"Is Kate pushing herself too far?"

In Touch magazine poses this question, showing a snapshot of how Kate (Hudson) used to look before, “gorgeously curvy”, standing on the red carpet in a lavender-colored dress, radiant, looking directly at the photographer; and another of how she looks now, wearing a grey t-shirt which cannot be accused of ever having been in shape, jeans, shy sun glasses and a hat to hide underneath, round-shouldered, looking down, more likely on her way to the supermarket than to a premiere. In Touch notes that “her arms look too weak to carry 20-month-old son Ryder”.

The article concerns itself with whether the attempt to be thin has gone too far for “Hollywood’s hottest actresses”. And the concern is not only about Kate. It’s also about Nicole and Hilary and Jessica. Has the pressure become too severe?

Dropping all kinds of idealistic notions and sticking to the conviction that the main purpose for the majority of magazines is to sell, this article is obvious in its purpose. To feed our lust for tragedy in the midst of glamour. “They are out of control” one thinks to oneself, looking at Hilary Duff’s skinny arms. Being familiar with the techniques of the gossip media, one also might note that the pictures are carefully chosen in order to support the bottom line of the story. You can tell that Kate is skinnier on her “now” picture, but would her “gorgeously curvy” body on her “before” picture have anything to do with the fact that she was pregnant at the time? And doesn’t her t-shirt, jeans, hat, and sun glasses support the “fact” that not only is she skinny, but she is also “out of control”, slobby, has stopped carring about herself? Also, the primary source in this article goes by the odd name “friend”, which as the trained gossip reader would know, is almost without exception, always the name of the source. “Friend” is really busy. But that’s a whole different blog, though.

The question would be, then: is bringing this article, built on assumptions, pictures put together, ignoring their original context and “friend”s observations and comments ethical? Putting aside the question of what ethics are in this blog (yet another blog), of course not. Because an individual is being used for the purpose of telling a story, again, wearing the cynical goggles, for the sake of selling magazines. Who knows whether Kate has an eating disorder? And where is the fairness in assuming and hinting at it? Nowhere, I’d say. It’s completely unethical, and I despise anyone who would ever buy a magazine like this. I would never, I only read them at the Dentist’s, or if one of my “friends” lend it to me. And even then, I’m only in it because of my interest in viewing media through my critical/cynical goggles. Of course.

Admin @ September 13, 2005 - 1:21pm

Not by me, but from a less-gossipy 'zine: the Economist (until it goes behind the non-free wall)

They look at it primarily in Britain, where it's taken well above US levels. In summary: fame is now a well-orchestrated, cooperative industry. Or the cynical, but I would guess highly accurate view of someone with a lot of experience in this:

FASCINATION is universal for what Aaron Spelling, a prolific producer of American soap operas, once called “rich people having problems that money can't solve”.

Lise Nielsen @ September 14, 2005 - 10:26am

That's a good quote. Fascination has so much to do with it, and I find it fascinating that often "gossipy" pieces are in some way connected to shame or something I experience that people rarely admit to reading. I wonder if it is because you feel that the means used are often not "fair play". The industry part is also interesting. Is it to the benefit of the celebrities to be talked about, whether the talk can be untrue or negative in its origin? It can be difficult to figure out who is the victim or if there is a victim at all.

Recent comments

Navigation

Syndicate

Syndicate content