Oh Vanity Fair. I thought you were better than this. A giant feature article about the mistresses of Tiger Woods?! Aren't we bored of this yet? And more importantly, why would you stoop to that level?
To me this comes across as a blatant attempt to sell your magazine. And yes magazines and other publications do this too. But I just never thought you'd be one of them.
Hear reason please!
Why should we reward the behavior of Tiger Woods and his mistresses with even more coverage? Is it any of our business? More importantly, I think most of us don't give two toots about these women or the scandal anymore! Did you comprehend that last sentence? Did you?!
Maybe, and I want to stress maybe, if I thought you were going to take, let's say a more dignified and factual approach, perhaps I could see reason. However, from what I've seen, it doesn't look like that's the way you went. I'm baffled! This just doesn't seem like the kind of thing you would do. Maybe OK! or Star magazine, but not Vanity Fair!
I mean, is this the same Vanity Fair that in 1996, the journalist Marie Brenner wrote an exposé on the tobacco industry entitled "The Man Who Knew Too Much?" And thanks to online sources like Wikipedia, I know you've had other quality and intriguing articles like in 2005, when your article revealed the identity of Deep Throat (W. Mark Felt), one of the sources for The Washington Post articles on Watergate. Your magazine also included candid interviews with Teri Hatcher admitting to being abused as a child, or what about Anderson Cooper talking about his brother's death and Martha Stewart gave an exclusive to the magazine right after her release from prison?
That's an example of the kind of articles you used to produce. Remember? Not dribble about a tired event, that most people couldn't care less about. Stop covering and prolonging this mess!
For shame, Vanity Fair. Maybe we should just call you Vainity Fair from now on.
No comments:
Post a Comment