Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 1:50 AM
Sun Nov 8
20 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/20/09
10/20/09
So, since women's magazines are struggling with readership across the board, why don't editors conclude that we ARE voting with our dollars for less lies and less bullshit? #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
This says it all. They -don't- consider these changes to just be alterations, the language clearly indicates that they're taking this particular person, and making significant changes to make them correct. Not just more attractive, but actually fixed from being incorrect.
In my field of study (criminal justice), corrections is something that happens to a person -after- they've done something wrong. I suspect the editors of SELF have a similar meaning in mind. #kellyclarksonselfcover
10/20/09
I picked up a copy of Oprah's magazine last week and was pleasantly surprised at the women modeling some of the clothes - they were all shapes, sizes, races - and included a woman with a prosthetic leg, which I have NEVER seen before in a mainstream mag. Yeaaaa for Oprah. #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
Well, of course she prefers photoshop. The picture above this post is actually the AFTER photo. She had her staff originally work on this one:
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
Help me out here, Kate White, because I'm pretty confused. The magazine industry is hurting. Magazines are laying off members of their staff and folding left and right. People just aren't buying that many magazines anymore. Glamour is cutting its staff. Women's magazines are cutting their teen titles. Jane is gone. Many smaller women's magazines have folded. Yet, you say that women need to back up their actions with their pocketbooks. Kate, let me spell this out for you: women are acting with their pocketbooks. They aren't buying your magazine as much anymore. #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
Fitness was the easiest to stop purchasing: it has so little content, and most of it is along the lines of, "Hey, you can save calories by replacing your low-carb rice cakes with aged cardboard! You'll find cardboard more chewable if you moisten it with your tears."
Self and Shape are a bit better, but I gradually realised I didn't like "the product" there either. They have fashion and makeup spreads which are completely pointless, the exercises are repetitive... and, more importantly, I realised that they made me feel worse, not better. And they almost never motivated me to exercise. They just made me feel like shit about myself, because here were all these things I could be doing, things I could be doing tomorrow, but I wasn't. And I knew I wasn't going to do them tomorrow either.
The thing is, these magazines make their money from making you feel bad. I bought them because I felt bad, and I wanted to feel better about my body. The mags made me feel worse, and so I bought more of them. Until, one day, I saw that they didn't help me feel better or lose weight, but that packing my lunch did. So now I buy food magazines (for packed lunch and cooked-dinner inspiration), and Harper's Bazaar to be inspired by the outfits. #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09
I'm 90 percent sure I'm going to let my Vogue subscription die when it runs out in January. I'm just tired of it. And the Nine cover just doesn't look right, like they all smashed them together randomly and didn't even try to make it look cohesive. I'm tired of the snobbery and the "little houses" remarks, and I'm really tired of all the "We're going to make a composite photo!" stuff. #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09
We could debate this all day. Or we could just find out the answer already. #maghag
10/20/09
The editor of M-C then? Liz Jones. And she wrote an excellent piece about this decision and her subsequent resignation from the magazine, in the Daily Fail. [www.dailymail.co.uk] #maghag
10/20/09
Still, initial inquiries into the matter suggest that Lucy Danziger's pants may, indeed, by a little on fire. #maghag
10/20/09
Self magazine, however, advertises itself as a provider of content for and about women. The dishonesty in photoshopping women's bodies just seems more blatant and damaging in this case, although I abhor it in any situation. #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
For some reason this pains me. She's an editor? Shouldn't it be "it won't be purchased"? (I really hate people who seem to be inventing their own grammar rules on the spot, especially when they are in charge of a print publication) #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09
PS--It is not fair that someone so un-awesome can have a last name so very close to my fave metal band. #maghag
10/20/09
This is untrue in the case of Self. I understand why fashion magazines say this. I don't like it, but I understand it. Fashion mags like Vogue are supposed to be a fantasy. No one can afford the clothes, and no one could wear them in real life (ostrich feathers don't hold up well on the subway). No one reads them for practical advice.
But Self is not a fashion magazine. It's a self-help magazine. It gives exercise plans and diets. It has tips for handling stress. If you do all of the things it recommends, it implies you can be like the woman on the magazine. Putting a woman on the cover who is airbrushed is a contradictory. #maghag
10/20/09
10/20/09