Should Magazines Have Refused To Show Pics Of Super-Thin Britney Murphy?
Or, maybe not.
It depends on who you ask.
In the aftermath of actress Britney Murphy’s death (and weeks before toxicology reports will deliver a cause of death), it is interesting to hear MSNBC.com columnist Courtney Hazlett say that some magazines decided against running photos of her in December because she looked sick and “painfully thin.”
The research is clear. Tine and time again, academics have reported statistically significant relationships between reading fashion magazines and “body dissatisfaction” as well as between reading health and fitness magazines and a “drive for thinness.” Adolescents who saw images of thin fashion models are more likely to report higher levels of body dissatisfaction immediately after exposure than those who saw non-fashion images.
I can’t locate the names of the magazines which refused to run Murphy’s photos, but if you find out, share the names so we can support them! All I know is that one magazine in question is “a prominent celebrity weekly.”
Wouldn’t that be an interesting switch? What if magazines decided not to showcase the thinnest celebs, and instead only focus on the ones who looked healthy? Would the 90-pound waif-look become less popular?