Reports of the death of print journalism have been greatly exaggerated, and if you don’t believe me, consider the intense debate in the past few days over two magazine covers.

Print journalism isn’t dead, and neither is its struggle to figure out how to depict women. Consider Lena Dunham on the cover of Vogue and Hillary Clinton on the front of the New York Times Magazine.

Vogue wins this one, big time, if you ask me.

Yes, yes, there are stories accompanying both covers. I found the NYT piece okay, but a bit of a predictable snooze — we get it, Hillary’s the center of the universe. Duh. In contrast, I really enjoyed Vogue’s piece about Dunham — I learned a lot and love her even more. (And yes, I love Girls — go ahead, judge away.)

And yes, Dunham’s been photoshopped.  Again, how do I put it? Duh. It’s Vogue. What’s amazing isn’t that they photoshopped her but that they put her on the cover in the first place. Lena Dunham is no supermodel. She’s not Cameron Diaz or even Drew Barrymore. She’s a little frumpy. (A lot frumpy in her role on Girls.) But not on the cover of Vogue. She looks fucking awesome — but in a Lena Dunham way. Her expression is wry, her hands posed in way that perfectly evokes her personality. Go Annie Leibovitz. I LOVE IT. If they hadn’t photoshopped her, everyone would have complained about that.

Dunham’s into fashion, as I learned in the Vogue piece. Zac Posen was her babysitter! Now, why he let her wear that yellow dress to the Golden Globes is another story, but I loved seeing her in Vogue and I don’t care that they photoshopped her. It’s not like they gave her 6-feet legs and long blonde hair. She’s Lena Dunham in Vogue.

By contrast, I’m so pissed at the New York Times. When’s the last time you saw a male politician look that hideous on the magazine’s cover? Never.  I did a search to see who designed this train wreck, figuring it’s the replacement for that super design guy who recently announced he’s leaving to go to Apple. To my surprise, no, he’s the one who did it to her. And yes, I mean it when I say “did it to her.” Would anyone do that to Bill Clinton (okay, maybe they would) or any of the Bushes or an Obama? NO THEY WOULD NOT. Hillary Clinton has never been off limits when it comes to insults and purposefully unflattering photos and really, what the fuck does she have to do to escape it? I guess it stopped for a while when she lost in the presidential primary. Okay, be a loser, Hillary. That will get you some love.

If that NYT cover doesn’t scream that even the liberal media elite is terrified of a woman in power, I don’t know what does.

I work in journalism. Not at the level of the NYT or Vogue, to be sure, but we debate covers every week at Phoenix New Times. My boss would never allow for a cover like the NYT one, and not just because it’s a hideous image. He’d laugh and say, “Don’t be so obvious!” Why put  “Planet Hillary” under a picture of planet Hillary? Try a little harder, he’d tell us and he’d be right. And what about all the fine print you can’t read? (Our art director would NEVER put crap like that on the cover; I can’t wait to discuss this with him tomorrow!)

Here’s the real reason the NYT got away with putting that image on the cover and Vogue photoshopped Lena, and it could, to be honest, be why I’m sympathetic to Vogue: cover sales. The NYT magazine gets shoved in your Sunday paper; it’s not hanging at news racks and perched in stands on Walgreens from sea to shining sea. Who would pick up that Hillary cover? I can barely look at it.

So yeah, good for you NYT mag, you got a bunch of mentions on Twitter. You took a pot shot at a woman who’s simultaneously one of the most powerful women in the world and the easiest target there is. And you didn’t have to risk losing cover sales. Nice.

Real journalism should show people as they truly are, and in this case, neither publication did that (exactly). But Vogue stayed true to its vision (albeit a shallow one), while the NYT got ugly. (Both literally and figuratively.)

I’ll stick with Vogue.