While doing leg presses at the rec last night I was eyeing the magazines in the rack facing the machine, which I do from time to time to remind myself of why I need to go into journalism. I didn't actually pick any of them up but I couldn't help noticing a particularly enticing cover line on US Weekly: "Hillary Clinton: My Worst Outfits Ever!"

The headline stuck in my mind until I got home, when I decided to actually look up the article on the magazine's website. It includes a slideshow of pictures of Mrs. Clinton ranging from the late '60s to just recently wearing things like a long, frilly high-collared wedding dress; a thick, brightly colored coat; striped pants; and a plaid business suit.
Did I mention the subhead? "The Democratic presidential hopeful critiques her past style faux pas in Us Weekly's Fashion Police." Somehow the magazine's staff has duped the Democratic presidential candidate into insulting her own fashion choices, of all things. Hillary, don't you have something better to do, like... I dunno, campaign?


Okay. Let's back up.
According to US Weekly's website, this is a magazine which "delivers to a mass audience of young, affluent and educated adults compelled by breaking celebrity news, Hollywood style and the best in entertainment. This is a connection driven by an unmatched sense of anticipation, priority, engagement and loyalty."

Demographic statistics on the website show that 73% of its readers are women, 60% of whom are between the ages of 18 and 34 (median age: 31). Also according to the website, 1.9 million people read this magazine every week.

On the homepage of the media kit, a quote from Advertising Age gushes, "US has become a cultural reference point, if not an entire world view."

Magazines set agendas. This means that they tell people not necessarily what to think, but what to think about. This magazine is setting an agenda for young women that distracts them from the real matter at hand, whether it intends to or not. The sole reason Clinton is even mentioned in the magazine is that so people can gawk at the way she's dressed herself over the years.
I can't believe that the staff of this magazine has actually got the audacity to focus on something as trivial and purposeless as outfits when talking about a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. This is politics; it is not a fashion contest. I can't believe Hillary insulted herself by actually agreeing to participate. She makes herself sound weak and sheepish by offering excuses for her outfits. For example, the caption following a charming photo of Clinton in a striped t-shirt dress:

"1992. While teeing off for mini-golf during husband Bill's presidential campaign, the former first lady shudders to think of her athletic attire: 'Now you know why I stick with pantsuits.'"

The young people reading this article (well, viewing it, as there is quite fittingly no actual text) are being told to focus on superficial things like appearance even when dealing with presidential candidates. That might fly with people like Paris Hilton, to whom there is nothing more, but when talking about a prominent presidential hopeful it goes too far. Way to hit the mark, US Weekly. Top notch. Real respectable.

I'm kind of curious as to who the male readers of US Weekly are, because men are usually discouraged from paying attention to such inconsequential banter. Gay? Thirteen? Midlife crisis? Pete Wentz?

I'll just stick to Bitch for now...

Holy fucking shit.
So this is what bored suburban teenagers are doing nowadays... ?