Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Look Magazine: A Review

I received my free copy of Look magazine with the London Paper yesterday. I had been quite interested in the prospect of something new to read on the way home and it was free.

I don’t normally read women’s magazines. I find that the features just seem to cover the same old ground that I’ve read a million times before and worse they assume women have a very narrow field of interest - when they features books, films and music, it is only ever the lowest brow, lowest common denominator stuff.

But I did think the Look’s USP of weekly fashion that was affordable and available in the shops now was a good idea, and to be fair that part of the magazine wasn’t bad. But unfortunately that only amounted to about 8 pages out of the 100+. The rest of it was dire. Lots of inane celebrity non-stories (Posh doesn’t speak to some people that much anymore, people Justin & Cameron aren’t going out with). Topped off with some real-life stories; the serious issue of honour killings/rapes presented in a salacious manner with shouting headlines that demeaned the subject.

I came across this quote elsewhere from the person responsible for it. This should have been enough warning really.

"'Young women now have 11 years from when they leave home to when they have children,' says Eve Webster, the IPC executive overseeing the launch, 'and they want to cram everything into their lives.' That could mean walking the Great Wall of China, but it is more likely to include owning a Chloe handbag, buying a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes or dating someone famous. So Look will focus on young women's twin obsessions - fashion and celebrity - to the exclusion of almost everything else; and, at more than 100 pages, will do so in forensic detail."

Is this really all women are interested in? And what happens once they have children – do they cease to be interested in anything or do they suddenly subscribe to New Scientist and Private Eye?

I read this magazine on the same day, I found out that the Arts Council will no longer be funding the women’s theatre company because ‘women are no longer a priority’ and Wags Boutique started on television – a new low for our gender.

I definitely won’t be buying this magazine in the future – if I want to know what is in the shops, I’ll just go and look for myself.

4 comments:

Miss Forthright said...

Oh dear. This dumbing down of society is so sad. Do people not have feelings and senses anymore?

northern monkey said...

I saw piles of that mag at my tube station but couldn't be bothered to get past the 10 london paper people trying to give you a paper when it's obvious you already have one. Good job really as it sounds rubbish!

I just don't get this dumbing down thing - don't people want more from life or to find out more than which celebrity is doing/wearing/buying what?

SandDancer said...

It is very worrying if this is what the average woman wants. But I don't think I know anyone who is only interested in these things - I know people who do read the gossipy magazines but they are still interested in other things.

Suz said...

Ick. I can't stand all this piffle with celebs and what they do/who they do it with/how many times they do it. When did everyone become so materialistic and willing to devote time to helping people with no talent become famous millionaires? Hm, bit of a rant there. What worries me is that I *do* know people who are only interested in the crap this magazine promotes.

Also, apologies for commenting all over your blog in a frenzied fashion :-D