Self Editor Says Mag. is not about Journalism?

Kelly Clarkson Retouch Flap Continue

►

      (video from AdAge.com 3 minute news)

Lucy Danzinger, editor of Self magazine, took part in a panel at NBC Universal for their new health initiatives for women.

The network’s medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman raised the issue of “body image” in women and young girls. Is the media doing their part or is it creating distorted ideas of what is an ideal body?

Danzinger discusses at length how the magazine did photoshop Kelly Clarkson for the September cover all in an effort to make Kelly look “better.” She praises Clarkson as a strong confident woman who is healthy & works out. They merely wanted to improve her look.

What is disturbing is, two minutes in (timestamp 2:21), Danzinger responded to a  question (off camera) about ever publishing photos that are not photoshopped. Danzinger’s response is a bit disconcerting. She says ” we don’t do a lot of photoshopping, mostly if a hair is out of place…we are, as honest as they come other than a newsmagazine like Newsweek or Time…our stock in trade is not journalism…we are inspiring and informing.”

How can an editor of a magazine say they are not in the business of journalism? This may not be breaking news on the war, or on medical breakthroughs, but Danzinger seems to dig herself in to a hole when she says the job is to inspire & inform. As a former journalist, I know most of my peers wanted to inspire change, but mostly they wanted to inform their readers. That is the role of a journalist. How can an editor says it is not?

Dr. Snyderman continues ”is photo shopping done to increase ads or sales whether or not it changes the mores of society?” Interesting question that is going to require a larger forum.

Bottom line, photoshopping is here to stay. Most of the time, it’s used to correct minor issues, hair out-of-place, lighting , color adjustment and more. But it is the “more” that is coming to play again and again.

There is a growing voice of whether or not the  media industry should regulate this more. It is no longer “could they” alter a picture, and more about “should they” alter it.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It makes my head spin. I’m going to go hit a spin class and get some McDonald’s to help me think about this.

GQ Abreast of Miss January Jones

GQ keeps abreast of the photoshop issue.

Page Six suggests that January Jones, the star of AMC’s “Mad Men,” may have been given some more ample assets to her cover shot.  Some people say these kinds of retouches are normal for any fashion magazine shoot. But this one seems a bit much. Of course,  GQ is denying any digital alterations.

Page Six cites a blog post on the GQ’s site titled, “Yes, they’re real. And they’re spectacular” (think they paid royalties to Seinfeld for that?)   The photographer supposedly likes to work with “harder lighting, and that can create a stronger shadow” it continues that “body position and perspective could give the illusion that her breasts are bigger.”

Lighting a straight on a shot of a beautiful woman caused for more ample assets to appear in the picture? Forget implants, all women need now is a camera and good lights. (Is that where the term headlights came from? I’m gay, I don’t know these things.)

The entire thing seems a bit contrived. January Jones is a beautiful woman in an acclaimed television series (AMC’s “Mad Men”). Judging from the picture I found of the cover and other shots floating around the internet, these are alterations that seem quite, er um…large? Regardless, it seems ridiculous that this stunner needed any modifications. They put her on the cover for her buzz, and growing reputation. Once again, someone needed to make it about the breasts & not the buzz.

Oh well. Hope t he issue is a sell out.

Breaking News – Photoshoped Model Fired by Ralph Lauren

Filippa Hamilton was fired after being photoshopped for a new Raplph Lauren ad

In a stunning surprise, a model who has appeared in the advertising campaigns for Ralph Lauren for over seven years has been fired for not fitting into the company’s ongoing brand development and image plans.

What makes this more shocking, is that the model was the subject of a recent photo shop disaster by the private label clothing maker that distorted her body to absolutely bizarre proportions that turned her stunning features into an emaciated skeletal creature.

Filippa Hamilton is 23 years-old, 5’10″ and 120 pounds, basically a size four (4). She is the epitome of a healthy and beautiful young woman.

 

Hamilton went on the Today show this morning with Cosmopolitan magazine’s editor Kate White, who also offered her an 8 page photo spread, to discuss the controversy. (Today Show story can be found here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33307721/ns/today-today_fashion_and_beauty/)

 

 

At odds, the fashion industry hiring models for the sample sizes of clothing that run size two and under. Also, as Hamilton describes, the recent image of her in a the current campaign that made her super skinny with skeletal arms and legs and a giant head. She says she was “sad” when she saw this photo being presented to young girls as what they should look like because it is unhealthy.

 

 

The controversy erupted when a Japanese blog, boingboing, posted it on-line. Hamilton has only started discuss it since her termination for as the company said in a statement “not meeting her obligations.”

 

 

Kate White made a very smart statement that as the editor of a magazine, she is sometimes at the mercy of fashion houses who promote their clothes with too small sizes & unrealistic body types.

 

 

It would seem that the fashion industry is starting to implode with this issue. Now, the models that they airbrush and photoshop aren’t even good enough to keep on  the payroll.

 

 

Where do you suppose this is going to lead?  If the industry can no longer hire girls to wear the clothes and model them, then be airbrushed, perhaps the modeling industry as we know it will soon be gone and the Old Navy mannequins will start appearing on the runway.

Is there a doctor in the White House photo opp?

Well, it would seem the White House press department made sure of it. For all the discussion I want to generate on “doctored” photos in the news media, this news item gave me a smile this morning.

The doctors in their nice white lab coats.

White House Staff passing out white lab coats to doctors

The White House press corps peppered a press conference on the health insurance debate with doctors from around the country. When they were invited, they were asked to bring and wear their white medical coats. When some showed without them, the handlers sprung into action and got them all white lab coats to wear during the president’s appearance in order to make a great photo opp.

 

There is no denying that the pictures look great. But my favorite is the White House staff passing out the coats, not the president speaking.

So why include this non-photo shopped picture topic in a blog about altered images in the news media? Because this is exactly what can happen when an image is changed, the story is no longer about the original topic, health care re-form. It is now about the dubious tactics taken to alter a picture and change the meaning.

This isn’t like a digital photo edit to slim someone down or something, but the result is the same. The White House has effectively made the story about the publicists and image handlers instead of the topic at hand.

And in this exploding digital age, whether the picture is altered in the computer or on the “set,” you can not hide the “doctored” image from anyone.

Are magazines ethical when they alter a photo, or is it art in the news?

Time / Newsweek 1994

We know that magazines have photo shopped pictures repeatedly to make the models and celebrities look, as editors like to claim, “better.” But what happens when the result is the opposite, and the picture subject actually looks worse?

In 1994, one of America’s most credible and honored magazines, TIME, was accused of this. They published  an altered photo of OJ Simpson’s mug shot, he had been arrested of course for the murders of his ex-wife & her friend. While this may not be something most people would have noticed, the altering of the image became fodder for other media and civil rights groups when TIME’s competition NEWSWEEK published the same photo unaltered on their cover the same week.

The barrage on TIME magazine was explosive with various groups, politicians, and media accusing the magazine of deliberately making OJ look darker, disheveled and unshaven in a deliberate attempt to discredit and attack him. The photo editor who did the alterations, Matt Mauhrin, stated his only intent for the cover to “make it more artful, more compelling.”

For the past few years as the technology has improved, editors have altered images under the “guise” of improving the subject matter’s appearance. But at the end of the day, regardless if it is news, it still would appear its business. TIME’s position is that the news is now art as well.

News? Art? It seems that the line between quality journalism and the media’s accounting department is continually blurred. Altering images to sell a story, paper, or magazine may seem like a minor infraction, but there is a cost. The news media is more and more treating their topics like the subject of an ad campaign, film or photo shoot. They are not selling products, they are telling stories, the news. By altering the image even slightly, they are manipulating the eyes and minds of consumers who may not be aware that we they see is not the truth. It’s a shame that truth in journalism may not have won out.

What is right in protecting the image & identity of Presidential Children?

In developing this blog, I have been looking for stories that focus on images in the media.

This story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts930) caught my eye on a photo op the President took with the Spanish Prime Minister and his daughters.

In Spain, these young girls are protected, the media does not publish their pictures due to a certain law not allowing it. After the group photo leaked on-line, the Spanish government complained and the picture was removed from the White House Flickr site.

However, the damage was done and the picture was downloaded several times.

Who is now responsible for this situation? Spain for allowing the girls to be photographed? Their father? The White House for the error?

And, is it feasible for any government to try and curb the publication of photos of the leader’s children?

Chelsea Clinton was the focus of many jokes as she grew up in the White House. The Bush’s twin daughters caused scandals as they were shot in public partying. Amy Carter and more all grew up under the scrutiny of American media, and some might argue, have gone on to thrive.

Should we be doing more to protect the images of these children or has Spain gone over board in trying to protect these kids?

Are we all just hypocrites?

Thanks for the commentary on my first blog post. It seems that the idea of a government entity trying to regulate the images advertisers can use struck a chord.

My goal here is to actually get this topic to be an on going dialogue. One reader, Wendy, made a comment about the women on many magazines covers are the women who say they love their curves. Even at a size 10, they “don’t look like any size 10 we have seen.” This made me wonder if celebrities, or the people (us) that adore them are just a bunch of hypocrites. The basic definition is: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

This summer, Self magazine’s editor Lucy Danzinger had to explain  that all cover photos “are color corrected and altered” to present the best possible image. This was after she put an altered photo of singer Kelly Clarkson on the cover. Yes, some color corrections and evening out of tones may have been needed. But why did the changes have to be so drastic? Her body was thinned out, and her hair was altered amongst other things.

Margaret at Jezebel.com posted a story about this (http://jezebel.com/5335022/self-editors-explain-covers-arent-supposed-to-look-realistic) and it included the video from the photo shoot.

Kelly Clarkson is someone who has talked about her weight issues and has said she is happy with her body. If Self magazine wants to promote women in their best light, why do they have to alter a successful singer’s body when we a) know what she looks like, and b) people know what she looks like.

Is the general public the hypocrite for buying into the images the media world promotes, or is the media the hypocrite for pushing false images on the public?

WTF Is That Now?

What is the true definition of what is beautiful? It seems a lot of people aspire to an ideal, but they have no idea what it is. Varying opinions and tastes really have proven “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

But what if that beholder is a graphic designer with a keen sense of photo shop? All bets are off in my opinion.

Technology has been pushing the limits of what is acceptable in photographs, what can be published, and more importantly…what is attainable, for years.

Need higher cheekbones? No problem? Trim that waist? It’s a click away. Smooth that skin? Ok, but let’s add a tan.

I work in the health & fitness industry. This topic of beauty is constantly being brought up with new clients. You would think that there would be some synergy, but there is not. The beauty industry continues to put out images that most women believe are not possible.

The purpose of my blog is to begin asking, is that true?