DEMS IN VOGUE

New York Post ^ | MYRNA BLYTH

[kattracks]

March 16, 2004 -- IT'S the silly season, that time in the election cycle when campaigns gear up, candidates make gaffes - and the thoughts of the "Spin Sisters," the elite sorority of women's magazine editors, journalists, television producers and PR executives, turn to politics.

Democrat politics, that is.

[goldstategop]

Led by Perky Katie of Today and the Gals from View.

[Miss Marple]

The only women's magazines I read now are the decorating and gardening ones, and those aren't really "women's" magazines. Long before I realized their political spin, I got bored by the silly and repetitive articles. I mean, how many times can one read about how to lose 10 pounds, 20 quick meals for busy moms, and new spring hair-dos? Not to mention the celebrity gushing and "advice" columns.

However, since these are the magazines at beauty shops and doctor's offices, these are the things a lot of women read. We need to know what the enemy is up to, and this article is spot-on.

[jamaksin]

The above is obvious and had been for a very long time, decades in fact, and for reasons well known. For example, some often mentioned facets are the cultural wars: liberalism vs. conservatism, strict constitutional adherence vs. activist courts/judges, secular vs. religious, ..., etc.

The establishment media does not "report" the news ... they work very hard, and with intent, to "shape" the news.

In the run-up to the November 2004 elections a very different landscape and set of tactics is already apparent. This will not be your Grandpap's election - all of the "rules of thumb" have changed. For example, the role of the President to directly (viz., not via proxies such as the VP, ..., etc.) respond to "attacks" ... early (i.e., prior to the Democratic Convention in Boston) and often is a real shift.

The dim-0-crats have played extremely well so far ... Dean was "taken care of" using several "plays" ... Clark was run in to deflect some votes, the establishment media fed the wild-man image of Dean and "killed" him as was their purpose, ... So Kerry has now been "annointed" under the rubric of "Anyone but Bush."

Those 'pubbies have a real "in control of Congress" four years to point to ... sadly. Stalled appointment of judges, run-away spending, ... invisible leadership from all quarters, and are now playing "ketch-up" in reacting to Kerry's jabs.

Getting over the hand-wringing of the "double-standard" and hypocrisy of the third estate is an old saw ... and now a very dull one at that. Next steps are what exactly. For the GOP has been a very wet noddle so far.

Dubya might recognize that a good defense is a good offense ... problem so far is more reaction and very little proaction.

[Agnes Heep]

But then Vogue's agenda is pretty clear.

Some people worry that their kids are reading Hustler. I always worried that I'd find a copy of Vogue in their bedroom.

[anoldafvet]

Like Rush keeps saying, something about Kerry's rise to popularity makes no sense. He was in the low single digits in Iowa, suddenly Dean implodes and Kerry becomes the rising star, almost overnight. Something stinks besides the usual RAT lies and distortions. What if it's all a setup to get Bush to spend most of his money "defining" Kerry, then Kerry implodes and we have a new candidate (can you say Hillary?) and Bush has spent most of his money against Kerry, who is no longer the candidate? I pray to God I'm wrong and that all this is just the RATS being RATS.

[mrtysmm]

My only exposure to these magazines use to be in the doctor, dentist, beauty parlor, etc. I now bring a book wherever I go as to not HAVE to read that garbage. Most times the book is a GOP political book...and I usually get a few frowns from others in the room. On the other hand, I have also gotten a few people ask about my reading material with a positive smile. It can be a very rewarding experience.

[goldstategop]

It bothers me too. I can't put my finger on it either. I guess we'll find out soon enough why the Democrats went along with Kerry.

[mewzilla]

So much for feminism.

[mrtysmm]

I,too, have been wondering about Kerry's sudden rise to fame. It didn't make sense for him to jump into first place so quickly. I do think somehow the klintooons are behind it...but I don't think it's for Hitlery in '04. I tend to believe that it's to make Kerry lose this time and have a clear field for her in '08. With a very long 7 plus months to go in this campaign....anything can happen. I always have those pesty FBI files in mind. I'm sure they will come into play somehow, but we will never know about it.

[goldstategop]

The Clintons will take down Kerry at the right time. If Hillary wants to be President, NO Democrat will be elected this year. Count on it.

[reformedliberal]

I was raised in women's ready-to-wear and in the 1980's thru the mid 1990's had my own clothing line. Vogue, especially the large fashion week issues, was a *must*.

After awhile, I simply browsed the thing at the library, since all I cared about were the fashions and it got very expensive.

The past few years, I do skim it at the beauty shop. The last couple of times, since I was browsing page by page from the front, I read the *Letters* column and was amazed at the number of activist-written issue letters. They mostly excoriated the magazine for triviality in the issue articles, although a few were the expected *right on* sort of thank-you note expected from the active.

However, I don't think many women actually read the articles, even though they are mostly fluff and quite easy to read quickly. Even when I was in the business, when talking shop w/other designers, they would look at me blankly if I mentioned the articles.

After a while, I switched to WWD (Women's Wear Daily). Haven't even seen one for about 10 years, but back then, the rag trade was quite left, pro-union and Democrat.

The other ones are formula, as you say. At one time, pre-mid-1980s, the middle class womens' mags were a market for designers (Woman's Day; Family Circle). They would pay for craft ideas and articles. Sometime in the eighties, these became all in-house-designed and even the holiday craft sections became recycled, w/the color schemes changed for the holiday.

But they do have legs. I had a free publicity paragraph w/a pic of an item in the 1996 Woman's Day Christmas Craft edition and I was still getting 2-3 inquires/year from that plug up until last year.

It would be interesting to see what their actual circulation is today. While Vogue and Cosmo are probably still strong (just a guess), I somehow have doubts about the housewife mags. I think the market is all online today and I think they mostly get their ideas/recipes/diets from email lists and forums. I know a mid-sized city newspaper editor who told me last summer that they have lost the 18-34 female demographic and that not even a full section of coupons was bringing them back.

If they have an effect, I would guess it to be the echo chamber sort of thing, reinforcing what the *hard news* is pushing.

[Miss Marple]

That is interesting. I have noticed myself that I rarely buy Better Homes and Gardens, but I do buy their specialty publications. I am familiar with Vogue and WWD because my sister worked in fashion retail for many years.

I think Family Circle and Women/s Day> are losing share to other magazines because they are shooting for a demographic that increasinly has less time for magazines....young motohers, most of whom work. I know that my daughter-in-law reads no magazines except the pprofessional publications she needs to keep up with her job.

[Puppage]

and new spring hair-dos?

LOL. Those weren't do's...those were DON'TS.

[livius]

Interesting comments on the housewife mags and their fate.

I probably shouldn't admit it on this forum, but I read Martha Stewart Living (gasp!). No politics, just lots of good recipes, pretty pictures, and crafts projects that nobody in their right mind would undertake (but they're fun to look at).

BTW, the article looks very interesting - I may have to read her book.

[roses of sharon]

I take all my conservative mags into waiting rooms when I'm finished with them.

The American Enterprise, National Review, Imprimis, Weekly Standard, ect.

Also, copy articles you like, and take them to salons, Drs., car dealerships, anywhere with waiting rooms or mag racks.

[OESY]

Like Rush keeps saying, something about Kerry's rise to popularity makes no sense. He was in the low single digits in Iowa, suddenly Dean implodes and Kerry becomes the rising star, almost overnight.

Kerry is being crowned by Democrats because their status quo party is desperate to avoid extinction. Their candidates express few ideas on how to solve the nation's problems, delivering a diet of pabulum that Bob Shrum thinks is bulletproof. Furthermore, Dems are ineffective in implementing policies when in control because of a disdain for business-hewed management techniques, a general lack of experience (many of Clinton's appointees couldn't get security clearances let alone run a department), and constraints imposed by their constituency which has swallowed wholesale a distorted view of the world.

In other words, if they could figure out what the real causes of a problem, the Dems couldn't do anything about it. Thus, their candidate's positions no longer matter -- even when disclosed, however contradictory or repugnant or vulnerable those positions may be.

Kerry was viewed by Democrats and Republicans as haughty, arrogant, boastful, wishy-washy, disorganized, demagogic, and yet still boring, which drove his poll numbers down before Iowa. After Iowa, Kerry was the merely last one standing after the rest of an incredibly weak field collapsed, winning more by default more than by argument.

Obviously, Kerry was helped by the fact he was a previous favorite over Dean by Dem insiders who think Hillary would be a disaster for their party still reeling from election losses brought on by the first Clinton.

But a liberal like Kerry who has an ambiguous but clearly left-wing 19-year record in the senate and who is from Massachusetts while still making Ted Kennedy look conservative in comparison has very little chance of winning once the rest of America learns who he is.

IMHO, the big blowhard, Kut & Run Kerry, is not a credible candidate, especially after it turns out that the only foreign leaders we know are supporting his candidacy are the Spanish prime minister, anti-American and socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and the deranged North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il. Call the Kerry candidacy Dukakis II.

This is not to contend Kerry's candidacy should not be taken seriously. It is right to define him now before he becomes sufficiently credible to hurt our efforts to win the war on terrorism and to revive the economy, both of which efforts are proceeding very well under Bush and without Kerry's interference.

[Republican Red]

This article goes hand in hand with the article out today reporting a decline in readership of major magazines

'Plunging Circulation Besets Magazine Industry'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1098793/posts

I canelled my subscription to my hometown newspaper the Atlanta Journal Contstitution because of its' obvious left wing bias. Seems like others might be cancelling their magazines for the same reason.

[CharlieOK1]

how's this for a nice conspiracy: I believe Kerry was chosen because they knew he would run to the left as far as possible. Someone (the media, the Clintons, I dont know) wanted to see how far left the guy could go before his numbers started to plummet. Then someone more 'moderate' could step in to bring the Democrats back to the 'middle'. I think whoever it is is getting nervous as Kerry is about as far out in left field as he can get, but his numbers still aren't dropping.

I seriously think they are sitting there going, "I just don't get it. This guy could take a crap on the constitution, and Americans still might elect him to replace Bush."

[weegee]

The "revived" public Media Schadenfreude and and Media Shenanigans lists

Freepmail AnAmusedSpectator to get OFF/ON this list