SELF Magazine Warning Needed?
Subject on Cover is Bigger Than She Actually Appears
When I was sitting in my Sassy Sisterhood Girl Circle showing how magazine editors photo-shop the hell out of every photo that comes their way, something clicked. Meaghan, age 13, looked right at me and said. “So what you’re saying is…the girl on the cover doesn’t even look like the girl on the cover?”
Case and point: The Kelly Clarkson cover of SELF Magazine.
I can’t say whether magazine editors are incredibly stupid or off the charts brilliant. Placing a very slimmed down photo-shopped version of Kelly Clarkson next to the words “Total Body Confidence” is definitely a great way to get our attention.
And after the buzz of the Kelly Clarkson cover of Self has been scrutinized, dissected, and discussed on many forums in cyber-space, Self’s Editor-in-Chief, Lucy Danzinger, admitted with a shrug, that “Yes, of course we do post-production corrections on our images…SELF magazine inspires and informs our 6 million readers each month to reach their all around personal best.” Translation: Of course we shave off pieces of someone’s body. It’s what sells magazines and products advertised in our magazines! Airbrushing makes people feel that their personal best is not good enough—that’s why they need us!”
Look. There’s no question that the Kelly Clarkson photos were retouched. Everyone admits to it. Other magazines do it– heck– nearly all media does it! I think what troubles me is the “ho-hum” attitude that taken place in media. We saw it with Miley Cyrus recently and the controversy over whether she did or did not do a stripper pole dance at the Teen Choice Awards—again, it wasn’t about the pole but about how jaded we’ve become about seeing teens push the limits on stage so that they can sell more. The SELF magazine cover of course wants to sell more magazines—we get that—but their message is so convoluted now.
Case in point: SELF as the title. Figures that SOMEONE should look like “SELF,” right? Perhaps “SELF…not” or “SELF…photoshopped” would be more appropriate. In the magazine itself, Kelly Clarkson talks about her weight.
“My happy weight changes… Sometimes I eat more; sometimes I play more. I’ll be different sizes all the time. When people talk about my weight, I’m like, ‘You seem to have a problem with it; I don’t. I’m fine!’ I’ve never felt uncomfortable on the red carpet or anything.” (Kelly Clarkson)
Thus the words in the magazine say one thing—but the images say another. It’s very smart…and very hurtful to girls and women. It says “This is Kelly Clarkson…she is happy with her weight…but look how thin we can make her look!” Sad.
The editor in chief talks about how proud she is of Kelly Clarkson and her confidence–
“Kelly Clarkson exudes confidence, and is a great role model for women of all sizes and stages of their life. She works out and is strong and healthy, and our picture shows her confidence and beauty. She literally glows from within. That is the feeling we’d all want to have. We love this cover and we love Kelly Clarkson.”
Translation: She glows from within—we just needed to fix this yucky outside she has. Ya know…fat doesn’t sell.
But the thing I hated the most was the nonchalant way they explained themselves. SELF editors actually felt that they were right to give Kelly Clarkson a thinner body on their September issue—not because they want to sell magazines—not because they thought there was a bad angle– but because they don’t think that covers should reflect reality (i.e. people are actually normal and human), but “inspire women to want to be their best”.
Their best? By providing something that doesn’t actually exist? By degrading the woman on the cover by putting a version of herself on there that isn’t actually her?
I think our friends over at Jezebel.com said it well:
Danziger was right: the point is that magazine covers “inspire women to want to be their best.” And the best way to keep women reading Self‘s workout recommendations and buying the useless beauty products advertised on its pages is to inspire them to keep chasing after a version of themselves that Doesn’t. Really. Exist.
Unfortunately—Kelly Clarkson doesn’t seem very bothered by the cover shot.
She says makes that clear so her blog:
“we decided the cover of the album and just in case you haven’t seen it i’ll post it! it’s very colorful and they have definitely photo-shopped the crap out of me but i don’t care haha! whoever she is, she looks great ha!”
Whoever she is? Is this SELF or The National Inquirer? Next stop: Aliens. Especially if they’re thin.
And how might this affect our girls? Because we can’t forget– there are millions reading this magazine and looking at the pictures for “inspiration.” According to one grieving mother over on Self.com where she commented about this topic she wrote:
I was appalled at seeing Lucy on the Today show trying to rationalize the drastic photoshopping Kelly Clarkson. People cannot be photoshopped. My beloved daughter died in May of consequences of Bulimia. Her 8 year struggle with body image was not helped by the constant barrage of “the right look”. Of all publications, Self should be promoting health and acceptance of ones self, not some fake Hollywood ideal. The cover of Self is a sad spectacle of our society. You should be ashamed of YOUR self! Signed Grieving Mother
There ARE repercussions to our actions. Girls and women actually look at this stuff and think “I should look like this.” But even Kelly Clarkson doesn’t look like this! Can you say “false advertising?”
Oh well. See? Nobody seems to care about this stuff anymore at all. We’ve just gotten complacent. Of course, more and more teens are suffering from body image issues—but please, keep going folks. Provide us with our best version of ourselves. Even if they don’t exist.
So…perhaps magazines need to come with a warning label like on cigarettes—or like on the side mirror of a car. “Object on cover is bigger than she actually appears.” What do you think?