Ridiculous media pressure

GreyPilgrim

briona wrote:

Everybody's got a choice, but unfortunately Britain as a nation is beginning to look for a scapegoat in every area of life whenever something goes wrong, hence the rise in sueing everybody from schools for depriving kids of an education by not excluding school bullies, to fast food restaurants for rising levels in childhood obesity. What next? Sueing the media for tempting you into debt by showing you aspirational lifestyles? Come on people!

Rant over...

Creeping quietly away [to read some glossy mag!]

Well said. Tried to click on thanks for that but got an error for some reason....

Thriftylady

briona wrote:

I've read this thread from start to finish and then back again and the interesting thing here is how everyone is quick to jump on the "let's blame the media" bandwagon [and no, I don't work in media!]... It's like blaming McDonalds for rising obesity levels – if no one wanted the product, they wouldn't be in business! So I feel that it's a little harsh to buy into the product and then blame the company for all the wrong in the world.

Although I started this thread, and you might be expecting me to be wanting to argue with you, I actually agree with what you say. e.g. I have posted before on this same forum about how I don't believe in the 'blame the banks for lending me money' reason for why people are in debt. I believe strongly that we all have to take responsibility for ourselves.

But I don't think this is a contradiction, because the only reason this antagonised me so much was that this magazine claims to represent real life, its not one of the so called glossies, and yet it actually suggests (albeit lightheartedly) increasing your credit card limit to go clothes shopping. It just all seems very irresponsible to me because I think having something like this written in an article is a step further than just advertising.

lynzpower

I completely agree with Grey Pilgrim. I find womens mags one big insult to my intelligence, I dont want to sound high-handed there, but its true.

I flicked through a marie claire the other day, ( i didnt buy it :A) and I didnt find ANYTHNG worth reading. there was an ancient article about women as fighters in civil war which Ive read before and the usual page after page of carp on what colour eye liners in for this season, and how to look after my skin ( ise jonsons baby lotion and i have great skin) I dont need to pay bloody 20-0dd quid for whatever they recommend.

I read Ideal home on a freebie the other day, again very little to physically read althogh there was something useful about anti-hurricane construction in the caribbean which will be useful for me later in life, but I could always just google it and get the info for free in any case

So clearly neither of these mags had anything worth reading in, so I hve to presume that they are vehicles for advertising. Lets face it they admit as much themselves. Why people insist on buying them Ive no idea...

Im a private eye reader myself (when i can bring myself to part with the money) and I can get a good couple of hours reading out of that. LIkewise sunday newspapers there is plenty there too.

LookingAhead

briona has a really good point but I would like to say one thing and likewise, it may be boo-d down but I'll take my chances!

More mature (in mind as well as age) & worldly ladies (and gents) can flip over these articles and think "yeah yeah what a load of old pony" and just take from these mags what they want.

But I feel glossy women's mags can seriously affect the self esteem of the young, where they haven't been brought up in a safe, nurturing environment - and I speak from painful experience. It's not just money - it's everything they portray as how a woman should be today.

Some people are more open to persuasion than others whether it be their age and naivity, or a less than sound state of mind.

Magazines do have a responsibility and in this day & age where personal debt is the worst it has ever been (I presume) then they really should be a bit more sensitive when writing articles like "Blow a grand on clothes".

ZTD

briona wrote:

I'm probably not going to win any popularity contests here, but this is just one opinion and really is not intended to offend anyone. Please take it just as that, although feel free to vent spleen if it really p***** you off!

Or even if it doesn't. So long as you can take it.

briona wrote:

I've read this thread from start to finish and then back again and the interesting thing here is how everyone is quick to jump on the "let's blame the media" bandwagon [and no, I don't work in media!]... It's like blaming McDonalds for rising obesity levels – if no one wanted the product, they wouldn't be in business! So I feel that it's a little harsh to buy into the product and then blame the company for all the wrong in the world.

And this is where it starts to go wrong. The magazine is not trying to get you to buy its product, it is trying to get you to buy other companies' products. Also, they are trying in such a way, that would get them done by the Advertising Standards Authority if it was their product.

"Buy our product even if you have to go into debt."

And funnily enough it seems the be the products of their advertisers. How spooky.

briona wrote:

People have to realise that although options are presented to them, they don't have to avail of them. The glossy mags are just a 21st century take on "keeping up with the Joneses" – you see and so you must have.

Not neccesarily. The most common word I hear on these forums is "guilt". Not "aspiration". People feel guilty about not spending money on their children for example. Where did those feelings of guilt come from? Perhaps from the companies who peddle children's stuff? Kids don't care when they're young. It's only later when the advertisers have worked on them that it starts to matter. Give young kids an expensive present in a big box, and they will unpack it carefully, put it on the carpet and then play with the box.

briona wrote:

You, the consumer, can either buy into that, or not, but to blame the media for presenting an option to you is ridiculous.

But they aren't just presenting an option. They are encouraging an option. They are not saying "This is available." they are saying "Choose this over financial solvency". The media are another kind of "peer-pressure", and peer-pressure is effective. Not for everyone, but nothing is effective for everyone.

briona wrote:

Everybody's got a choice, but unfortunately Britain as a nation is beginning to look for a scapegoat in every area of life whenever something goes wrong, hence the rise in sueing everybody from schools for depriving kids of an education by not excluding school bullies,

Some cases have merit. You complain, you're a nobody. You take someone to a place where large amounts of money can be extracted from them (i.e. sue them in a court of law) suddenly companies become interested in what you have to say. It's almost as though all they care about is money. Isn't that strange?

Some people take their children's education so seriously, that they will do anything to get the schools/LEAs to listen to them. Sue them, and suddenly they listen. Can you imagine that in this day and age - taking your child's education seriously?

Try to get your bank charges back by including in every letter "I will not take you to court so you can refuse if you want." Let us know how you get on.

briona wrote:

to fast food restaurants for rising levels in childhood obesity.

This was probably because McDonalds has deep pockets, but now McDonalds offer salads. Spookier and spookier.

briona wrote:

Creeping quietly away [to read some glossy mag!]

If you remember the original complaint was not about a glossy mag, but about a "real-life" mag. Truth in advertising?

surfcat

Thriftylady wrote:

I treated myself to a copy of REAL magazine yesterday, which I always find to be quite an intelligent womens magazine

Funny, when I see a woman reading any of the glossy magazines, intelligence is not the first thing that springs to mind.

skintchick

ZTD wrote:

My OH was talking to someone who used to work in magazines such as those, but who is now (her words) "a real reporter" with a newspaper. She described here erstwhile collegues as vacuous and superficial, and said that many of them spent their lives in desperate anticipation of the next shade of eyeliner from the "big names".

She said that when a new lipstick or whatever was released, they would all become more and more excited up to the point...well I'm not going to use the word she did, but it began with "org...". :eek:

She described them as living charactures out of Ab Fab.

She wasn't impressed.

Hmmm. I used to work as a reporter. Now I work in magazines and on a national newspaper.

That's not my experience of people on mags, and I have worked on three. You will always get the odd person who is like that in any office, but I don;t work with people like that. We all pretty much take our own lunch in, and there's not too much clothes buying goes on. Primark is the fave shop in our office.

Did your friend not like any of her colleagues? She's being very b1tchy about them.

sam_b wrote:

Hi Thriftylady

My tutor told me the other week, that the media always make light of something they dont want the public to get its teeth into. Something like a big outbreak etc, then joking about it in the cartoons or in another article a week later. She was saying that if the public are alarmed or scared they will act accordingly but if they can laugh at it, it becomes part of the norm and people accept it as part of their lives.

:rotfl:
That's not my experience either. Who's your tutor? you know what they say - those that can, do, those that can't, teach. I really don;t think there's that much of an agenda.

Having said that, I read Real on the train tonight having found it (very DFW) and it is carp. I don;t think it has much circulation these days, and it really isn;t worth reading. No wonder someone had left it on the table...

Thriftylady

surfcat wrote:

Funny, when I see a woman reading any of the glossy magazines, intelligence is not the first thing that springs to mind.

but as I have said a few times in my posts, its not one of the glossy magazines, that was the whole point of my post.

I haven't said that this article will make me, or anyone else, go out and actually spend £1000 on my credit card, (and lets face it, anyone on this board is extremely unlikely to) but the issue I was raising was about the tone of the article suggesting its something you 'must' do at some stage in your life.

And when I called the magazine intelligent, I meant in relative terms - i.e. its not 'Jordan and Peter Andre show us round their beautiful country home'. I'm not claiming that its prizewinning journalism in there, or cutting edge articles, but aren't magazines by their very nature disposable and frivolous? It doesn't make me less intelligent just because I sometimes enjoy reading a magazine....

briona

ZTD wrote:

This was probably because McDonalds has deep pockets, but now McDonalds offer salads. Spookier and spookier.

Interestingly though, McDonald's is now slowly side-lining their salads range due to poor take up, and have only recently introduced a new summer range of 'super' burgers because this is what the average consumer wants.

Realistically, people who favour salads and healthy options are unlikely to choose McDonald's – a view reinforced by their dwindling sales in their so-called healthy options menu... which ties in nicely to my original point: if there wasn't a market, be it in fast food, glossy [or real life] mags and consumer lifestyles – aspirational or guilty – the options wouldn't exist. Bet you that in the next couple of years salads at McDonald's will have completely disappeared from the menus!

Re. the original post, apologies to Thriftylady for tarring glossies and real life mags with the same brush – I tend not to see a difference between them!

ZTD

briona wrote:

Interestingly though, McDonald's is now slowly side-lining their salads range due to poor take up, and have only recently introduced a new summer range of 'super' burgers because this is what the average consumer wants.

Realistically, people who favour salads and healthy options are unlikely to choose McDonald's – a view reinforced by their dwindling sales in their so-called healthy options menu... which ties in nicely to my original point: if there wasn't a market, be it in fast food, glossy [or real life] mags and consumer lifestyles – aspirational or guilty – the options wouldn't exist. Bet you that in the next couple of years salads at McDonald's will have completely disappeared from the menus!

The salads at McDonalds were only there as a sop to the lawsuits. They are not a sincere attempt to be healthy.

If you order one, they look at you like you have two head. It takes a long time to make. They forget about you. You have to chase it up. Then when it arrives, it has lettuce that makes a sheet of paper seem stiff. Then you look at the "sauce" they give you. It has just about the same amount of calories as the fries.

Yes. I've eaten a McDonalds salad. One of those 100 things to do before you die.