So a couple of nights ago after I was done night editing at the DI, I pulled out my copy of People's Sexiest Man Alive issue featuring the 2008 winner, Hugh Jackman. As I was skimming through it, a male co-worker made a comment about how we women read magazines that tend to "objectify" women. I proceeded to point out that there are plenty of magazines that cater to men and do the same thing.
(I'm pretty sure People also has an issue once a year called 50 Most Beautiful People/Women.)
This incident resonates with me because I sometimes think there is a double standard in the media that makes it acceptable to feature women in a certain way for men's eyes while there is a completely different approach or understanding when something is created solely for women.
As an editor, it is always difficult to accommodate both sides for a story - if there are two or more sides. It is important to always understand who the audience is for your publication. A magazine such as People, which is clearly aimed at women, needs to adjust its content accordingly. And people - such as my co-worker - need to understand that the publication is not trying to get them to read it nor be suited for their interests.
2 comments:
This is an interesting argument to make. What about magazines geared toward both sexes though, such as Rolling Stone? Do they have to provide content that will be appealing for both sexes, or do you think they just show different content in different sections or issues?
I think in the case of Rolling Stone, the content should be the best that they have rather than making sure everything will be completely fair because eventually, it will even out. Although, when I think of Rolling Stone, I tend to see it as more of a guy magazine, but maybe that's just because I am not really into reading up on music, etc. But I do think there should at least be something for each sex in each issue.
Post a Comment