According to this link ([www.msnbc.msn.com]), there is no interview with Dugard.
"Dugard was not interviewed by the magazine, although people close to her spoke at length about her rehabilitation and that of her two daughters, Angel, 15, and Starlit, 11. Dugard and her daughters are recovering from their long ordeal at an undisclosed location in northern California; Jaycee’s mother, Terry Probyn, is with them.
The 10-page article is accompanied by many pictures of Dugard and her mother. Dugard’s daughters are shown only from the back.
TODAY’s Matt Lauer asked People’s managing editor, Larry Hackett, if the magazine paid for the photographs, which were taken by a private photographer engaged by the family."
This is going to sound a bit dark, but I'm curious as to how her photo today would match up with an age progression photo put out by the police. I'm always curious as to how accurate those things are.
@hortense: I was actually watching that when I was watching yesterday's oprah, about missing children. They focused on quite a few stories, some of which the child was only 2 or less when taken, back in the 80's. I wonder if those ones are at all accurate, when there's such a huge gap (a 2 year old to a 23 year old for example).
I'm really interested in reading this interview. She looks happy and well-adjusted in the picture, and I've heard good things about her reintegrating with society and her family, but I can't imagine there aren't any deep-seated psychological issues there. With all the isolation and abuse she suffered over 18 years, how can there not be? Hopefully her family won't take her smiling and saying she's okay as proof that she really is and gets her good treatment.
@FormerEnglishMajor: yes. And I'm fascinated that some lawyers choose to be court-appointed defenders. When faced with building a not-guilty case for these criminals, I suppose acting ability (what if he really hadn't murdered those people? Let's pretend...) must come in handy.
@ardentlilac: From what I've heard, for a lot of public defenders it isn't so much their first choice for a lot, it's a matter of finding a job and trying to stay afloat above their steep law school debts.
And for others, they do it for altruistic reasons-- to give a voice to those who can't afford their own representation in the criminal justice system (many of whom *are* innocent). Perhaps a legal Jezzie can clarify-- I was under the impression that as a PD you can't pick and choose your cases, and you need valid legal grounds (beyond just finding your defendant creepy) to be recused from a case?
@formergr: It's mostly the second reason, I think. Anyone who takes a job as a PD expecting to make a dent in their law school debts is pretty sorely mistaken!
But as a public defender the amount of cases like Garrido's are a reeeally small percentage. The majority of cases aren't this notorious or out there.
@formergr: Yeah, PD's aren't that well-paid, although the nice trade-off with a government job is that you get more of a "regular" schedule than a corporate or private attorney.
When I was in law school (I have the degree but chose not to pursue a career in the field), I took a course taught by three appellate defenders. One said that he went into it because "9 out of 10 are guilty, but I do it for the one who isn't."
Sorry to be OT. Jaycee looks lovely and I hope she is recovering well.
@maybeimamazed02: @ardentlilac: I just feel for Jaycee having to deal with a trial. The guy is guilty. Cop your damn plea, you've done enough to her, and serve your time. He was sane enough to keep her hidden and tell her daughters that she was their sister - he knew what he was doing. Putting Jaycee on the witness stand is inhumane. I don't see why the PD's job is to get the defendant to say "not guilty" and go to trial, rather than - look man, no jury is going to have sympathy for you.
@Cher_Horowitz: I feel the same way, but then I consider the other options. If they chose not to do this, you just know somewhere like TMZ would be paying much more for a shot of her going into a courthouse. At least this way it's on her own terms. I'm glad she looks healthy.
@Adah: True, but I think this is one of those situations where there really should be no media circus until she's had some serious time to begin to address what she went through. But you're right - at least this seems to be on her own terms.
@Cher_Horowitz: Agreed. In a situation where she has been the victim, this is a way for her to re-assert some control over how her story is being told. Better to release an image of her smiling and radiant in a picture taken from the privacy of her own home than to have photographers scrambling to get the "first" picture, in which she's stressed/scared/vulnerable.
It's sad that she even has to deal with this after all she's been through, but it seems that she's getting some good PR advice so she can continue to privately seek the help and support she needs.
@s.s.blackorchid: Ah, finally some sense! Why Cosmo, Elle et al attempt to sell me magazines that are essentially books filled with pictures of women who are prettier, richer and thinner than me is absolutely beyond comprehension!
Christian may offend some stay-at-home moms with her generalizations about women who "don't work" (and she does apologize for this)
Staying at home raising a family IS work. Notice if you don't stay home with your kids, you usually have to pay someone else to take care of them. Because it's a JOB.
The definition of "work" here confuses me. Fancy ladymags, when you decide to move from idle glamorpusses to frazzled grad students, you can find me in the back of the lab by the big centrifuge.
I'm stuck in a bit of rabbit hole on this one. The examples listed - Lauren Conrad, Jessica Simpson, Kardashians - all work. And I'm not talking about the work that we see in their "reality" or "publicized" lives. All of these women run their own businesses and have both creative and corporate decisionmaking roles. That's actually pretty badass, if you think about it.
But why don't we have the opportunity to think about? Why isn't the interview about Jessica Simpson's design process in making her shoes (if she even does it herself or how she selects her creative team), or how the Kardashian girls tried to distinguish their boutique from others in L.A. to make it successful, etc.? Are these women themselves trying to keep all of their real work behind the curtain, or is it their publicists? Is it just the ladymags who think we would be bored to hear about LC's first experiences with the publishing world?
These women don't have to be boring. So who is making them that way? Why do all of these women ,who have varying degrees of success in their field, painted in such one-dimensional terms?
@odinsraven: You make SUCH a good point. And it is hard to determine who is responsible for this decision-making and how accurate a representation of reader expectations and celebrity wishes it is.
Maybe they have research showing that readers aren't interested in the kind of information you're suggesting. I mean, I am. You likely are. But there must be some reason why that's not the kind of content being offered.
Or maybe not. Maybe nobody's ever asked readers? Maybe female celebs are expected only to be the pretty face of their empires, and their people worry about audiences being turned off if they demonstrate to great a role in their own enterprises? But I completely agree with you that the writers is wrong about the amount of "work" these women are doing all the time.
@odinsraven: I was going to say something similar, but you are exceptionally eloquent in regards to the subject. But Lauren Conrad has both published a roman a clef this summer as well as debuting a retail fashion line at Kohl's, and Jessica Simpson has similarly been working on a television series as well as having her various name-branded retail divisions. Why does one person's work get to be "work" while someone else's gets to be "not work"? I think part of this is judgment leveled at the creative arts fields, and the accompanying celebrity-branded ways of making money being seen as 'less worthy' professional fields than other more distinguished professions, but it's also a division within the arts field itself: why is Jessica Biel considered an out of work actor? Because she does not work constantly? She's put out a rather sizeable body of work in her time as an actor, and I think the tone of the article would've been better suited to wonder not so much why "jobless" women are on the covers, but instead why women who have interesting and diverse jobs are reduced to their love lives and their taste in shoes and shit like that.
I didn't mean to write an essay on the subject, and I'm certainly not rooting for the celebrity-industrial complex wherein people can brand themselves and sell something as a product, which I do find to be rather vacuous in terms of depth, but it still takes effort to do things, this is still a very real business and there is still the very real risk of failure if they do not succeed, and I don't think it's really fair to decide whose job is actual work and whose is not. If we're going down that road, I'd say it's the magazine editors who aren't working.
@ampersandparade: The only reason Lauren Conrad has a line or anything "worthy" of publishing is because she has become a reality tv star and some doors have opened for her more easily than to others. Doesn't mean she has talent. So i would paraphrase the title question and ask: "Why do women's magazines pick covers girls who do not have talent?"
@Rocket Queen: But how do you think she was chosen for that show in the first place? A lottery? She had to have something going for her in order to be in that position, and it had to be more than being young and pretty because there's a buttload of young and pretty out there.
I don't actually know anything about Conrad but opportunity is usually more than dumb luck. She had to have a talent of some kind to land a regular starring role on a successful TV show, even if it's a faux reality show.
My aunt tried to start a regional women's magazine when she lived in Virginia, it ended up tanking, but mostly because her male partner embezzled from it.
It was pretty great, devoted to the lives of real women and girls in the area. I remember cover photos of 4 generations of women in one family, or a shot of a woman in her Army uniform from the 40s.
@lucyjae: That sounds so cool. If I knew a damn thing about magazine publishing, I'd be looking into maybe starting something like that up on the side. Maybe not regional, but do a limited paper run based on subscriptions or something.
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: I've always thought about self-publishing something creative on the side. Something twice annual or something like that, to extend the creative juices. I wouldn't know where to start really, but it's got to be rewarding, and I think it's great that lucyjae's aunt took the risk, even if it failed. It takes a lot of bravery and self-confidence to do something bold, and I respect that a lot.
I'm not sure I'd feel better to see "working" actresses as opposed to "not-as-working" actresses. Either way, these people are celebrities who spend a few hours on sets a few months out of the year. I understand they may lead otherwise busy lives, doing press and clothing lines and whatnot, and I do sometimes respect their talent. But... c'mon, what are we asking for a here?" A regular woman who works a 9-5 year round? They are on covers BECAUSE they lead exceptional lives and live off their fame. None of them are regular working stiffs like the rest of us.
I suppose I wouldn't mind seeing more like Michelle Obama or even Tina Fey types on covers - women who may have celebrity-level fame, but are also noted for their other contributions.
But Julianna Margulies vs. Jessica Simpson? Whatever.
10/14/09
"Dugard was not interviewed by the magazine, although people close to her spoke at length about her rehabilitation and that of her two daughters, Angel, 15, and Starlit, 11. Dugard and her daughters are recovering from their long ordeal at an undisclosed location in northern California; Jaycee’s mother, Terry Probyn, is with them.
The 10-page article is accompanied by many pictures of Dugard and her mother. Dugard’s daughters are shown only from the back.
TODAY’s Matt Lauer asked People’s managing editor, Larry Hackett, if the magazine paid for the photographs, which were taken by a private photographer engaged by the family."
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
/shallow
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
And for others, they do it for altruistic reasons-- to give a voice to those who can't afford their own representation in the criminal justice system (many of whom *are* innocent). Perhaps a legal Jezzie can clarify-- I was under the impression that as a PD you can't pick and choose your cases, and you need valid legal grounds (beyond just finding your defendant creepy) to be recused from a case?
10/14/09
But as a public defender the amount of cases like Garrido's are a reeeally small percentage. The majority of cases aren't this notorious or out there.
10/14/09
When I was in law school (I have the degree but chose not to pursue a career in the field), I took a course taught by three appellate defenders. One said that he went into it because "9 out of 10 are guilty, but I do it for the one who isn't."
Sorry to be OT. Jaycee looks lovely and I hope she is recovering well.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
It's sad that she even has to deal with this after all she's been through, but it seems that she's getting some good PR advice so she can continue to privately seek the help and support she needs.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/29/09
Staying at home raising a family IS work. Notice if you don't stay home with your kids, you usually have to pay someone else to take care of them. Because it's a JOB.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
But why don't we have the opportunity to think about? Why isn't the interview about Jessica Simpson's design process in making her shoes (if she even does it herself or how she selects her creative team), or how the Kardashian girls tried to distinguish their boutique from others in L.A. to make it successful, etc.? Are these women themselves trying to keep all of their real work behind the curtain, or is it their publicists? Is it just the ladymags who think we would be bored to hear about LC's first experiences with the publishing world?
These women don't have to be boring. So who is making them that way? Why do all of these women ,who have varying degrees of success in their field, painted in such one-dimensional terms?
09/29/09
Maybe they have research showing that readers aren't interested in the kind of information you're suggesting. I mean, I am. You likely are. But there must be some reason why that's not the kind of content being offered.
Or maybe not. Maybe nobody's ever asked readers? Maybe female celebs are expected only to be the pretty face of their empires, and their people worry about audiences being turned off if they demonstrate to great a role in their own enterprises? But I completely agree with you that the writers is wrong about the amount of "work" these women are doing all the time.
09/29/09
I didn't mean to write an essay on the subject, and I'm certainly not rooting for the celebrity-industrial complex wherein people can brand themselves and sell something as a product, which I do find to be rather vacuous in terms of depth, but it still takes effort to do things, this is still a very real business and there is still the very real risk of failure if they do not succeed, and I don't think it's really fair to decide whose job is actual work and whose is not. If we're going down that road, I'd say it's the magazine editors who aren't working.
09/29/09
09/29/09
I don't actually know anything about Conrad but opportunity is usually more than dumb luck. She had to have a talent of some kind to land a regular starring role on a successful TV show, even if it's a faux reality show.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
meee-meeeeep! *woooooooosh*
09/29/09
It was pretty great, devoted to the lives of real women and girls in the area. I remember cover photos of 4 generations of women in one family, or a shot of a woman in her Army uniform from the 40s.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
I suppose I wouldn't mind seeing more like Michelle Obama or even Tina Fey types on covers - women who may have celebrity-level fame, but are also noted for their other contributions.
But Julianna Margulies vs. Jessica Simpson? Whatever.