Marie Claire Blogger Controversy

This Marie Claire piece in the November issue has generated loads of attention around the blogosphere, with loads of bloggers alleging author bias, libel, jealousy, hypocrisy etc.

I read the blogs in question, and I agree that the piece does not accurately represent the full picture.  None of the women profiled are overly skinny, and none of them portray themselves as fitness/health experts, though I do think some good points are made.

For example, I questioned their motives for the "Healthy Living Summit" because frankly, only one of them had any real credentials on health, and that was only recently.  A few of them have freely taken corporate endorsements, free trips, ego trips in magazines, etc.  A few of them do appear to have some issues with eating, excessive exercise--it always irritates me to read of "easy-peasy six mile morning runs" without them appearing to have unlimited appetites later.  A few of them have alluded to health problems.  And a few aren't the greatest writers, either.

I hate the culture of groupthink on the comments to the blogs as well, because any criticism is immediately refuted and "trolls" are chastised for being mean girls. Seriously.  Yeah, these girls blog their private lives, never seeking celebrity, but because they accept payment, they are doing a job and are subject to criticism.  If you want fawning, switch to a private blog where only fans can respond. 

Nothing was libelous in the piece, though the author did selectively report on statements designed to fit the angle of the story she was writing.  Seriously, who unquestioningly trusts an author?  You had to be deeply naive to not realize she had an agenda: everyone easily googled her earlier pieces critical of the healthy living movement. And she appeared to have her own issues as well.

It's been interesting being a fly on the wall to this, because while I read, I don't actively participate.  And yeah, it's partly because I can get caught in those comparison traps myself. I'm a decade-ish older, several inches taller, and several pounds heavier than most of these healthy living blogger types.  I have no desire to run a marathon, mostly, though there are times I wonder why I lack that motivation. I see the toll that it takes on their bodies, and a few of them constantly complain about long runs. Why in the hell do you need to run a sixth marathon when you don't enjoy it? And I do think some of them hold superior attitudes about their eating habits, but when you work at home all of the time, of course you have more flexibility in what you eat.  But not all of us have that luxury.  And yes, a couple of them appear to have wealthy families backing them up. Such is life.

Interesting to see if MC responds.  I actually think they are the best of all of the woman's magazines. Yes, they are a bit hypocritical, especially with an anorexic looking Victoria Beckham on the cover.  But they routinely run social/human interest stories, talk about jobs/careers/money issues, and they certainly don't pander to the Cosmo crowd.  Those who are so critical probably haven't picked up an issue. And I certainly have no intention of canceling my subscription because of this. Frankly, Self's awful airbrushing of Kelly Clarkson and its anorexic/orthorexic editor in chief offend me far, far more.

Good Stuff on Health Care Reform: I <3 Thomas Sowell

IBD/Investors.com is reprinting portions of a recent Thomas Sowell book with respect to the economics of medical care. As always, he is spot on with his analysis, whether it is recounting the pointlessness of bureaucracy, or well, basic economics:

Artificially lower prices, created by government order rather than by supply and demand, encourage more use of goods or services, while discouraging the production of those same goods and services. Increased consumption and reduced production mean a shortage. The consequences are both quantitative and qualitative.

Even the visible shortages that follow price controls do not tell the whole story. Quality deterioration often accompanies reduced production under price control, whether what is being produced is food, housing, or numerous other goods and services whose prices have been kept artificially low by government fiat.

I hate when people say "Oh, Canada has free health care! It's so unfair that we have to pay!" It is NOT free. There's this little thing called taxes that pays for this "free" health care that is often so much more inefficient than proponents claim. That is why Canadians cross the bridge to Michigan or New York to get elective procedures, or even non-electives ones, performed: because they don't want to be on a waiting list for eternity.

The Dems don't and won't see it this way. Thankfully, a few principled senators like Joe Lieberman won't let them get away with it.

Self Hypocrisy

So the recent Self magazine covershot of Kelly Clarkson looking a size 6, when she is more like a size 12, has been generating lots of controversy. Self editor Lucy Danziger wrote one of the most hypocritical responses I can recall, basically saying it's ok to airbrush, it makes things honest. She even revealed she air-brushed herself after she ran a marathon!!

Her idiocy:

Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. Did we publish an act of fiction? No. Not unless you think all photos are that. But in the sense that Kelly is the picture of confidence, and she truly is, then I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand.

Here was my comment:

I find this response to be completely hypocritical. And I am disgusted to hear you would admit to being retouched after running a marathon. How vain are you???? There is a stark difference between slimming yourself down for a photo to appear in a national magazine and choosing a more flattering shot for a Christmas photo. There is also a difference between smoothing a wrinkle in a blouse and shaving off arm flab or other unwanted fat. As a woman in her 30s, I feel secure about my body. But many of your readers don't, and many young women don't. You admit that the cover has to sell magazines. You've basically conceded someone a bit plump won't. What kind of message does that send about "being your best self?" I am seriously considering not renewing my subscription because I have lost all respect for the editors of this magazine.

I hope someone loses their job over this. You should not edit a woman's magazine, devoted to being your best self, if you are this condescending and dishonest.