15. Russian Glamour, June 2009
Beyoncé's skin looked digitally darkened on the cover of Russian Glamour — and the editors had a guide! A magazine called Joy used the same shot in December 2007. Was something lost in translation? Save your "black Russian" jokes until the end.

14. L'Oreal, August 2008
Beyoncé's skin seemed very light in ads for Feria haircolor. One theory: she was washed out by the strong lighting usually used in shooting hair.

13. Vogue, November 2009
The cast of Nine is chock-full of gorgeous women, but this shot is a mindscramble of random rays of sunlight in hair and dresses with edges so sharp they look like they're for paper dolls. As I wrote in October: "I'm guessing [Annie] Leibovitz shot them each separately and then did a composite, but when you have a person who doesn't cast a shadow on the lady next to her, then that person is a vampire." Poor Kate Hudson looks like she was slapped on as an afterthought.

12. Complex, April/May 2009
Kim Kardashian's waist was cinched, her thighs were slimmed, her skin skin smoothed out and her hairline was cleaned up. Plus, her head appears to be a different shape in the "after" image. Who would have thought a skull could be made "sexier"?

11. Self, September 2009
Kelly Clarkson's "Total Body Confidence" came from digitally slimming her waist and behind. Two Self editors explained that the cover: "is not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best."

10. King Arthur poster, 2004
Movie marketers felt they must, they must, they must increase the bust. Ironically, Keira Knightley told the Guardian that she lost her chest, doing archery and preparing for the role:

To fight, convincingly, shoulder to shoulder, she had to do that thing that is so de rigueur, which is totally to change your body shape. "I was about three times the size I am now. It worried me, but it was cool, it was a body that was doing what it should do. I haven't got a clue because I don't weigh myself, but it was all muscle and I was big. My neck disappeared. My chest flattened even more. It wasn't the most feminine thing in the world, but it worked for the part, because there was strength there, and it was needed."

Of course, Hollywood can't imagine a world in which people would see a movie starring an athletic, flat-chested woman. So a digital boob job followed.

9. Redbook, July 2007
The crazy thing about the Faith Hill Redbook cover is not that it was Photoshopped — it's that this is the standard amount of digital altering that goes into a cover. Unlike some true Photoshop disasters, there are no alarming mistakes here to tip you off. That makes it easy to accept the retouched image without even blinking. Faith Hill is a beautiful woman. But she needed 11 different kinds of alterations before she could be on the cover of Redbook. What a world.

8. Campari calendar, 2008
Jessica Alba: Just another woman whose real body wasn't good enough. In this case, her waist needed to be nipped in so she could shill liquor.

7. Vogue, May 2008
RoboGwyneth looks like a robot, or an alien, depending on whom you ask. One thing is for sure: Her head and neck are not in the same space-time continuum.

6. Redbook, June 2003
Jennifer Aniston's head was placed on to Jennifer Aniston's body — from another photo shoot. At the time, her publicist, Steven Huvane, said: "It's a combination of three pictures. If you're going to do it, then at least match her head up to her body, and make the neck look like it belongs to her. I still can't figure out which exact picture the face came from." A Redbook spokeswoman downplayed the changes: "The only things that were altered in the cover photo were the color of her shirt and the length of her hair, very slightly, in order to reflect her current length."

The neck does look alarmingly unreal, and her head and waist are out of sync somehow. Angelina is surely to blame.

5.Redbook, July 2003
The month after the Aniston debacle, Redbook was at it again: According to USA Today, "[Julia's] head comes from a paparazzi shot taken at the 2002 People's Choice awards. Her body, meanwhile, is from the Notting Hill movie premiere [in 1999]." Julia's publicist, Marcy Engelman, said, at the time: "It's a shame they didn't use the body that went with the head, because it was a great Giorgio Armani pantsuit (that she wore to the People's Choice awards)."

4. Newsweek, March 2005
The editors used Martha's head and a model's body, because Ms. Stewart was still in jail when the issue was being put together. It wasn't supposed to be a photograph, anyway, it was art: "The piece that we commissioned was intended to show Martha as she would be, not necessarily as she is,'' Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor at Newsweek, told The New York Times. Staley acknowledged that the cover carried a disclaimer: ''In this case, we identified this piece as a photo illustration." As Martha would say, it's a "good thing" you did.

3. Seventeen, May 2003
Think about all the Buffy plots which could have been orchestrated around Sarah Michelle Gellar's weird wrist appendage over there on the left, if her arm actually looked like that.

2. GQ, February 2003.
Some people saw Titanic over and over again — but they never saw those legs, on the left. Kate Winslet was pissed about being trimmed down on this cover, saying:

"The retouching is excessive. I do not look like that and more importantly I don't desire to look like that. I actually have a Polaroid that the photographer gave me on the day of the shoot… I can tell you they've reduced the size of my legs by about a third. For my money it looks pretty good the way it was taken."

1. Ralph Lauren Blue Label ad, October 2009
In which model Filippa Hamilton was turned into a string of spaghetti.

It's no surprise that Self put Clarkson on its key September issue – her August 2007 cover was a top seller that year, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. But according to WWD Memo Pad's Stephanie D. Smith (a former colleague), "The issue was the magazine's worst seller through September on newsstands, pulling in 220,000 copies and causing the magazine to miss its rate base that month." What went wrong? It's tempting to believe that widespread disdain at a grotesque Photoshop job was to blame, but that's not the whole story.

Once upon a time, women's magazines had a list of rules of what worked on covers –- which teases, colors, numbers postures, type of celebrity. The media world is a lot more crowded now, the rules are continually broken and disproved, and any ladymag editor will readily admit that predicting what will sell on a cover is by no means a science. Would you have guessed, for example, that Zooey Deschanel would be Self's best selling cover so far this year, outselling even number two contender Beyonce? (That's according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations' publisher reports).

Something that fanned the popular outrage against the Self cover was the fact that anyone who cares could find out exactly what Clarkson really looks like online – and did. Everyone knows there's an element of fantasy in magazines, but when the reality (seen in hourly paparazzi and red carpet shots on blogs) and the polished image are so glaringly far apart, you can't blame readers for feeling like they're being taken for fools and walking on by.

Aggressive Photoshopping also serves to make all celebrities look exactly the same — who hasn't stood at a newsstand and wondered which indistinguishable blondish and lean cover star is which? A casual glance might easily miss the fact that that's the ever-popular Clarkson, thoroughly transformed. (Incidentally, Clarkson also got the shrink treatment from the photo department at Elle in 2007, but fewer people seem to expect body-positivity - or reality - from a high fashion magazine.)

Yeah, Deschanel hasn't moved as many units as Clarkson or Beyonce. But take a look at that cover photo again. It's sunny and appealing – and it looks like her.

A Better Self In 2010 [WWD]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop

Danziger's appearance on a Women at NBCU breakfast panel last Wednesday shows she really needs to learn when to cut her losses — we don't need to hear her say that "Kelly liked the picture" for the eight zillionth time, or that "we did not make her look skinny, we made her look better." But the real kicker is her explanation for whittling Clarkson away in the first place. She says,

[P]eople like to say, "Oh, the media is the problem." I would say that, if we're really honest, the reason some of these magazines get bought by people is because they want to see that image. It is a consumer-driven market. If you put something on the newsstand and they don't like it, it won't get bought.

She goes on to say we could "debate [...] all day" whether magazine Photoshopping or a consumer desire for unrealistic images came first — but it's clear which side she falls on. And even though she thinks her consumers demand Photoshopping, she still claims that Self doesn't really use it that much. The magazine is "as honest as they come," she says — except, presumably, for the whole Kelly Clarkson thing.

Danziger's argument that she's just giving her customers what they demand echoes Cosmo editor Kate White's "contribution" to the whole Ralph Lauren Photoshopping mess last week. In her (rather superfluous) appearance on the Today Show, White said,

I think women have to protest - and back it up. Because sometimes women say they want real girls in stories, but often those stories don't rate as well. Or if you put a heavy celebrity on the cover it might not sell as well. So women have to complain, and then back it up with their actions. Their pocketbooks.

Both editors neatly pass the buck to magazine readers, whose appetites they claim really dictate how teensy a cover girl must be. This is pretty disingenuous, especially given that women's magazine editors set themselves up as tastemakers in so many other areas. They sell ads — and get free shit for advertorial features — largely by convincing companies that women will buy the products they recommend. They position themselves as trendsetters at the forefront of fashion — not followers who just report on what women are already wearing. Especially in the case of Self, they give health and lifestyle advice, and while they sometimes feature reader opinions, they don't base all their tips on workouts readers already perform. Women's magazines are completely in the business of telling women what to wear, what to buy, what to eat, and what to do, and the idea that women tell them what to put on the cover is ludicrous.

Moreover, it's hard to even evaluate Danziger's claims about readers' tastes, since they don't really have very many options. There is no mainstream American women's magazine that features un-Photoshopped models of all shapes and sizes. There's Bust, but with its smaller budget and bimonthly publication schedule, it's not a real competitor. Really, the major women's magazines represent something of a cartel of unrealistic female images, and women searching for an alternative will have a hard time "voting with their pocketbooks" — there's nothing to vote for.

Of course, it's true that Danziger and White are in the business of selling magazines, not making us all hate our bodies. Their reluctance to experiment with, say, not Photoshopping probably has as much to do with fear of the unknown — and perhaps fear of advertiser response — as it does with misogyny and sizeism. But as I've said before, women's magazines are in financial trouble, and the old formulas clearly aren't working so well anymore. In fact, the biggest ad gains this month were reported, not by Cosmo or Self, but by Southern Living and Real Simple, which sport food, not models, on their covers, and which credit their success to helping women actually do stuff. So maybe it's time for editors like White and Danziger to stop making excuses about what consumers want, and give them some actual choices.

3 Minute Ad Age: October 20, 2009 [AdAge]
Top 5 Monthlies: Giving Women What They Want [MinOnline]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop

Ralph Lauren Fires Photoshopped Model For Being "Too Fat"

Todd and her mother have always bonded over food: her mom's a comfort eater, and this becomes something they share. However, as the author grows up, she begins a cycle of comfort eating and yo-yo dieting that, oddly enough, strains their relationship.

Whenever I managed to lose weight, my mother said she was happy for me. But I detected a certain tightness in her voice, or maybe it was simply that I felt guilty about abandoning her: Now that I was a thin person, we no longer shared the extra large buckets of popcorn together. It was as if I'd gotten up from the kitchen table where we'd snacked and talked intimately and left her sitting across from an empty chair. I suspect she believed that my efforts to be thin were a rejection of her, and in a way, she was right. As much as I relished the smaller sizes and all the compliments from friends, every time I refused dessert or went for a run or lifted weights, I was warding off the specter of my mother's body, fighting the fear that I'd wake up one day and discover that somehow I'd become her.

Of course, this isn't really about food. It's about love, projection, acceptance, and female relationships in microcosm. Each relationship is obviously different, but we get so much of our sense of self from our mothers that it's inevitable that it should effect our perceptions - even if it's just the example of someone completely comfortable with herself, or blessedly disinclined to mention such things. These relationships can be famously damaging, or a source of bonding and mutual support - Beyoncé and her mom recently embarked on a joint diet. And the projection goes both ways; I know I've been quick to perceived criticism in comments of my mother's that I think, in retrospect, were just reflections of my own insecurities. A mother may not influence the way you present yourself to the world sexually, but she sure does effect the pattern of your interactions with other women. And, as women, we often couch things in terms of appearance that really have nothing to do with it. "I love your dress," we may use as a mode of introduction in a social situation - something men would never do. We feel we need to comment on the physical, for whatever reason, and a lot of times, this is probablt mirrored in the family. Hortense made a really smart point:

I think mothers and daughters use weight as a means to address, perhaps, the underlying issues behind a gain or a loss. It's easier to make a comment, I guess, about your child's physical appearance ("Are you eating enough? Are you dieting again?") than to ask, "Is something bothering you?" "Are you sad?" "Are you stressed out?"

In Todd's case, the balance of emotional power shifts with their weights. When she puts on some weight and her mother loses some - leaving them the same size - her initial reaction is resentment:

Let's start with the fact that my mother now had what I did not: time to exercise and make healthy meals. I'd be able to lose weight, too, I told myself, if I were a semiretired librarian with a free nutritionist. But it was more than that. For years, I'd blamed my mother for my yo-yoing weight, or, more specifically, for teaching me to associate food with comfort.

But the fact that her mother's thrilled with the new weight, and the author is distraught, ultimately provides a "teachable moment": for the first time, Todd realizes that it's not the food that's really at issue. "After all, thinness isn't the same thing as happiness and solace isn't the same as food." Of course, she only sort of believes that - as does Self, one can't help think nowadays. The piece is still predicated on the assumption that heavy = bad, and that bad habits and depression are the same thing as "weight" when in many ways it seems like two separate issues. The two end up bonding over healthy weight loss, and in a way food - unhealthy food - is still a demon and a villain, albeit one they're vanquishing together. (After all, bonding over food is not in itself bad: it can be wonderful and natural.) But the overall point is well taken: mothers and daughters and weight are a fraught issue. It makes sense: our relationship begins with feeding; we literally derive our nourishment from our mothers. Later, they form our habits, and later still a large part of our sense of self. The operative word is just that - self. (And that's with a small "S," by the way.)

Bonding With Mom Over Comfort Foods [MSNBC via Self]
Beyoncé's Mother/Daughter Diet [Extra]

On GMA this morning, Danziger unconvincingly said, "We didn't make [Clarkson] look thinner. I added a little height, because I wanted the impact of that cover." Then she changed the subject, saying "you want a colorful cover." But obviously the controversy isn't about the color of Clarkson's top (which is nice, for the record) — it's about the fact that SELF's version of her body bears no resemblance to the truth. In response to criticisms like this, Danziger says, "you can love a person, love her body, and retouch a picture." Is that like "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

In the Today Show interview seen above, Danziger spouted even more crap. After assuring viewers that "we love Kelly for the confidence that she exudes from within," she explained that on a cover, "you want to capture the essence of you at your best." Apparently this essence is just a little bit smaller than your actual physical body. She also says, "everyone can love who they are from the inside out, and want to achieve your goals." But Clarkson has achieved her goals — she's confident in herself and her work, and has repeatedly said that she's happy with her body. So how does artificially changing the way she looks help her achieve anything, or inspire anyone else to?

Danziger continues being offensive for the rest of the segment. She says, "no one can make you feel bad, only you can feel bad inside yourself," which is a pretty irresponsible statement coming from a magazine that publishes unrealistic (and unreal) images of women, and then advertises products to supposedly help actual people look more like these images. In fact, what the Clarkson cover reveals is that despite SELF's "health" focus, it's basically in the business of making women feel bad, just like the more fashion-oriented women's magazines.

Plus-size model and More To Love host Emme, who appeared alongside Danziger, touched on this fact as well. She called for "beautiful, aspirational images, but not all one way." But why do cover images need to be "aspirational" at all? There's no reason that looking at a picture of a celebrity has to make us want to be different, except in so far as this desire sells products. The idea that magazine readers want "aspirational" content is so accepted that Emme even parrots it when she's arguing for a greater diversity of body types, but what's wrong with images that are just beautiful, or just interesting, fun, or inspiring? It's time for more people question the notion that we read magazines because we like feeling unsatisfied with our bodies and our lives.

Kelly Clarkson's Photo Retouched [MSNBC]
Kelly Clarkson's Cover Photo Flap [ABC]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop
Self Editors Explain Covers Aren't Supposed To Look Realistic

Self's Editor-in-Chief Lucy Danziger, who admitted last week that this month's Kelly Clarkson cover was altered - "of course we do post-production correction on our images" - put up a post on her Self.com blog yesterday titled "Pictures That Please Us." She wrote that though the program the magazine uses is "technically not Photoshop," they "correct color and other aspects of the digital pictures we take and then publish the best version we can." Yes, every magazine cover is altered in some way, but the Kelly Clarkson isn't controversial just because it was color corrected or even because a few more locks of hair were added to her head: it's because the editors of Self constructed a new body that bears no resemblance to what Clarkson currently looks like. Below is the behind the scenes video Danziger posted, which makes it even more obvious that the cover shot was drastically altered.

Danziger explains that she's so pro-Photoshop that she's even had her own image altered:

When I ran the marathon five years ago, I was so proud of myself for completing it in under five hours and not walking a single step. But my hips looked big in some of the photos (I was heavier then), so when I wanted to put one of them on the editor's letter in SELF, I asked the art department to shave off a little. I am confident in my body, proud of what it can accomplish, but it just didn't look the way I wanted in every picture...

The same is true of vacation. I keep the pix that show us all happy and glowing and laughing and playing, not the ones where we are scowling or hungry or tired. The ones that make the Christmas card are the best of the best.

Everyone has left an unflattering picture out of a photo album, but that would be analogous to not running a photo of Kelly Clarkson with her eyes closed, not completely reshaping her body. Danziger may have altered her body in her marathon picture, but that just means that she was actually so insecure about her body that she drew herself a new one.

Oh, but Danziger goes on to claim that cover portraits are supposed to be idealized artists renderings of what the model could look like, especially since when she walks in to a photo shoot she may look as hideous as a real live person:

Portraits like the one we take each month for the cover of SELF are not supposed to be unedited or a true-to-life snapshot (more on that in a moment). When the cover girl arrives at the shoot, she is usually unmade up and casually dressed, and could be mistaken for a member of the crew or the editorial team in many cases. Once we do her makeup and hair, and dress her in beautifully styled outfits and then light her, we then set the best portrait photographer we can on a road to finding a pose and capturing a moment that shows her at her best.

Except they're not actually "capturing a moment" since the moment never existed! She continues:

Then we allow the postproduction process to happen, where we mark up the photograph to correct any awkward wrinkles in the blouse, flyaway hair and other things that might detract from the beauty of the shot. This is art, creativity and collaboration. It's not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best. That is the point...

Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. Did we publish an act of fiction? No. Not unless you think all photos are that. But in the sense that Kelly is the picture of confidence, and she truly is, then I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand.

So even though Kelly Clarkson has said she's confident at any size and Danziger points out that Clarkson works out and is "as fit as anyone else we have featured in Self," the magazine's staffers decided having her instantly shed a few pounds would make her look even more confident and healthy.

Oh-kay, then.

In another blog post, Ashley Mateo, the editorial assistant for Self's entertainment team, writes:

The truth is, we have absolutely no reason to get worked up over PhotoShop. Magazines don't hide the fact that they're always trying to sell issues—and to sell copies, you need to appeal to readers with the best writing and the best images possible. We all know celebrities are human (at least, we all should know), so why do we get bent out of shape when a magazine alters an image to portray a celebrity in their best light? No one wants to see a giant picture of some star's cellulite on the cover of a monthly mag—that's what we have tabloids for!

Right, because if magazines actually ran unaltered photos of celebrities, women may stop hating their arms because they look fat compared to Kelly Clarkson's. If we saw a few dimples on a healthy woman's thigh in a magazine, then tabloids might stop running photos with giant arrows pointing to the tell tale signs that celebrities are nothing more than normal human women. Danziger was right: the point is that magazine covers "inspire women to want to be their best." And the best way to keep women reading Self's workout recommendations and buying the useless beauty products advertised on its pages is to inspire them to keep chasing after a version of themselves that Doesn't. Really. Exist.

Lucy's Blog: Pictures That Please Us [Self.com]
SELFy Stars: The Wonders Of PhotoShop [Self.com]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop

On the new cover of Self below, the editors did everything they could to obscure what her body actually looks like. Her right arm is totally invisible and much of her left arm has been cropped out. A yellow dot strategically obscures the area where her butt meets her lower back and white pants against a white background make her legs almost invisible.

Much of the photo looks like it was drawn on a computer, which would be obvious even if Clarkson had been living in seclusion since From Justin To Kelly. But, the Photoshopping is even more obvious since Kelly Clarkson has been widely ridiculed in the past year for putting on weight. The pictures below were taken during a July 31 performance on Good Morning America.

At any rate, there is nothing wrong with the way Clarkson looks. She says in Self,

"My happy weight changes... Sometimes I eat more; sometimes I play more. I'll be different sizes all the time. When people talk about my weight, I'm like, 'You seem to have a problem with it; I don't. I'm fine!' I've never felt uncomfortable on the red carpet or anything."

But clearly the editors at Self don't share her opinion. Entertainment Tonight asked the magazine's Editor-in-Chief Lucy Danziger why Clarkson looks so drastically different on their cover and this was her reply:

"Yes, of course we do post-production corrections on our images," Editor-in-Chief Lucy Danziger tells ET. Airbrushing images is an industry standard, and the mag stands behind its decision. "SELF magazine inspires and informs our 6 million readers each month to reach their all around best," Lucy adds. "Kelly Clarkson exudes confidence, and is a great role model for women of all sizes and stages of their life. She works out and is strong and healthy, and our picture shows her confidence and beauty. She literally glows from within. That is the feeling we'd all want to have. We love this cover and we love Kelly Clarkson."

...but only if she's skinny. The Self editors must have known their alterations would be obvious, but what's particularly puzzling is why they asked Clarkson to be on the magazine in the first place. According to Self's editorial calendar, the September issue closed on July 1. Even if the photo shoot took place several weeks earlier (assuming the image wasn't just pasted together from old photos) it's not as if Clarkson's appearance changed radically in the past few months. These photos are from February and March:

Danziger is is right: Kelly Clarkson is a "great role model for women of all sizes." When the press goes after celebrities for gaining weight many apologize to the public, like Oprah Winfrey or Kirstie Alley, or frantically exercise and appear on the cover of Us flaunting their slimmed down selves like Jennifer Love Hewitt. So far Clarkson has only declared that she's OK with her body and backed her statements up by performing in clothing that exposes her figure, rather than hiding under billowy outfits. Of course, now Clarkson has appeared with a newly-slim body on the cover of Self, but it's a decision the editors made for her, rather than a message she wanted to put out herself.

Kelly Clarkson: Cover Controversy? [Entertainment Tonight]
Self Editorial Calendar [Conde Nast]

Earlier: Oprah's "Embarrassed" About Her Weight; I'm Pissed Off
Kirstie Alley On Oprah: Weight-Gain Humiliation, Jealousy Of Valerie Bertinelli
Jennifer Love Hewitt Wants You To Stop Talking About Her Body Unless You're Calling Her Skinny

• Rihanna's maybe moving on! But: She was seen getting cozy with Wilmer Valderrama. Isn't that dude bad news bears? He's been linked to Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Ashlee Simpson, Mandy Moore… [Mirror]

• So you know how Lindsay Lohan has a new Maserati? It's already been in a minor car accident. LL wasn't driving — her assistant hit a Subaru in front of them. [Just Jared]
• Is Angelina Jolie on a "crazy" diet called liquid detox? [The Sun]
• WTF: Nadya Suleman has fired the nurse-nannies from Angels in Waiting! She felt she was being judged or something? How the heck is she going to take care of 14 kids by herself? Seriously? [E!]
• Did Jennifer Aniston dump John Mayer over his Twitter obsession? [Daily Mail]
• This one time, Mary-Kate Olsen was driven off the road by the paparazi. "It was never written about,"she says. [Just Jared]
• Designer Rachel Roy has filed for divorce from hip-hop mogul Damon Dash. He co-founded Rocawear but has since been struggling with debt and bad business deals; she has her own line of women's clothing. They have two kids. This should be interesting. [NY Daily News]
• Jesus Luz says he did not cheat on Madonna with some random woman in Brazil: "The press created this story." Welcome to fame! [The Sun]
• Uh-oh: "Madonna's fling with Jesus Luz and her rumored hookup with A-rod may foil adoption plans." An official from Malawi's Ministry of Child Welfare says: "Our official policy is that we do not encourage our children to be sent into broken homes." [NY Daily News]
• Um, this report claims that Jesus wants to adopt a kid with Madonna. Grain of salt. [ONTD]
• Angelina Jolie's mother owes $60,000 in back taxes, despite having passed away in 2007. How do you fix that? [TMZ]
• Diablo Cody and her homies all wear matching necklaces which read "Fuck My Face." Heart-warming! [NY Mag]
• Here is a photograph of Amy Winehouse climbing over a spiked fence and being compared to Sideshow Bob. [Daily Mail]
• Lindsay Lohan's former roommate and Tila Tequila's ex-girlfriend Courtenay Semel has checked into rehab. [Page Six]
• Someone blogging as Leighton Meester but decidedly not Leighton Meester likes poetry, goes to a shrink and complains about the paparazzi. [NY Observer]
• Nicole Richie channels Lady Gaga in her pix for BlackBook. [Just Jared]
• Cindy Crawford is naked in the April issue of Allure, with some strategically placed soap bubbles. [The Superficial]
• Jessica "Slimpson"'s body "has now fully returned to its former glory" so you can all relax. [The Sun]
• Geri Halliwell is on a "man-ban." [The Star]
• Another day, another story about Hugh Grant making out with two women at the same time. In public. [Page Six]
• Kim Kardashian couldn't pronounce "philanthropic" at a charity event, and people laughed at her. Tragic! [Gatecrasher]
• Is Fergie heading to Washington to play a private concert for Sasha and Malia Obama? Is this why she is brunette now? Will she teach them to spell duchess with a T? [Gatecrasher]
• Coldplay's Chris Martin met kiddie band The Wiggles, got super psyched and them covered their song, "Fruit Salad." So punk rock. [The Sun]
• Chris Martin can't get Michael Jackson tickets! [Mirror]
• Maybe Chris Martin should bid on this Michael Jackson stuff up for auction? A Swarovski crystal-encrusted white glove could go for a mere $15,000. [NY Daily News]
• Speaking of Michael Jackson, he's invited the stars of Harry Potter to be All-Access guests opening night of his sold-out UK shows. Naturally. [The Sun]
• Anne Hathaway will play Judy Garland in an upcoming film and theater productions of Get Happy: The Life Of Judy Garland. Question is: Will she sing or lip sync? [E!]
• People. For the last time. Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson are not a couple in real life. Quit asking. Sheesh. [E!]
• But hey! Meet the New Moon wolf pack! Cute teenage Native American actors! [Socialite Life]
• Amanda Seyfried has pulled out of Zack Snyder's film Sucker Punch — described as Alice in Wonderland with machine guns — due to scheduling conflicts. Who should play Baby Doll, the girl in a mental institution in this big-budget action flick? [ONTD via Slashfilm via EW]
• "Syfy" is not a new kind of hip hop from the West coast but what the Sci-Fi Channel is calling itself now. It's also Polish slang for syphilis, so people aren't kidding when they say, "Sick name." [Jossip]
• Denise Richards went to see Charlie Sheen's new twins: "They're amazing." Isn't it nice when everyone gets along? [ET]
• Ooh, recession humor: Amanda Bynes has just signed to an ABC pilot called Canned, a show about a group of friends who are all fired on the same day. [ET]
• Kiefer Sutherland has signed on to play Jack Bauer for an eight season of 24. [Mirror]
• Anna Faris is on the new cover of Self magazine; cover also shills "1 minute abs." Huh? [Just Jared]
• Chelsea Handler's last night show has been extended through 2012. Bring back Russell Brand! [Reuters]
• Oh no: Problems with NBC's Parks & Recreation? Test audiences found it "unoriginal" and "too slow." [Deadline Hollywood]
• Kenny Rogers music helps stroke victims. [Wired]
• This article about Angela Lansbury contains the following sentence: "Ms. Lansbury, who describes herself as a homebody and a working actress, is described by pretty much everyone else as a 'living legend,' a phrase that makes her want to vomit 'a little,' she conceded." [WSJ]
• Blind item! "Which TV heartthrob had to wait until a young starlet's mom walked away before he could hit on her at a party?" [Gatecrasher]
• "This movie was never meant to be the end of Hannah Montana. The thing is, a lot of people put where the show's future lays in my hands — and it's not up to me. It's up to Disney and whether they want more episodes, and we hope that they do." — Miley Cyrus. [Yahoo via Billboard]
• "I had avoided getting married pretty good for, like, 23 years, and I ... secretly felt that men who were married admired me, like I was the last of the real gunslingers." — David Letterman. [People]

1. They're boring. You know that friend who goes on a diet and then talks about nothing else? Fitness mags are like that friend, except the diet (and exercise plan) lasts forever. At least Glamour has stories about bipolar boyfriends and kept women in foreign countries to break up all the expensive shit. But in this month's Shape, even the sex feature is all about exercising and eating leafy greens. Hot.

2. They treat food like an enemy. Sure, fashion magazines have diet tips, but these are mere skirmishes compared to fitness magazines' nuclear war. Shape's editor says in this month's letter that the holidays are a time to enjoy food. But a few pages later, Shape calls this time of year a "diet danger zone" and baked potatoes a "fat and calorie minefield." Cheesecake is not a guy with a grenade hiding in your fridge. It's just a food. Eat it — or don't. But don't take Shape's bizarre and difficult advice and measure out your portion with a shot glass.

3. They remind you of your mortality. Look, times are hard. Everyone is worried. The last thing we want is to remember that our health is extremely tenuous and the most innocent-seeming habits might kill us. Unfortunately, fitness magazines have to put out an issue every month, so they need a constant supply of newer, weirder health scares. Shape's latest: petting your dog. It won't give you a cold, but it could give you E. coli. So play it safe and wrap your entire body in plastic. Cut two holes. One is for shoving in leafy greens. The other is for sex, but only because it's good for you.

I took Mariska's self-assessment in a different light. I sincerely doubt that Hargitay is trying to tell Self readers that she's at all overweight. I think it's more that terms like "full figured," "curvy," "plus-size," and "big-boned," have become so obfuscated by the dieting industrial complex that their original meanings are essentially moot at this point.

In mag parlance, Gisele Bundchen and Jennifer Hudson are both "curvy," (which these days means "possessing breasts") and Whitney from America's Next Top Model is "plus-size." We got an angry email after New York Times reviewer Manohla Dargis described Keira Knightley as "a big-boned beauty" because the reader had assumed that Dargis was calling Knightley fat. The thing is, Knightley is "big-boned" according original definition of the word, which is "having a bone structure that is massive in contrast with the surrounding flesh." Her shoulders are broad and her clavicle protruding, but she has little flesh on her bones.

It's gotten to the point where one can't describe any form, male or female, without being accused of body snarking. However, fat prejudice is still insidious and rampant, as a new study in the U.K. shows 46% of people have referred to or thought of an overweight person by by a derogatory name, according to The Independent. Are we being over-sensitive about value-neutral words, or understandably concerned about weight messages sent from celebrities?

Mariska Hargitay's Skewed Self Assessment [Glossed Over]
Georgiana and Her Dull, Dallying Duke [NYT]
Many Britons Fattist Bullies, Survey Shows [Independent]

• We love Betsey Johnson, but we're kind of weirded out by the revelation that she made out with Anna Nicole Smith, like on a Monday in 10th Grade when you hear about some really random hookup from a party over the weekend. "She was wearing one of those dotted net see-through things with roses on her bullet bra underneath . . . It was when she was doing TrimSpa, and she looked really beautiful." Okay, but wouldn't that be around the same time she was doing eating contests on her reality show? Again: to each her own. [Page Six]
• Janet Jackson's apparently unironic lingerie line, Pleasure Principle, is out. "The legendary hip-hop and R&B diva teamed with Bruno Schiavi, the Australian lingerie designer behind Dr. Rey’s Shapewear line (named for “Dr. 90210” fixture Dr. Robert Rey), for her debut fashion duet. The 18-piece line is named after the hit single from Jackson’s 1986 multiplatinum album “Control,” is designed to be comfortable for a range of sizes — 32A to 44G, and is crafted of mostly satin and lace." [WWD]
• It seems like celebs are always lying about how they're going to wear Project Runway designs, but after guest-judging the Australian iteration, Kelly Rowland's actually making good. "Wearing the custom-made, scalloped outfit on stage at a concert in Cannes, France, a few nights ago, the diva strutted her stuff - which almost brought a tear to the Brisbane designer's eye."She was so lovely and the fact that she has worn my design makes me so proud," Juli Grbac gushed. NB: from the pic, we can kinda see why they usually back out. [News.com.au]

• I think we've already expressed that the descriptions of Madonna's upcoming "Sticky & Sweet" tour are seriously depressing us. This doesn't help. "The Sticky & Sweet tour, which opens in Cardiff on Saturday, features an intriguing mix of gangsta pimp, dominatrix and gipsy costumes. And with looks designed by Givenchy's Ricardo Tisci, shoes by Miu Miu, thigh-high boots custom-made by Stella McCartney and sundry items from Yves Saint Laurent and Roberto Cavalli, it leaves no fashion stone unturned." [Telegraph]
• Kids aren't the only ones spending less on back-to-school; apparently teachers are some of the "hardest hit" by the recession. "Teachers from across the country are reporting they are spending less on clothes, waiting for sales and sometimes changing where they shop — even after some taking summer jobs to offset the increasing cost of living, according to an informal survey by WWD." [WWD]
• Nina Garcia "reveals" her list of top-ten "essentials." Spoiler: a little black dress is one of them. [Dallas News]
• Olympic committee rules make uniform expression a challenge: "Because country names on the front must be written in the Latin alphabet, countries like China compensate by using Chinese characters on the back. Flags and sponsor logos must be in a certain place and a certain size. The colors are regulated." [NYT]
• Speaking of rules, official sponsor Nike has been forced to let Speedo make the games' swim suits; seems the banana hammocks are just more efficient. "The apparent benefit of the LZR, which has a novel hydrodynamic construction that compresses the body into a tube, reducing drag while at the same time improving muscle performance, became apparent in national Olympic trials." [Times of Times]
• Teeny tiny Broadway star Kristin Chenoweth loves her some Armani: '"They really came though for me, and I'm a die-hard fan," she gushes. "After [the Oscars] were over, he sent me six dozen long-stemmed white roses with a really beautiful letter that said, 'Thank you so much' and 'I wanna dress you all the time.' " [Yahoo]
• Following Moe's profile of the editrix feuding at Elle, New York defends the story's integrity: "Maureen's story drew on many reliable sources — some on the record, and some on background. We stand by its accuracy." [WWD]
• Wait, so they don't just wear them to look hot? Holly McPeak explains that bikinis are more comfortable for beach volleyball: "You don't have an issue of sweat and sand collecting in places that you don't want it to," she says. "It really is the most functional uniform for beach volleyball." Thank you, we'd assumed that. [NPR]
• Heidi Klum's new ads for her Jordache collection - ripping off Heidi Montag? We're gonna go with, no. [Yahoo]
• Although the study is not conclusive, seems the rich are indeed different - or at least richer. Sales aren't flagging at all on Rodeo Drive. [LAT]
• Speaking of the rich — or at any rate, the titled — peers in the House of Lords have called for a moratorium on the waste culture that is fast fashion. No commentary required. [Daily Mail]
• Does Steve Carrell's wardrobe make the movie? Um, not really. [Guardian]
• Hayden Panettiere's mother apparently prepared to hawk her daughter's undies for charity. She didn't, though. [The Sun]
• Sweater company Lutz + Patmos, who in the past have done lines with random celebrities like Kirsten Dunst and Liv Tyler, is collaborating with Jane Birkin, who — if equally unqualified — is, at least, unassailably cool. [Nylon]

•Your Diet

— Rene Todd talks about how she started dieting because, 3-4 months after her delivery, "there was no excuse for still wearing my maternity clothes." Except, maybe, you know, caring for a new baby (p. 32).
— Waiters and waitresses list all the terrible mistakes women make when eating food. We order "extra bread, always, and then ask for more." We "do funny trade-offs, such as ordering a salad but then having three or four margaritas." Gosh, we girls are so dumb! Luckily this feature also includes a bunch of classic ano tips like dipping the end of your fork in dressing instead of putting it on your salad. (p. 82)

— SELF recommends you "schedule a chocolate break." Which is easy if you melt the chocolate right onto your alarm clock. (p. 86)








•Your Wardrobe

— Like Glamour, SELF has a "fashion for every body type" feature (p. 72). SELF sets its version apart, however, by making it really hideous.
If you're curvy, for instance, it's disco time!












•Your Psyche

—"To stay focused and true to yourself," Lois Barth writes, "try creating a personal metaphor" — perhaps "an acrobat in a spangly leotard, spurring you to stretch yourself while squeezing in more fun." Because now even fun is something you need to "stay focused" on. (p. 21)
— You've heard of books that analyze your nightmares, but what about your daydreams? By definition these happen during the day, when you're conscious, but apparently they too need third-party interpretation. SELF's guide can help. For instance, if you're daydreaming about revenge, it might mean you don't like someone. Solution: volunteering! (p. 97)








•And, Most Importantly, Your Skin

— Don't drink from a water bottle — it will give you mouth wrinkles. Also, don't drink from a straw. (p. 48)
— Is your dull skin making you look OLD? You should probably try being happier. It's easy! Just "test different forms of stress relief to find what works for you." (p. 36) My favorite stress relief: not reading SELF — until next month.

Um, how about instead you just hire models who actually live the Self lifestyle? Athletic girls who eat? These kind of girls actually exist! And you wouldn't have to pay someone to do away with their visible ribs and non-existent thighs. Better yet: Run the photos of these scary-skinny girls unretouched. Please. And let's just see what readers think of the models' bodies. Would readers run away from the glossy pages forever? (Run at a steady clip, of course — since of course they're hip to the importance of fitness from reading Self.)

The Other Kind Of Photoshop Fraud [Portfolio.com]

Women's service magazines aren't just about underweight and underfed models. Glamour Magazine has been ranked towards the top of a list of magazines with sound nutritional information by the American Council on Science and Health, according to MediaPost. Even Ladies' Home Journal, Redbook, Shape, and Self got relatively good scores in the AMSC's "Nutrition Accuracy in Popular Magazines" survey.

Unfortunately, Cosmo didn't fare so well: The how-to-please-your-man bible earned "a mediocre 'fair' ranking", says MediaPost. Surprising? Not really. Eating has never been part of Cosmo-founder Helen Gurley Brown's strategy on how to keep a man. Could be one of those "Harmless Habits That Turns Men Off To You".

Bon Appetit: LHJ, Consumer Reports Score In Nutritional Survey [MediaPost]