You all know about the air-brushed beauty brought to you by the magazines that grace your supermarket checkout. Fewer of you may know how picky many magazines are about the real people who make their pages. While I’ve not run directly into it, I have writer friends who speak of sources that they couldn’t use because they didn’t look good enough to photograph for the magazine. Fully qualified, excellent sources for a story, rejected because they are not considered attractive. Blech. Now Real Simple magazine is under the spotlight for a casting call seeking only attractive families, and only those that have a mom, a dad, and 1-3 kids. Love the picture Gawker used to illustrate the story.
Andrea said,
Unsurprised.
The tabloids also do things like this the other way - often taking people (celebs) who aren’t looking al that bad and making them look way worse. (Posh Spice’s legs were a recent example).
Here’s another spot: http://www.iwanexstudio.com/
Larramie said,
Real Simple, too??? *sigh*
debra said,
Surreal Simple is more like it. Even Ozzie and Harriet Nelson wouldn’t fit the bill.
paradisefound said,
I wish that magazines would get more realistic about what they show in their pages. I understand that a house shoot would need to be styled, but why not take the average looking family and let them be a part of the pages. It would make it seem more real and people would feel less compelled to work towards that false perfection or feel like they aren’t measuring up. I have to give props to More magazine for at least using reasonably sized women in their photo shoots. I don’t know their take on beauty requirements, though!
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Not June Cleaver said,
July 23, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Wow. I’m speechless.