Thanks for clarifying, Turq. Your emphasis is on the "working" part of the deal, not the "everyone" part. Got it.
Vanity Fair was not one of the 8 fashion magazines I looked at. Since I value your perspective, I browsed around online. Please understand that in order to make a real judgment I'd have to hold the mag in my hand. There are some subtle things about magazine styling that I look for as far as good mindfood, and it goes beyond individual articles or columns. It has to do with the overall feel of "is this mag a tool of information or of manipulation?" The mag Forbes FYI, not a fashion mag at all, is on my anti-mind list because the overall presentation is manipulative and destructive to the reader (imo). So, looking at Vanity Fair: their "About Us" page says, "From world affairs to entertainment, business to fashion, crime to society, Vanity Fair is a cultural catalyst that drives the popular dialogue globally." So fashion is at best 1/6 of their emphasis. They consider themselves to be a "cultural catalyst." Their 2 topic tabs on the home page are Culture; Politics & Power. I compared this to what I call fashion magazines. These are the first 3 I looked up. None of these had an "About Us" page, so I used their subscribe page instead. Allure: "Allure is the beauty expert." ~ from the subscribe page. Their 5 topic tabs are Beauty reporter; Trends; How-to's; Salon & spa directory; Makeovers. Vogue: Their web address is www.style.com <http://www.style.com> , which says a lot about their emphasis. Their first 5 topic tabs are Fashion show; News & trends; People & parties; Shopping; Beauty. Cosmopolitan: "Fun Fearless Female" is their subtitle on the subscribe page. Their 7 topic tabs are Sex & love; Style & beauty; Hot guys; Celebs & gossip; You, you, you; Fun & games; Cosmolicious. >From this, I might classify Vanity Fair as a news magazine, the same topical classification as People magazine or Time. I still don't know if I'd consider it healthy mindfood, but it's not a fashion magazine. --- TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- "ispiritkin" wrote: > > > I said it because a number of people were displaying > attachment to systems that they personally believe > "work" for everyone. I do not share that belief. > <snip> > No, it was quite specific; it was about techniques > and systems. I quite honestly don't believe that > they work as advertised. > > I have a > > counterexample: "I looked at 8 fashion magazines. > > They were unhealthy exposure as a steady diet for > > the mind. THEREFORE ..." > > I don't expect to see a fashion magazine that is > > good mindfood." > > Bad example. Vanity Fair can be considered a fashion > magazine, and it prints some of the best mindfood in > the publishing industry.
