Eating Disorder or Editing Disorder?

Unlike the rush of writing for daily newspapers, magazine authors have the blessing, or perhaps the curse, of time. A monthly periodical often starts a story up to six months in advance, gathering an overwhelming amount of initial research, background information and an assorted array of quotations from several sources. Much like a reality T.V. show, there is often far more footage available than can be broadcast, so editing cuts it all down to fit within the desired story. But, in the magazine world of “show don’t tell” the words of the author must act as the footage and it is the skilled writer’s job to find an angle and really sculpt out a story.

And in order for magazines to keep up and keep readership in this celebrity-obsessed nation, the line between serious journalism and tabloid reporting becomes blurred and the guidelines for newsworthiness inevitably broadens to cover the trials and tribulations of today’s biggest stars.

Vanity Fair magazine in particular is a magazine that straddles genres in an industry where most publications have a much clearer niche market. Not quite The New Yorker, not exactly Time, but not People or UsWeekly and with more literary content than Harper’s Bazaar or Vogue, Vanity Fair mixes business with pleasure covering stories from politics to celebrities, from the latest fashions to historical profiles.

Look up “Vanity Fair” on Wikipedia and you will find that the January 2006 Lindsay Lohan cover issue and interview is featured as one of the most controversial articles and issues in the magazine's history.

The controversy, at its most simplistic form, is a matter of semantics. The dispute and cross-fire allegations all stem from the phrase:

“I was making myself sick.”

To inteviewer and writer, Evgenia Peretz, this phrase meant Lindsay Lohan admitted that she had lost a great deal of weight due to an eating disorder, specifically bulimia. “Making myself sick,” to Peretz translated to Lohan sticking her finger down her throat and purging.

Now, in the context of the Peretz’ story, that angle is plausible, but when Lohan immediately contested the reports upon the publication’s release, the readers were left to question what Lohan literally meant, or if Peretz placed the quote where she wanted it, to fit the story she wanted to tell and essentially did take Lohan’s words out of context.

According to a an e-mail by Lohan to Teen People magazine, following the Vanity Fair article, she denied having bulimia and said, "The words that I gave to the writer for Vanity Fair were misused and misconstrued, and I'm appalled with the way it was done. Aside from (the writer's) lies and changing of my words, I am blessed to have this job and wonderful family that I do.”

With her name and fame on her side, Lohan, publicly called out a journalist and challenged her credibility and the world paid equal, if not more attention to the negative press surrounding Peretz as they did to the original piece in question. So is this a case where Lohan should have watched her mouth? Or where Peretz should have watched her pen? And what can a journalist do to keep from getting into this "he said/she said" mess?

Lucky for Peretz she had an established, dignified publication behind her. Vanity Fair stuck by the story and the author, realeasing the counter statement, "Evgenia Peretz is one of our most reliable reporters," the magazine said. "Every word Lindsay Lohan told her is on tape. Vanity Fair stands by the story."

But because the alleged “recorded” interview has yet to be heard by the public and Lohan not only did not sue and has since reconciled with the magazine, the truth of this matter remains as ambiguous as the “out of context” concept itself. And as the magazine industry continues in the hyper coverage of high profile people, not only will more public relations specialists be needed for hire, more and more of them will surely be claiming that the not-so-flattering coverage of their clients was, in their opinion, “taken out of context.”