In Touch magazine poses this question, showing a snapshot of how Kate (Hudson) used to look before, “gorgeously curvyâ€, 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 Ryderâ€.
The article concerns itself with whether the attempt to be thin has gone too far for “Hollywood’s hottest actressesâ€. 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 controlâ€, slobby, has stopped carring about herself? Also, the primary source in this article goes by the odd name “friendâ€, 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 “friendâ€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:
»