News Flash!
The campus newspaper will be publishing an exclusive all-nude issue featuring male and female staff writings writing and copy-editing articles in the buff!
That’s right! You read it right here!
Actually, no, they aren’t. That was all just one big tease for you people who have probably never picked up a copy of the college newspaper here on campus. I wouldn’t be surprised if the only reason why you might be interested in getting your hands on an “All nude” issue published by the college newspaper staff is so you can do what you normally do in private when you gaze at female centerfolds found in Playboy or in the yearly edition of Sports Illustrated. And when I am talking “private,” I am not talking about “drooling.”
Sex sells. Such is the attitude magazine publishers, and, in some cases, newspaper editors have in a print industry hard hit by the recession. Publications are so desperate to win over readers that their concern is not in providing content but offering up slices of female cheesecake as an attempt to get readers to buy something they’d normally wouldn’t.
If you buy into the reason the New York Post published photos of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews nude in her hotel bedroom because ESPN outed her as the one seen in the infamous Internet video taken by the peephole pervert last August, you’re nothing more than a born sucker.
The New York Post did it to sell newspapers.
As a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s, when I frequented the bookstores, or maybe I just didn’t pay attention to what was sitting on the magazine racks, I didn’t recall various periodicals flaunting front covers of celebrities with either a tie or string bikini like I see now.
I always thought nudity was relegated to the just the pornographic magazines, all of which came equipped with that sealed plastic bag.
Not so anymore. On Oct. 9, ESPN magazine, which is published by Disney, unveiled their first ever “Body Issue” featuring various male and female athletes in either the nude or seminude positions.
There is a reason why Shape magazine has former “Seinfeld” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus showing off her trimmed abdominal muscles in a bikini. The picture is not just to show off how good looking she is at 48. Somewhere in that issue is an article explaining how she got herself to look that way.
That does not, however, explain the reason actress Jennifer Aniston’s appearance on the front cover f GQ magazine in only a tie. What does she have to do with a gentleman’s fashion magazine? I have to wonder about the decisions some actresses make when it comes to losing the robe for the cameras. The minute Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner offers a top Hollywood actress like Aniston, Lindsey Lohan, or singer Britney Spears to pose nude for half a million, they say no. Yet when some non-pornographic publication calls asking if they’d lose the clothes for an upcoming issue, they say yes.
The answers they gave in Allure are the pornographic equivalent of what centerfolds in Playboy or Maxim say.
“My boobs are good,” said Chelsea Handler, when asked what body parts of which she is most proud. “They’re real and perky. Even if you can’t see them, the important thing I that I know about them, and the guys I’ve slept with know about them.”
“I tend to sleep in the nude,” said Padma Lakshmi. “I’m an innately tactile person and a very sensual-leaning woman. You have to use the word ‘leaning’ or it sounds like I’m boasting! When I’m in my own private space, I do spend time with very little on.”
Seeing them in the buff with hands over their breasts and private parts, I have to ask, why don’t they just let it all hang out for Playboy? These pictorials are nothing more than their way of saying, “Look at me, loser. Sit there and dream about what you not only wish you could have but will never ever look like no matter how much you diet and exercise.”
The content readers are supplied with today is not journalism. Writers and photographers are not working the journalism profession. They are instead working in the business of publishing soft-core pornography.
In today’s print industry, the editors and publishers are the pimps, the female celebrity icons who strip down are the prostitutes, and the readers are the johns, who shell out their hard-earned money to gaze at something they’d normally never buy much less read just to get a cheap thrill.
I don’t happen to be one of those people. Are you?
©10/6/09
The campus newspaper will be publishing an exclusive all-nude issue featuring male and female staff writings writing and copy-editing articles in the buff!
That’s right! You read it right here!
Sex sells. Such is the attitude magazine publishers, and, in some cases, newspaper editors have in a print industry hard hit by the recession. Publications are so desperate to win over readers that their concern is not in providing content but offering up slices of female cheesecake as an attempt to get readers to buy something they’d normally wouldn’t.
If you buy into the reason the New York Post published photos of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews nude in her hotel bedroom because ESPN outed her as the one seen in the infamous Internet video taken by the peephole pervert last August, you’re nothing more than a born sucker.
The New York Post did it to sell newspapers.
As a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s, when I frequented the bookstores, or maybe I just didn’t pay attention to what was sitting on the magazine racks, I didn’t recall various periodicals flaunting front covers of celebrities with either a tie or string bikini like I see now.
I always thought nudity was relegated to the just the pornographic magazines, all of which came equipped with that sealed plastic bag.
Not so anymore. On Oct. 9, ESPN magazine, which is published by Disney, unveiled their first ever “Body Issue” featuring various male and female athletes in either the nude or seminude positions.
I guess Mickey Mouse has no problem showing supposedly tasteful photos of martial artist Gina Carano, tennis star Serena Williams or major league baseball’s Ivan Rodriguez in the buff. How ironic. They embrace nudity, and yet they won’t release ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” out of fear the film will ruin former President Clinton’s legacy as America’s leader who claims he tried to kill Osama bin Laden during his eight years in office.I have nothing against magazines publishing nude photos of celebrities with either little or nothing so long as the publication or article printed has something to do with the images.
There is a reason why Shape magazine has former “Seinfeld” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus showing off her trimmed abdominal muscles in a bikini. The picture is not just to show off how good looking she is at 48. Somewhere in that issue is an article explaining how she got herself to look that way.
That does not, however, explain the reason actress Jennifer Aniston’s appearance on the front cover f GQ magazine in only a tie. What does she have to do with a gentleman’s fashion magazine? I have to wonder about the decisions some actresses make when it comes to losing the robe for the cameras. The minute Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner offers a top Hollywood actress like Aniston, Lindsey Lohan, or singer Britney Spears to pose nude for half a million, they say no. Yet when some non-pornographic publication calls asking if they’d lose the clothes for an upcoming issue, they say yes.
I can’t help but laugh at how bookstores today attempt to make certain publications inaccessible to the kids by placing them on the top magazine racks. Just because 8-year-old Mikey, Jr. can’t quite reach the top rack for a closer look at the front cover of Out magazine that caters to the gay/lesbian community showing singer Lady Gaga with nothing on doesn’t mean the kid’s blind.I might as well start calling Allure magazine “Playboy Lite” judging from the nude spreads I saw of comedienne Chelsey Handler, actress Eliza Dushku, and TV chef Padma Lakshmi in their April 21 issue which was promoted by the entertainment media.
The answers they gave in Allure are the pornographic equivalent of what centerfolds in Playboy or Maxim say.
“My boobs are good,” said Chelsea Handler, when asked what body parts of which she is most proud. “They’re real and perky. Even if you can’t see them, the important thing I that I know about them, and the guys I’ve slept with know about them.”
“I tend to sleep in the nude,” said Padma Lakshmi. “I’m an innately tactile person and a very sensual-leaning woman. You have to use the word ‘leaning’ or it sounds like I’m boasting! When I’m in my own private space, I do spend time with very little on.”
Seeing them in the buff with hands over their breasts and private parts, I have to ask, why don’t they just let it all hang out for Playboy? These pictorials are nothing more than their way of saying, “Look at me, loser. Sit there and dream about what you not only wish you could have but will never ever look like no matter how much you diet and exercise.”
The content readers are supplied with today is not journalism. Writers and photographers are not working the journalism profession. They are instead working in the business of publishing soft-core pornography.
In today’s print industry, the editors and publishers are the pimps, the female celebrity icons who strip down are the prostitutes, and the readers are the johns, who shell out their hard-earned money to gaze at something they’d normally never buy much less read just to get a cheap thrill.
I don’t happen to be one of those people. Are you?
©10/6/09
No comments:
Post a Comment