| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: The Atlantic cover story |
Topic: The Atlantic cover story
| Author | Message |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 3/21/2008 2:47:08 PM | show profile Was anyone else appalled by the recent cover of The Atlantic, the one with Britney Spears? It is indeed a bleak day in journalism when respected politcal and economic magazines splash celebrities on their cover. The story addresses how people are captivated by Hollywood stars. Besides, any press for Britney, positive or negative, is still press. Sigh. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200804/britney-spears |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 3/21/2008 3:08:09 PM | show profile For the record, I am not appalled in the least. |
| InsomniacNOT | Posted – 3/21/2008 3:14:17 PM | show profile Haven't read the story. If it was good, don't have any problem with it. Interestingly enough, I was doing research for something else not long ago and came across this old Life Magazine story on Joan Crawford. http://www.joancrawfordbest.com/articlelife37.htm While we go on and on about how awful celeb coverage is today, this adulatory blast from the past seems to make the point that plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 3/21/2008 4:17:50 PM | show profile I wasn't appalled. Disappointed is more like it. I won't read it. I probably won't read Atlantic again if it continues down (yes, DOWN) this road. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 3/21/2008 4:26:35 PM | show profile I was just typing the very same thing...disappointed. It was a huge disappointment to open my mailbox and see Britney on anything for which I pay money. It's pratically inescapable elsewhere. What a letdown. |
| chucho | Posted – 3/22/2008 8:48:35 AM | show profile I wonder if the people who were turned off by this actually read the article? I recall "Frontline" once did a story about the porn industry. Frontline wasn't pandering a prurience; it covered an issue regarding the issue of free speech vs. community standards and did pretty good job. The Atlantic was not trying to compete with "People" or "Us" magazines. I personally can't think of a better way to illustrate a story about celebrity worship and cultural voyeurism than to slap a celebrity on the cover of a magazine better known for its serious political and social coverage. I think it was a nice juxtaposition and little unfair to accuse the Atlantic of turning into a supermarket magazine for doing it. |
| jkdscribe | Posted – 3/22/2008 1:13:31 PM | show profile How can you be disappointed and make judgements without having read the story? Deciding not to read it because of the picture on the front is literally judging a book by its cover. After reading this thread I will now be sure to pick up pick up th Atlantic. |
| onmyown | Posted – 3/22/2008 3:24:59 PM | show profile I read it And once I started it, I couldn't stop. It was all about the rise of the paparazzi. Fascinating, really, even if we don't agree with it all. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 3/22/2008 9:36:50 PM | show profile Covers are key to doing two things: representing what's in the magazine, what the magazine is about, and selling magazines. I don't mind a story about celebrity worship, but why Britney on the cover? That's pandering, and I like to assume magazines like The Atlantic, New Yorker, harpers are above this. I purchase those magazines based on intelligent and provocative coverlines--the reason I bought SAssy so many years ago over the celeb-obsessed other teen magazines "You don't need armpit hair to be a feminist" "Sassiest Boy in Communist China" "Why Dad Loves ESPN more than you" etc.). People can certainly be disappointed in a magazine based on a cover. And I can certainly be disappointed in the fact that the Atlantic ran a story on Britney. I am not going to read the story on Britney because I am tired of reading about Britney. A story about celeb worship or whatever should feature a cover representing that, in my opinion. I am also disappointed everytime US weekly or Star runs a story about Britney with Britney (and her kids) on their covers). I'm tired of reading about Britney and I feel bad for those kids. I don't think she represents anything except how horrible it is to be mentally ill and a parent of two small children. I would prefer the Atlantic cover that topic and put Andrea Yates on the cover. Preferable at the graves of her five children. |
| Hankdaddy | Posted – 3/25/2008 8:44:54 PM | show profile | email poster Read it, liked it As I journalist, I thought it eye-opening and obscene how much the "photojournalists" that cover their celeb subjects rake in for their work. The David Samuels article says photos sell for up to six figures. A single photo! Am I in the wrong business? I can care less about all the stuff in People and Us. But, as I bury my nose in the New Yorker every week and drool with envy at those who got their bylines in there, I think it's a good idea to at least be aware that there's this whole other world drooling over the skeeze in grocery checkout lines. It's where the eyes are and dollars are, a market which is open to us too... if you want to go there. In essence, the story was not about Britney. I read the article as a commentary on news manufacturing in the U.S by way of a profile of X17, the don of the paparazzi racket. It's a way of looking at our society and our priorities though pop culture, which I appreciate. ------ :Henry Kumagai :Pika Pika Productions |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 3/25/2008 9:32:34 PM | show profile I actually thought it was a new gossip rag with the word Atlantic in the magazine's title...I actually looked closer trying to see what the rest of the title was. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 3/25/2008 11:41:37 PM | show profile so they use Britney's picture to sell a product that scoffs at celebrity journalism's drive to sell products about celebrities. How very ironic. Like I said, disappointing. And I wish David Samuels would go back to partying with Elizabeth Wirtzel and leave the coveted bylines to we un Harvard educated, hardworking journalists who cover imperative national topics. To be frank about it. |
| Hankdaddy | Posted – 3/26/2008 2:34:02 AM | show profile | email poster This is an imperative nat'l topic Qunester, Britney captures the headlines more than most any issue you see fit or dream to write about. This is fact. The readership is captivated, gobbles up and pays for the celeb scoop at $4.50 for a rag with 85% ads and photos/13% writing. The other 2%, white space and subscription cards. The Atlantic Monthly survives on the graces of smart, straight thinking angels who happen to have a lot of money to keep them afloat. If that doesn't pay the bills, it's Britney. What are we to do? ------ :Henry Kumagai :Pika Pika Productions |
| chucho | Posted – 3/26/2008 1:11:52 PM | show profile Instead of complaining about it, how about offering your respective vision for an acceptable (to you) Atlantic cover about the media celebrity-coverage industry? I think it's actually a significant topic considering how much Americans are willing to ignore things like the war in favor of things like Brittney's vagina. Perhaps a picture of dozens of paparazzi pointing their lenses out from the cover? -- that seems like a good one, albeit it does imply that, you, the reader, are the celeb and that's not quite what the story is about. But it might have been an acceptable cover to those of you who simply see Brittany and are concluding that the Atlantic was trying to boost sales or whatever. To be honest, I can't think of very many ways to do a cover of a magazine on this subject without using a paparazzi photograph. In fact, if I were in charge I'd not only use a celeb pic, but I would have altered the fonts to make the cover look more like a crappy supermarket magazine for the plebeians. If I were to criticize the cover I'd say they were trying to straddle the two (crappy supermarket magazine vs. austere political monthly). They should have gone all the way -- used the goofy US Magazine fonts, etc. -- then it would have been brilliant, IMO. |
| chucho | Posted – 3/26/2008 1:14:57 PM | show profile I suppose a better photograph might have been a picture of paparazzi hoarding around a celeb, with more of an emphasis on the photographers, but, really, I think some of you are making the wrong conclusions about the Atlantic's motives for this cover. Nobody picks up the Atlantic expecting to find tabloid coverage inside. In fact, most "US" readers have probably never read the Atlantic. I doubt the editors of the Atlantic were trying to hem in on this demographic. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 3/26/2008 1:42:34 PM | show profile I generally have not thought the what "most Americans...gobble up" is the best of anything, whether its magazine stories or Cheetos. If as a journaiist your goal is to sell, by all means, Britney away. If your goal as a journalist is to inform and educate a public about imperative national issues (the economy, war) I don't see where Britney falls into either category. Britney/celeb worship is allowing the public to escape the reality of what our country is headed for. Interesting that as we watched these celebs and gobbled up news of their lives in magazines like Star and Us weekly, we subprimed and borrrowed and are now losing our homes and our jobs. Circulations of these magazines are down, by the way, if I'm not mistaken. Probably cause people need their Cheetos money more. And Cheetos are expensive to make these days, with the price of flour, sugar, and probably orange dye going through the roof. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 3/26/2008 1:45:57 PM | show profile Truthfully, I think it was a competitive thing with the author. I think he was trying to compete with/satirize the author who wrote the The Rolling Stone story on Britney, and that's why they used that cover. (Not the actual story, but the fact that the story has been called "one of the most important stories in American journalism". Or maybe it was just the cover that was called that. In any case, I think it's an insider joke. A little snide fuck-you in between the NYC media hipster elite. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 3/26/2008 1:59:03 PM | show profile Well, chucho, since you asked, I will explain why I found it objectionable in the first place: It gave Britney press. Cover press. Prime real estate cover press. Like I said, I didn't read the story. My beef is less with the story. The story may be timely, well written, and very relevant to The Atlantic readers. But I don't expect the selected publications I chose to subscribe to to put a tart on the cover. Most of the time her face is inescapable at check-out counters and the such, so when I actually have some time after a day at work, the last thing I want to do is see her friggin trashy ass on the cover of a magazine I respect. She is an entertainer. She's a pop-tart. She's made her living for the last 3 years off her crazy marriage and her serious mental problems. She's actually done stupid things to KEEP her face in the papers. Her image was clearly used to sell magazines. That's my problem with this. Let her grace every cover from Us to People to Star for all I care, but the cover of The Atlantic? |
| Louisewasnothalfbad | Posted – 3/26/2008 2:27:49 PM | show profile How can you complain about a piece you haven't read? |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 3/26/2008 2:38:45 PM | show profile I think it's the irony of the photo's placement that makes it work. It works BECAUSE it's not expected to be there, not in spite of it. Cover art is supposed to draw attention to engage the reader's interest. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 3/26/2008 3:21:57 PM | show profile Sigh. Kate23, I could ask the same of you. Why are you asking me a question about something I'm not venting about? (Psst...I was complaining about the cover photo.) |
| chucho | Posted – 3/26/2008 4:37:23 PM | show profile kate23: Hyacinth is not criticizing the story. So to say she was put her on the defensive. HOWEVER, I think you do make a relevant point, because I think one needs to read the story before they can determine whether the cover is appropriate or not! From the perspective of an editor, this thread proves the cover was right. This is probably the longest thread on MB about The Atlantic Monthly I've ever seem. People who make a big deal condemning the cover as just as valuable to publications as people who praise it. So the verdict: excellent choice by the editors of The Atlantic! |
| seeattleme | Posted – 3/26/2008 9:07:03 PM | show profile I don't have to read a story in order to complain about it. That would mean I would actually have to read the crap in US Weekly and the National Enquirer (Oprah Is an Alien!) in order to complain about them. And I'm not going to do that, sorry. I will complain about those stories without putting money in the pockets of their owners by purchasing them and reading them. I can complain about the fact that they exist. Like global warming and crack moms. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 3/26/2008 9:35:57 PM | show profile It's not an either/or situation. Generally, if you are not engaging and entertaining readers, you won't have any readers to inform and educate. T --If as a journaiist your goal is to sell, by all means, Britney away. If your goal as a journalist is to inform and educate a public about imperative national issues (the economy, war)-- |
| seeattleme | Posted – 3/26/2008 11:41:47 PM | show profile dribble drive, you do not "choose" to inform /educated readers. You present the information and they either read it or they don't. Andf if you allow that to determine the material you present, you are not informing or educating, you are entertainling. I'd have liked it if, in high school, history consisted of smoking pot and listening to Beatles trivia. Alas, we studied American, European, and World History. Cause that was what we needed to know to get our AP scores and our Achievement scores to get into college. And I'd have loved if my college rhetoric class consisted of going to campus portests. Alas, they consisted of reading and writing about Aristotle, Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, etc. I'd have loved if studying French in college consisted of trips to Paris. Alas, we conjugated French verbs. Journalism is a responsibility, not a "glam job". It's a profession, requiring skill, not an art, requiring "flair", or even talent. That's fiction writing, satire, etc. The Daily Show is successful because it educated AND entertains. A lot of the stuff on the Daily SHow is stuff most won't pay attention to on the Nightly News. But they don't shy away from giving the need-to-know facts. Occassionally Britney Spears--but only to laugh at her. Which isn't all that funny if you think of her kids, to be frank. |
