Yesterday the New York Times alerted us to a deeply disturbing new publishing industry development contained in the latest Harper's Bazaar: its content is being dictated by its advertiser. "Wow, they really sold out — Hearst — didn't they?" said an "industry analyst." If only, lamented hardened cynic Jeff Berkovici, who called the Estee Lauder masterminded photo shoot "sadly in character for Hearst, which seems to be rapidly abandoning its commitment to the traditional separation between advertising and editorial." Oh, brother. Maybe Harper's editor Glenda Bailey was just trying to be more like the New Yorker when it collaborated with Target that one time! Or maybe she was just doing what she did with those Simpsons photo shoots and, you know, just not taking the fashion magazine business too seriously? Or maybe it's just summer, her job is soul-suckingly dull anyway and it was easier that way? Contributor Cheryl Campbell scanned some offending pages of the magazine after the jump so you could decide for yourselves!

(Although unrelated to the Estee Lauder promotion, Bazaar has been shilling expensive shit next to the mastheads for its editorial and publishing staff for many months now.)

Advertising 1, Journalism 0 [Portfolio]
A Cover, 40 Pages, 4 Faces And One Perfume [NY Times]