hope and propaganda
by rantywoman
I’ve started tuning out the mainstream media in all its various forms– TV, movies, magazines. One magazine I do still get and read is More, as it does contain some useful health information for older women and also features interesting book and movie reviews.
I did, however, look very critically at the last issue and can’t help but feel that, much like Oprah, it’s uplifting articles are often nothing more than propaganda, and as such aren’t all that helpful. Some examples. The cover story this month is on the actress Juliana Margulies and how she got married and had a baby after forty, after turning down 27 million to do another few years of ER. She is quoted as saying she didn’t ever think she’d find someone she would want to marry. But really, is it at all remarkable that an attractive, famous, extremely wealthy (we can only guess that she had millions in the bank by the time she left ER and was in no danger of starving) was able to find an appealing, attractive man she wanted to marry and who returned the feeling? There’s another story on the actress Lucy Liu and how she is going to play a struggling public school guidance counselor in her next movie and how she can relate to the role, having gone to public schools as a child. In real life, she is dating a billionaire hedge fund manager, one of the 400 wealthiest men in America. She came from a struggling immigrant family so perhaps who she is dating now is irrelevant, but somehow it still rankles. Third, there is a story about a real estate agent who, burned out and overworked after the economic downturn, started painting, sold some works, and is now making it as a painter full-time. Inspiring, yes, but how likely is her story? And will she still be surviving in a few years? When these magazines only focus on the success stories, we can get a warped view of our chances in life.
On the flip side, I have a friend who lives across the country who is a few years older than me and never-married. She has a great education and after years of somewhat slacking off, got serious, moved to a place with more opportunities, and landed herself a very well-paying job. She bought a house and settled in. Four years later, she is unhappy in the same ways I am. The only attractive men she meets are married, and her job has gotten increasingly stressful and relentless. She doesn’t know how much longer she can take it, but on the other hand, has no idea what she would do as an alternative. She does know some other women in her same boat and they have spoken of banding together in retirement, living in some type of communal property situation and sharing resources. To me that is hope rooted in reality.
Talking with her, I realize my situation is not unique and that other smart, talented, attractive women are struggling with my same issues. Reading More just makes me feel bad that my life isn’t more.
I think your observations are very astute. I used to read More but I got so sick and tired of the fancy ads…for clothing and purses and cars I’d NEVER buy. I feel it’s a magazine geared towards women with a high disposal income and of high status leaving out all the rest. I wonder what percentage of women post 40 are really in that demographic?
I did like some of the articles but not enough to keep the magazine. It just wasn’t me and it didn’t speak to my life.
Yes, let’s call out propaganda when we see it. It’s all over.
I do feel a little “Fight Club” about it all… like I’m being sold a bunch of lies.
Maybe you need to start another mag! One that includes all income levels, for one. And even though I stated they left me out…I truly don’t care. I dont’ want to be in their $500 dollar a purse world. I like my world of garage sales, Target, making my own clothes, getting by but having fun. I just want a magazine that is for the over 40 crowd that is fun and inspiring!
I think you may be missing the point of magazines, they are merely vehicles for advertising. The stories are just there to lure you in so you will see the ads. It is the advertising that pays for the entire production of the magazine, as well as the profit of the company producing it.
The magazine’s cover price has little bearing on the bottom line, it is really only there for the purposes of market placement. For example, higher cover prices indicate it is more exclusive, therefore making it more desirable to those who value exclusivity. The advertisers are interested in not only how many people will see their ad, but the demographics of that readership. When their product features exclusivity as a quality, they will want a readership that values exclusivity and the ad will therefore appear in the magazine that has that particular audience.
I am not familiar with “More” but it sounds like it is targeted to appeal to the people who do have the sort of disposable incomes that would enable them to buy whatever ludicrously overpriced object of desire is paying for the advertising space. Evidently enough women over forty are in that demographic to support that magazine, or it wouldn’t exist.
I think it would be safe to assume that any demographic that is not inclined to spend, or has no disposable income to spend, is not going to get a magazine targeted to its interests anytime soon.
Miss M…I get what you are saying. I think we all know it’s about add revenue but I don’t agree they can’t gear also to a larger demographic. Why? Because I read other magazines now that have ads that I am interested in and products I want to buy and can buy. Not all successful magazines are of the higher income demographic.
But it’s OK…it’s a free country they can do what they want with their magazine. It’s just that it’s a choice they have made, that’s all. Not imperative to their survival. Look at other mags such as “Women World”, or Redbook, for example. Tons of examples of magazines for a larger audience.
I want to change my thoughts about it. I actually CAN buy their $500 purses if I wanted to, I just don’t want to.
You are correct, it is their choice. They don’t want to gear to a larger demographic and why would they when, as you say, there are already other magazines in that niche. If one magazine doesn’t speak to you of your life you will quite likely find another that will, and that magazine will be funded with ads appropriately targeted to that different audience. There is nothing altruistic about magazines, their producers do not care at all about you as an individual, but about getting the highest number of readers from their chosen demographic. Actually most magazines are produced by huge companies that own and produce such a range of magazines that they pretty much cover almost the entire population anyway.
Mia…no one is arguing, certainly not me especially, that magazines are altruistic or they “should” cater to me or anyone else. We are just talking about our response to More and how it makes us feel. Surely we are allowed that, no? Not demanding that More change just reviewing the magazine.
Yes, I agree with MissM. I don’t read magazines (esp not celebrity/lifestyle ones) – but I think there are a few good magazines out there (also available online)….like – salon, vanity fair, the atlantic, national geographic. I would never read More magazine, and I think utter crap like “Closer” magazine (if you can even call it that) sould be banned. Ditto for crap like People, US and OK magazines.