Why you should cancel your subscription to Glamour Mag

[laura888]

They printed the following letter from a reader in their August 2004 issue, in response to an article on Lynndie England:

"I feel bad for Lynndie England, who at 21, has had her life changed by her time in Iraq. When I saw the pictures, I wondered what those prisoners had been caught doing. Had they hanged our civilians or dragged our soldiers? The Iraqi people were shown cheering when the Twin Towers fell - could I treat members of that crowd as humanely as possible if they had been my prisoners? I can't say I would have tortured them, but I can't say I wouldn't have either. I really don't know. I do know that I'd feel rage, sadness, fear and disgust. Before judging those involved in the scandal, let's take a walk in their shoes." - Linda Klang, Long Beach, NY"

My response:

How could you print such a RACIST letter, using a term like "that crowd"? How is this any different than someone in the South justifying a lynching of several blacks because one of "that crowd" "MIGHT" have raped a white woman?

-----

I know you think that Glamour is a harmless, fashion mag - but if millions of women are reading a letter like the above, it is NOT harmless.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. Well I also feel sorry for Lynndie England too

Not because I agree with what she did, but because I know that she is taking the blame for what the higher-ups ordered her to do.

[NYC]

17. Then she should sing like a canary.

If she doesn't want to take the blame for the higher ups, give evidence against them.

Also, referring to the original letter to the editor posted above, at the time, we were told the people "dancing and rejoicing" re 9/11 were Palestinians. So now they were Iraqis?

[laura888]

20. Who cares? They're all part of "that crowd." n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I'm sure that she's been brainwashed and intimidated into not doing that

I have a feeling that she was mentally unstable to begin with.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

60. the footage shown

I thought was of Palestinians. The same 15-20 seconds of footage got played over and over again.

At the time, I remember thinking it was only a handful of people anyhow -- hardly representative of a whole race of people.

It also crossed my mind that I distrust the media, and know it well enough to consider the possibility that they could've cut celebratory footage from any occasion into that story. Just add a grab or two of Palestinians saying "Go Al-Qaeda" or whatever and you've got an excellent piece of inflammatory propaganda. Not saying that's what happened, but I'd never rule that sort of thing out. Remember the babies being ripped from the humidicribs during Gulf War I?

Anyway, it's "those people" to "some people".

[Spike from MN]

66. The footage was bogus.

About a year or so ago (or maybe more) a woman on "60 Minutes" said that a friend of hers from Jordan was in the shot so she asked him about it. The footage was from a celebration of some sort that had taken place two years before 9/11.

Oh, and last year Lynndie England was on "60 Minutes" with her mother. I sort of thought that she was being used as a scapegoat and was anxious to hear what she would have to say. She expressed no remorse whatsoever (though her monther did) and felt that she was right in everything she did. She wouldn't change a thing. Yes, she's truly a horrid person and deserves everything she gets IMHO.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

68. thanks spike, my instictive distrust of US media

... pays off yet again.

I'd never heard that evidence about it not being true, but knew at the time it could've so easily been a group of people cheering anything. Why take a network's word for something like that?

I don't have much sympathy for Lynndie England either, other than feeling she's as dumb as a box of rocks and should never have been put in that position in the first place.

I've got more sympathy though for the prisoners. Many of whom, according to the Red Cross, were there for not reason at all.

Nice to 'meet' another comparative newbie. Minnesotans seem generally very level headed people :-)

[BrklynLiberal]

2. You are right. It is a disgusting letter on its face, even without

considerng the use of that phrase. The entire feeling was of a racist, hate-filled nature.
The people in Abu Gharib were found for the most part to be innocent civilians who were not involved in any terrorist activities.

[tx_dem41]

3. Okay, although the letter is pretty bad...

I think by "that crowd", she was referring to the crowd of Iraqi people she claims she saw cheering when the Twin Towers fell. (BTW...I don't think that happened).

As for Glamour, I think a LTTE section should reflect the good, the bad, and the ugly that is received in the magazine's inbox. If people's racism, or wrongful thinking, is not exposed, how will some people ever recognize it in themselves?

So, I vote to keep the Glamour subscription, which I don't have.

[laura888]

6. The problem is that many will not view the letter as racist.

By printing the letter, Glamour gives the viewpoint legitimacy.

[tx_dem41]

12. Being a good friend of a LTTE Editor for a major newspaper...

I've never seen that to be the purpose of the LTTE section. The editorial staff would say its to reflect the opinions of its readership.

Now, blatant racism should at the very least be edited in the editorial staff's opinion.

[laura888]

23. this seems like blatant racism to me

The reader is suggesting that she might forgive a torturer who torturers prisoners whose only certain crime is that they look like the 9/11 hijackers.

[tx_dem41]

27. It could be construed that is the feeling behind the letter...

(and I'm surely not defending the letter, racism or not), but I wouldn't call it blatant.

[TrustingDog]

13. Weren't those Palestinians 'cheering'...

that got all the press. And there is some doubt as to whether that footage was authenic.

bah, too much to remember/bookmark.

[tx_dem41]

15. I think you're right. n/t

[DrZeeLit]

36. Yes, Palestinians.. and that was a "set up" too. Nobody had pictures

from Iraq at the time.

Everyone who uses 9/11 for any answer, like torture, is sick. It begs the question -- who is/are the terrorist(s)?

[Vanje]

18. "That crowd"

"I think by "that crowd", she was referring to the crowd of Iraqi people she claims she saw cheering when the Twin Towers fell. (BTW...I don't think that happened)."

The cheering "crowd" filmed celebrating Sept 11, were Israeli Palestinians.

[tx_dem41]

22. Which is why I stated that I didn't think it happened.

I knew about the overblown story about the Palestinians, just wasn't quite certain if 4 or 5 Iraqis might have been filmed on the streets of Baghdad cheering as well.

[serryjw]

28. Agreed

I don't beleive in censorship on either side. This is not an editorial it a letter to the editor which should have all sides represented.
As ugly as this may be; She has a constitutional right to be ugly

[Mojambo]

4. Seems like a fitting letter to print

In a magazine published for vain, vacuous people overly concerned with the least important issues of the day.

[cyn2]

5. Are there really many people here with sub. to Glamour? n/t

[Mojambo]

7. I think the only people with Glamour subscriptions

Are Fashion students and Dentists.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

24. Don't hate me b/c I subscribe to it...for the articles. :)

Hey, I need a little brainless reading every now and then. Actually, there are some articles in there regarding health issues which can be helpful. So, sue me.

[Mojambo]

33. Hey, I still read comic books

There is nothing wrong with a little mindless reading. ;-)

[Scout]

67. subscribe to Ms. if you want a "women's magazine"

much better content, without all the stupid fashion and makup advertising and articles.

[laura888]

8. It is one of the most widely-read women's fashion magazines

While I don't subscribe, I am offered it in countless locations, including the gym, hair salons, etc.

[Orangepeel]

35. Glamour is the most intelligent, most progressive "woman's" magazine

I know, that sounds kind of like saying Moe is the smart stooge, but
Glamour always has a couple of really good articles on important woman's issues after the fashion spreads and makeup tips. They are particularly good on reproductive and health issues, as you might expect given their audience, but they cover other issues as well.

The whole point of this thread is to criticize a letter written by a reader to criticize Glamour's criticism of what happened at Abu Ghraib. That means that Glamour published an article describing the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

The magazine actually does a big service to society by educating people who otherwise wouldn't read about anything other than fashion and makeup on larger, more important issues.

[Bunny]

62. Thank you for bringing this up.

It is a magazine that does WAY more for women than just publish the latest fashion and makeup tips. But people just want to offer an ignorant opinion, I guess.

[Bunny]

61. Have you actually read Glamour in the past 20 years?

It is one of the very few fashion magazines that is at the forefront of women's issues, and has been for decades. There is much more to Glamour than vain, vacuous people. I suspect you'd know this if you had ever actually read it.

[RoeBear]

9. Because women are smart enough to figure out the truth?

You did, and I can give most women enough credit to figure it out too.

[laura888]

16. Were southern racists smart enough to figure it out?

The letter is troubling because it encourages a type of racism that I fear is getting more and more widespread.

Think how many people don't know the difference between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqis? Think how many people believe they're probably not exactly the same, but there may be some difference. A letter like this helps blur the line.

Especially for women who don't follow the news so closely.

[RoeBear]

19. It exposes it

and exposure is good. At least it has us talking.

[tx_dem41]

30. You make my point for me....

Jim Crow laws in the South ended when the Civil Rights movement showed the ugliness of racism in the South (and the North). The media was there to put pictures and words to that racism by showing Bull Connor commanding the hosing down of students and attacking them with dogs. The media was there to show food being dumped on blacks who dared to sit at a lunch counter. The media was there to record the words of the Grand Wizard of the KKK in all its ugliness. The media was there to record Gov. Wallace saying "Segregation forever!".

Nothing would have changed without this exposure. Thank goodness, we don't sweep it under the rug.

[Bouncy Ball]

10. I wouldn't buy or subscribe to it in the first place

on the grounds that it is YET another magazine trying to tell me how I should look, feel and dress. And that it's never good enough. No thanks.

[American Tragedy]

11. Magazines do not always print nice letters

nor even ones with which they agree.

[Cleita]

14. Before you are too quick to judge,

editors sometimes print letters that are disgusting because it's important to know about people like this. Since I don't read Glamour I don't know if they also printed letters from the other side of the argument as well.

One thing the letter does show besides deep rooted racism is that many people were propagandized into believing that Iraq was responsible for 911 and they can't let go of the lie.

[laura888]

25. My gripe is that by printing the letter...

...Glamour extends the lie further.

Such a letter should be treated as if it were a letter from a crackpot - NOT a legitimate viewpoint.

[senseandsensibility]

21. Iraquis didn't cheer when the

twin towers fell. I'm sure we would have heard much more about that, ad naseum, if they had. I do recall some mideastern crowd cheering, but I believe it was Egypt, and a very isolated incident. If this is proven untrue, and I hope someone on this board knows, Glamour should be called on it. If an Iraqui crowd did not cheer, it should not be printed in their letters section, especially since the writer uses it as a "justification" for the torture. They should fact check, and if they don't, they should be exposed. Does anyone know about this supposed incident of cheering, because I am almost positive it didn't happen.

[neebob]

29. I have a subscription to Glamour?

You bet I'll cancel it - and not just because they're promoting the lie that Iraqis did 9/11. I only feel sorry for Lynndie England because she's such an ignoramus, and that's not entirely her fault.

[laura888]

32. thank you! By printing the letter they are promoting the lie...

...at least you and I think so.

[tx_dem41]

31. I can't believe this thread has made it to 30 posts, without a George..

Costanza reference!

[Orangepeel]

34. I'll keep reading Glamour.

I like Glamour. I don't subscribe, but I read it every month while I'm getting my hair cut.

For a magazine with such a silly name, they frequently publish fairly progressive political articles. They had a strong emphasis on the need for young women to vote last election, and, although they tried hard to seem "balanced" (e.g., the Kerry daughters and the bush daughters both wrote a page on "why you should vote for my dad"), they frequently pushed democratic issues (the importance of reproductive rights, health care, the environment).

The letter wasn't an editorial, and they probably printed it only because it was the only letter on "that side" that they received in response to the article. They might even print your response.

[laura888]

37. Doubt it.!

I'm getting so sick and tired of hearing a view like the one shown in the letter to be a harmless difference in opinion, while the views of, for example, Michael Moore, are considered conspiracy theories from a crackpot.

Please - can be get some perspective?

The writer of this letter believes that it might be ok to torture people based on how they look. I don't really think I'm over-generalizing.

[tx_dem41]

38. No one on this thread ever called it a "harmless difference of opinion".

Please read my post #30.

Oh, and will someone also read post #31 and revel in my wonderful sense of humor!

:-)

[Orangepeel]

40. at least they printed an article on Abu Ghraib

I'm certainly not defending the slimeball who wrote the letter. But, IMO, Glamour provides a service to society by educating people who normally would only read about fashion, makeup, and new ways to please your lover about more important issues.

It's just my opinion and of course you can do whatever you want, but instead of getting people to cancel their subscriptions (better they should read Cosmo?) you put the same energy into getting people to write their own letters to Glamour disputing that letter and correcting the facts. If enough people wrote them, they would feel obligated to print a response.

[Deja Q]

39. Yup. Iraqis were cheering when 9/11 happened. But Linda is right, folks:

to invade and 'liberate' them while humiliating and degrading them.

Iraq is a example of a personal vendetta and US subjugation of its resources. Nothing more.

But Linda is right: We should take a walk in their shoes. Linda especially. Then maybe she'd understand.

[thinkingwoman]

41. let me get this straight...

You're mad at a magazine because it did not censor something you disagree with?

Hmmm

As a newspaper editor I make it a point NOT to reject letters that I disagree with personally. I consider that censorship and completely against everything I believe in about the first amendment, free speech, and freedom of the press.

[laura888]

42. disagree

when the opinion is based on raw racism - I would feel an obligation to shield my readers.

Wouldn't you reject a letter that defends the lynching of a negro because he looks like someone who might have raped a white woman?

How do you think such a letter would effect my black readers?

This viewpoint is more than just something I disagree with it. This is harmful lie that needs to snuffed out before it sees the light of day.

[tx_dem41]

43. Thank goodness this nation's media did not shield us from the images...

of raw racism during the Civil Rights era. This country had to see what brutal ugliness looked and sounded like in order to face up to it, admit it, and evolve.

[laura888]

45. The people who would want to hide photos from the Civil Rights era...

...are more likely the white people who performed the ugliness.

The Civil Rights photos are more akin to the Abu Gharib photos - the results of allowing the type of thinking in the letter to go unquestioned.

I think we all agree that the letter is repugnant.

And be honest - How many letters from readers of Glamour state a viewpoint that is repugnant or outrageous? Most are god-awful bland; not even as feisty as Oprah. By placing this letter amongst such bland fare, the magazine is stating that this is, indeed, just another point of view (low-carb or South Beach diet?).

[thinkingwoman]

44. censorship is censorship

dressing it up in a pretty bow doesn't make it less ugly.

How is "snuffing" out viewpoints you find harmful different than media whores elimating all liberal viewpoints because they find them silly, harmful, irrelevant, whatever.

I never feel an obligation to "shield" my readers from their fellow citizens. I feel an obligation to make sure that public forums (which are exactly what opinion pages and ltte sections are) champion freedom of speech above all other goals.

You advocate dancing along a slippery slope of censorship when you claim the right to snuff out viewpoints you disagree with. If I, as an editor, followed that line of thinking, I would be fired, and rightly so.

Freedom is messy and painful but it is worth it.

[Orangepeel]

47. magazines often have an editorial viewpoint

and, of course, people are welome to stop reading them if they disagree with this view.

In this case, this was a letter to the editor, not an editorial, so I'm not going to stop reading a magazine I like because of it.

Personally, I think Glamour should be praised for including an article on Abu Ghraib in the first place. Obviously, given the content of the letter, it wasn't "glamourizing" the atrocity.

[thinkingwoman]

50. ltte are also a good source

for future editorials and articles. Many editors I know use ltte to prompt additional coverage or editorials on controversial topics.

[laura888]

48. Are you aware that the RNC has taken over most of our media?

I would have no problem with this letter if the viewpoint in this letter were not hinted at 24/7 on most major cable news stations.

But how many commentators on CNN have come out and said, "the torture at Abu Gharib is probably partly a result of many in the U.S. media and Bush administration intentionally blurring the lines between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqis."

Our freedom of speech gets us no where when we are up against this.

[thinkingwoman]

51. um, yeah...

all the more reason to NEVER advocate for or excuse censorship of viewpoints that the editor disagrees with.

Like the idea of the right wing media censoring everything liberals write in? That would be perfectly in line with your expressed viewpoints in this thread.

The more you post, the more you prove my point.

[laura888]

54. can we get back to the statement "that crowd"?

You can substitute that phrase with every harmful sterotype for a minority.

Would you still print the letter if it referred to jews as all being greedy? Would you still print it if it referred to the japanese as the "yellow menace?" Or if it said that blacks enjoy watermelon but are lazy and shiftless?

I'm sure there are those in America who still believe these things. But you NEVER see it in print. There's a reason for that.

[thinkingwoman]

55. Never? Obviously that's not true

Since you just saw it in Glamour magazine.

I'm jewish, btw, so I think I have some idea how it feels to be stereotyped and your repeated lectures to that effect are not helping your argument.

The problem with your assertion (that it is ok to censor ideas you don't agree with. find distasteful, consider harmful, or whatever) is that it violates one of the most the basic principles of our democracy, such that it is.

We will not win back our democracy by sacrificing freedom.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

49. I commend you on being for free thought

I hope more editors feel that way.

[thinkingwoman]

52. sadly

I find fewer and fewer old school editors and journalists everyday. It's maddening.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

57. They are destroying journalism

Bias is probably impossible to avoid, but balance is desirable and that requires people to at least tolerate another opinion.

[thinkingwoman]

59. I began training

as a journalist at 12, when my parents bought a newspaper. I have found over the decades that, although I always have a personal opinion (bias) I am rather skilled at keeping it out of news articles (if I do say so myself). If journalists meticulously scrutinized both sides of any story and print everything they find, readers are usually able to form their own opinions.

Bias is for the opinion page only, and even then it has to be based on verifiable facts.

It's just not that hard, which is why I find modern journalists so frustrating. I'll eventually leave this field because I cannot be a part of such a corrupt institution much longer.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

63. I wish you would stay

It's nice to know somebody out there gets it.

[amazona]

46. I don't think you should cancel

This is not Glamour's stance. They are liberal and supportive of women's rights, especially women's right to choose. The first time they ever endorsed any president was in 2000, when they endorsed Al Gore. From time to time, they have printed letters or articles that irritated me, but if you reconsider, I think you will see that the reader, although misguided, was trying to plead for empathy. They are trying to be fair and have a bit of balance. You may disagree with this one letter, as I do, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Glamour and Marie Claire are the best of the women's magazines as far as getting good sound Democratic ideas out there. Too many so-called women's magazines pretty much ignore women's issues. Some, like Cosmopolitan, want to benefit from women's sexual freedom without any longer printing stories that support women's freedom.

I can get fashion from a lot of magazines, but if I support Glamour and Marie Claire, I just think it sends a message that we have brains as well as bodies.

[leesa]

53. Funny. Subscription to Glamour magazine???

[thinkingwoman]

56. lol good point

I don't think I've even read the headlines of Glamour at a grocery checkout in years.

People have subscriptions to that mag?

[noonwitch]

58. I don't bother reading women's fashion magazines

They are shallow and stupid, and encourage young women to dress like whores.
Glamour isn't the worst, though, Cosmo is.

[Scout]

64. I don't waste my time on "women's" magazines

Like Glamour, Cosmo, etc.

So I can't cancel my subscription.

Why are YOU reading trash like that?

[The Stranger]

65. Disgustingly Racist, and becoming more, not less common.

The New American Racism is toward "that crowd" -- complete with common lies spreading like tsunamis regarding supposed dancing after September 11. The lies are in nearly every frame of Fox News, CNN, and every other major media outlet.

Pure, unadulterated racism and bigotry. The same thing that launched lynchings across the country, non-judicial mob killings, and Jim Crow Laws. The same thing that clamored "Segregation Now . . . Segregation Forever."

That is exactly what this is, yet so many are afraid to call it what it is.

[rene moon]

69. I am a Glamour subscriber

I read this letter. It is a horrible letter but one that must be printed because that is a part of our freedom of speech.

Sorry, but I like Glamour and plan to keep on reading it.