W-tf

W, wtf. This month's issue is about some shit: blah blah blah..anne hathaway..blah blah blah..dakota fanning..blah blah blah...ralph rucci. Which is well and good for a fashion/culture magazine. It is only natural that they would profile a few iconic, emerging, notable figures that would hold some relevance to their audience. However, what is puzzling and vaguely offensive is the way their writer's handle the diction of their interviews. In the editor's forward regarding Anne Hathaway, there is not only gratuitous mention of Mlle. Hathaway's disastrous love life (she essentially was conned by some guido who was also conning everyone else), but in the same breath of prose they paint her as a bratty naif AND manage to highlight the erratic nature of male actors that have little to nothing to do with Hathaway, but are featured with interview later in the issue. Then, close their run-down of 'emotional disorders of the rich and famous' with "a note to Hathaway: he's single".
In the Ralph Rucci article, they manage to make the designer seem at times anti-current, neurotic, self-effacing, and subversively ego maniacal. Also, they take a stab at Margiela (oh NO you didddnnttttttt chica) who is very anti-publicity -ex: corresponds in to his rare interviews via fax and is never photographed- by calling his activities 'schtick' while using his product a few pages later in an accessories report.
Despite my general, neutrality or minor-distaste for the featured figures in this month's W, I cannot get over how thickly smarmy their coverage of these individuals comes across to the reader. It is as though there is a recurring subtext of, 'these people are totally NOT cool but we felt like doing a good deed and deigning to let them into our aspirational pages, but fyi we still think they are L-O-S-ERS'. Even though W, is more of an industry magazine than Cosmo, and often is elitist they really shouldn't make reading through the lines so easy that, even hung-over at 8am on a Sunday, I can be creeped out by their actions.