Has the Magazine Industry Stooped to New Lows?
Monday June 30, 2008
When you see the Gwyneth Paltrow cover on the July Harper's Bazaar issue, consider this: Paltrow's in the magazine because she's a spokesmodel for Estée Lauder. Open the magazine and you'll find 3 other Lauder spokesmodels, written up as if they were regular featured celebrities, not the faces of a major advertiser.
So much for the media version of separation of church and state -- advertisers are meant to stay out of the newsroom, or in this case, the editorial offices. Not so for Harper's Bazaar. You can get the full story in the Sunday New York Times, A Cover, 40 Pages, 4 Faces and One Perfume. Oh, and full disclosure: About.com is owned by the NY Times.
I'll take this moment to assure you all that although I have a healthy respect for the advertising industry (the ads on this site pay my bills), the content on this Website has absolutely nothing to do with the advertising. A firm line exists on this site between church (content) and state (advertising). And that's the way it should be, or I risk losing credibility with my readers.
So much for the media version of separation of church and state -- advertisers are meant to stay out of the newsroom, or in this case, the editorial offices. Not so for Harper's Bazaar. You can get the full story in the Sunday New York Times, A Cover, 40 Pages, 4 Faces and One Perfume. Oh, and full disclosure: About.com is owned by the NY Times.
I'll take this moment to assure you all that although I have a healthy respect for the advertising industry (the ads on this site pay my bills), the content on this Website has absolutely nothing to do with the advertising. A firm line exists on this site between church (content) and state (advertising). And that's the way it should be, or I risk losing credibility with my readers.
Comments
THANK YOU JULYNE – BECAUSE OF YOU MY FRIENDS AND I ARE ABLE TO AFFORD TO EXPERIMENT WITH QUALITY DRUG STORE BEAUTY PRODUCTS AND NOT BE DISAPPOINTED (OR BROKE). KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND DONT LET THE ADVERTISERS BUY YOU OFF!
It seems to me that content, like state, is supposed to be neutral, while advertisers, like church, have a clear agenda. Interesting that you reversed them. If your content is “church”, can we trust it? What’s your agenda, Julyne?
Irene, I believe what Julyne meant by “state” is “goverment”. Governments, if I’m correct, are not neutral. All governments (yes, all) have clear agendas.
Further, it was the “agenda” of the “state” to separate with the “church”, e.g., King Henry VII, who had a clear agenda of his own.
Besides, it was just an analogy to make a point. Take it easy.
*King Henry VIII
LOL! Thanks for pointing out my simple sentence structure mistake. Apologies! (And thanks to Kim for coming to my defense).
Happy holidays all,
Julyne
There’s always been a cozy relationship between women’s magazines and their advertisers. The purpose of these magazines is to deliver their audiences to advertisers. These magazines do not want to antagonize their advertisers by posting negative review.
Still, Harpers Bazaar went over the line with its July 2008 issue.
This does not only ocurres with Harper’s Bazaar,its with all the magazines outhere.
When I open one all you see are these glamarous models, celebrities fancying this one thousand dollar dress two thousand dollar bag,they are endorsing what they are selling and they get paid good money. Yvonne