of researching and writing the book.

    • [Quiche de Resistance]

      Excellent comment, and I certainly agree with you on the need to eliminate slut-shaming. But this is not necessarily that.
      Women can use “offensive” slang as much as men, ideally in a non-slut shaming context. He was all up in HER snatch, he was educated by HER is a clear implication. In our sexist society I’m sure most will see it as a put-down of her, but I like to see it in a sexually empowered woman way.
      I also LOVE the implied meaning that Petraeus was schooled by Broadwell AND Vernon Loeb.

    • [Nathan Hornby]

      It’s amusing (in a not very fun way) to read this comment, surrounding by adverts for a T-Shirt brand that fill their ads with as much boob as possible.

      • [zotlerg]

        Ha, yeah. The woman on the advert with the reddish ‘I used to care’ t-shirt looks half crazed to me, I really don’t looking at her face. ; ) 

        • [Nathan Hornby]

          I actually noticed just after posting that it was two different T-Shirt companies, each with a different boob-filling ad!

    • [Boundegar]

      You forgot to add “It’s not funny!”

    • [acerplatanoides]

      Do we need more lambasting of women who use their vaginas to manipulate the patriarchy for their own personal gain?

    • [sdmikev]

      oy vey, get a sense of humor already.  no need to be offended by everything. jumping jesus on a pogo stick.  IT’S FUNNY!

      • [Quiche de Resistance]

        Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows that a burrow owl lives in a hole in the ground!  Why the hell you think they call it a burrow owl?!

    • [Apocatequil Death]

      This isn’t anti-woman but it is indicative of a farcical situation more akin to a Carry On… film then a “scandal” involving the CIA, FBI and the military. This has become a cosmic joke not only on the characters involved but the media as well. Even you got something out of it, you get to be holier then thou on the internet. Good for you.

• [marklar marklar]

  See what happens when you legalize weed

  • [plyx]

    Yeah, everything becomes more hilarious.

• [Rickenbacker4001]

  Alex from Death and Taxes is claiming that they made the image and thought nothing of it till a news crew picked it up.
  They explain it here.  http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/190982/yes-were-responsible-for-the-paula-broadwell-all-up-in-my-snatch-meme/

• [DJBudSonic]

  More of a comment on the quality of news reporting these days than anything else.

• [Ant Duke]

  Too funny?..

• [zotlerg]

  Call me cynical, but I can’t help thinking this was all done on purpose.

• [acerplatanoides]

  Someone looked in the wrong tube. sadtrombone.com

• [jandrese]

  You live by Google Image Search, you die by Google Image Search.  

• [Shinkuhadoken]

  Maybe it’s just me, but I thought the title “All In” had enough innuendo on its own.

  • [acerplatanoides]

    in’noutuendo

• [DJBudSonic]

  Having worked on many production teams in my day this is more likely the result of the old ‘data placeholder’ snafu.  Someone was making up the gfx and inserted this image in place of the real one, then, to their horror, they went to lunch and the segment got aired before they could switch back. For the same reason I used to populate test data bases with actual information, not whatever the programmers might put in, which was usually offensive.  That way, when you forget that the client has demo access, they don’t run your test pages and end up ordering “42  $1000 Boogers” to be shipped to “Mrs. Buttface, 123 Lane, Anywhere, KS, 55555″

• [Travis Berry]

  This is funny shit!

• [oasisob1]

  It’s not photoshopped. Those are her real shoulders.

  • [Halloween_Jack]

     You know, having seen this posted a few different places, I keep thinking, damn, she’s got some powerful, Michelle Obama-league guns. She must have set some records for chin-ups at West Point.

• [Maj Variola]

  Jill’s sister went to Beaver College
  http://www.lawyers.com/Florida/Tampa/Natalie-Khawam-31561362-a.html 

  Could not make this up.

• [giantasterisk]

  Snatch-a-rooni!

• [Donald Petersen]

  Probably it’s just due to the unsophisticated circles in which I move, but I can’t remember ever seeing before the words “my” and “snatch” right next to each other.  Maybe there are lots of women who refer daily to “my snatch,” maybe even with justifiable pride, but I don’t believe I’ve met them.

  It’s never struck me as a term one applies to one’s own ladyparts, is all I’m saying.  Correct me if I’m wrong.

  More to the point, however, is the hilarity of the post.  I lol’d when my wife showed it to me, almost as hard as she did.

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    http://www.metrolyrics.com/whyd-ya-do-it-lyrics-faithfull-marianne.html

    To which, by the way, Strange de Jim replied, “Sorry, Mom.”