Jezebel was one of many websites that compared the real Kelly with the fake Kelly; the real Kelly has the average woman's butt, the fake Kelly has a firm, perky behind that was finessed in Photoshop. Jezebel also rightly points out that the magazine editors didn't stop (or begin) with photoshopping Clarkson's image--they also did whatever they could to camouflage her pounds during the photoshoot. That is perhaps less a travesty in journalism ethics, yet it still shows the editors' willful disregard of the truth.
The topic came up again last week at the Women at NBCU breakfast. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the moderator and the chief medical expert at NBC News, asked Lucy Danziger, the editor-in-chief of Self, to explain herself.
There were so many eye-roll inducing, jaw-dropping rationalizations crammed into this 3-minute AdAge clip, I barely know where to begin. I'd like to assume some bit of conscience on Danziger's part; even better, I'd like to think she went back to work and pounded her head on her desk recalling some of the asinine statements that came tumbling out of her mouth.
Let's start with the "chicken and the egg" scenario which Danziger uses to excuse her culpability - she blames the consumer demand for fit-looking women for exacerbating society's image issues. Basically, if we didn't want it, they wouldn't put it out there. I understand that to a certain degree; however, that's not an acceptable excuse for substandard journalism. As long as Self wants to proclaim itself under the banner of journalism rather than a catalog of products then they have a responsibility to their readers. That responsibility is to put factual information (as they know it) out into the world.
Regardless of "who started it", we all (or most of us) know that body image, eating disorders and obesity are serious problems in this country. The job of magazines such as Self is to help get that information out there, not to add to the problem by falsifying the image of a someone who could actually be an inspiration to the everyday woman.
It's their ethical duty to stop the chicken and egg - well, at least stop what is in their control.
Danziger goes on to claim they were representing their brand - a cool, confident Clarkson, a woman who works out, isn't skinny, and yet is still a role model. Well, yes, Clarkson is all that. So why didn't the magazine just use her as she is? "We made her better," says Danziger. Better? By whose standards? Oh, you mean those impossible standards we're trying so hard to tear down? Do you hear yourself, Lucy?
On the flip side, we do have a huge problem with obesity in this country. I don't know, medically, if Kelly Clarkson's weight should be considered healthy or not. I've never seen her in person (and the camera does add ten pounds, by golly!) so I can't even give a reasonable guess. If Kelly Clarkson is not a good role model for a healthy body, and that was why Danziger approved the slimming down of her computer-generated doppelganger, that still wouldn't change the fact that Self failed miserably here. It just means they failed the ethics test differently-they made a claim and paraded Clarkson as a healthy representation when she is in fact not.
I'm not a one-woman campaign against photoshopping; I understand and appreciate the aesthetic value of a sellable magazine cover. Still, doesn't this just burn you? Or is it just me?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
You've got it spot on!
NYT did a great "Moral of the Story" on this yesterday. Makes great reading that your blog fits right into, along with an interesting suggestion!
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/should-photos-come-with-warning-labels/
I do take this one issue with the whole complaints from the cover girl (or cover guy). They know that since day 1 they've been airbrushed & PhotoShopped. Sure it's easier in the digital age, but in print media, they've always done it and the only time the celeb of the month says anything is when there's a public outcry.
I guess it's okay when they Photoshop and remove the acne, a few wrinkles, 10-15 pounds, 5 years of age or any other imperfection, but somebody notices that a size 8 has been whittled down to a size 4 or 2 then and only then will they speak up.
Their only duty is to sell magazines. They have no responsibility whatsoever for eating disorders and it would not matter if they did.
Charles: I must disagree. Journalists do not only have a duty to the bottom line, profit. They also have a responsibility to their audience. Otherwise, it is simply advertising.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.