Hi all,

In our news feature going live from next Monday we reveal that Australian women are some of the biggest consumers of Hollywood gossip in the world.

Our latest research surprisingly shows that a third of Sydney Anglicans regularly read women’s magazines.

Is all that Tinseltown talk warping our minds?

A panel of four women experts give their advice in Monday’s feature story.

Two of the experts, Ainsley Poulos and Dr Amelia Haines, will be participating in our forums this week to facilitate discussion and answer your questions.

Hi Joseph,

Our latest research surprisingly shows that a third of Sydney Anglicans regularly read women’s magazines.

Was this research based on women who called themselves Anglicans - or was it restricted to ‘church attending’ Anglican women ? How big was the sample polling ? Was it face-to-face or done by telephone ? What of men’s habits - any research done there ?

Re: Preaching the Hollywood gospel

[quote author="Joseph Smith"]Our latest research surprisingly shows that a third of Sydney Anglicans regularly read women’s magazines.

Is that 1/3 of Sydney Anglicans, or 1/3 of Sydney Anglican women?

[quote author="Joseph Smith"]A panel of four women experts give their advice in Monday’s feature story.

You don’t explain their expertise. Are we to assume that they are experts in reading women’s magazines?

Does this include Christian women’s magazines? From my limited knowledge of them - my wife receives Christian Woman, and I’ve seen bits of some American ones -, they are much better than No Idea and stuff like that, though they do have a disproportionate amount of articles by popular women from large Pentecostal churches.

[quote author="Joseph Smith"]A panel of four women experts give their advice in Monday’s feature story.

You don’t explain their expertise. Are we to assume that they are experts in reading women’s magazines?

Martin, I can’t speak for the others, but Ainsley having to put up with me is enough expertise.

Archie

Question: Do you consider all women’s magazines unhelpful? Whats on the “good” and “bad” list?

It depends on what you mean as “unhelpful”.  If you take it to be “anything which does not hinder the gospel and godly living” then I’d say almost all of them, including the “Christian” ones, are unhelpful.  I used to subscribe to Christian Woman but found their arminian basis and prosperity theory focus extraordinarily unhelpful. 

A helpful publication should edify the reader, and provide an environment where the reader is not subject to an onslaught of either outright sinfulness (such as No Idea and cleo) or bad and misleading theology such as (at least the editions I’ve read of) Christian Women. 

The Briefing, although not a womens mag per se, meets the criteria of providing support in godly living and does so within an environment of good theology. 

It would certainly be possible to produce a womans mag which was theologically sound and had content which was edifying for both author and reader alike, but in todays market it just would not sell as it would not be filled with what itching ears want to hear. 

I mean, let’s just consider the purpose of a mainstream womens mag - it’s there to fuel gossip, envy, avaricity, selfish preoccupation with self, false innuendo and idolatory.  That’s why they sell - it’s the sinful mind which seeks after these things so strongly.  I don’t think you can have a “harmless approach” which permits reading such things - it’s the same as saying “I can read pornography as long as I stay aware of its pitfalls and difficulties, and then I can enjoy it for what it is without getting all serious about it, it’s just a magazine after all”.  Sorry, that just does not wash. 

I see no functional difference between the populist womens mag (eg cleo, vogue, no idea etc) which preach a gospel of greed and selfishness and the populist porno mags which preach a gospel of greed and selfishness.  We happily condemn one because of the insidious effects it has on the reader’s mind - why do we not also similarly condemn the other on the same basis, that of the insidious effects it has on the reader’s mind.

For me, for what it’s worth, rather than reading magazines for a “bit of a break” or “over a cup of tea with friends” or whatever other excuse women come up with to justify reading populist womens mags, I much prefer reading a chapter or two of a good book, such as one of the many written by Kirsten Birkett, and other chrsitian living books written by evangelical bible believing women for other evangelical bible believing women.  We should be out there witnessing to hollywood and to those caught up in its bright lights, not spending time jumping the fence into their world as a participant and then jumping out and starting to witness to them saying “oh your lifestyle is not godly, you need to consider the claims Jesus has upon your life”.

We all need to consider the claims Jesus has on our lives in all we do, including all we read, even “just the small stuff, on a break, doing no harm” magazines.

Kevin said:

Was this research based on women who called themselves Anglicans - or was it restricted to ‘church attending’ Anglican women ? How big was the sample polling ? Was it face-to-face or done by telephone ? What of men’s habits - any research done there ?

The media usage survey was commissioned by Anglican Media Sydney as part of the National Church Life Survey. Thus it is a survey of those people in Sydney Anglican churches on that Sunday. I think its fair to say its an accurate representation of who we see in church on any given week.

Over 50% of these ‘Sydney Anglican’ women regularly reading these mags is a big number in anyone’s language. There’s really no way to get around it. In my mind thissurvey proves these mags have a big impact on Sydney Anglican women as they do on Aussies in general.

Martin asked what is the expertise of Ainsley Polous and Dr Amelia Haines.

Ainsley is a Bible teacher who has been researching the issue of gossip from both a biblical and sociological perspective. 

Dr Amelia Haines is a sex and relationships therapist. She is well respected in the field (in fact she was quoted in last weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald as part of the expose on the impact of web porn on relationships). She also a member of Wild Street Anglican Church.

Joseph wrote:

“In our news feature going live from next Monday we reveal that Australian women are some of the biggest consumers of Hollywood gossip in the world. “

This may be quite correct but I don’t see the evidence for this statement in your article as posted, Jeremy. So to say we “reveal” it is over-promising.
I would have thought that both Britain and America have moved much further towards a celebrity culture than Australia, although even what we have is too much.

There’s some interesting dynamics to look at. Local Hollywood gossip magazines circulations are flat. Local “real life” magazines such as “take a break” are doing well in the circulation stakes. Last year three anti gossip magzines were launched. Federal Publishing had a hit with “Notebook” (non gossip) while “famous” (nothing but gossip) crashed.

So it is reasinablke to ask whether the magazines being read by your sample “Hollywood gossip” magazines? This does not take away from many of the general points made by Claire Smith and the others about magazine culture. But the Women’s magazines = hollywood gossip inference is a bit too broad. In fact the most harmful material may not be Hollywood Gossip, but the sort of stuff Dr Haines is concerned about.

It is worth noting that there is somewhat of a crisis of confidence in the local industry. EMAP is reviewing its australian operation. Time is selling titles. Packer has sold down his stake in magazines and TV. Michael Hannan has exited the industry.

Gossip is moving online. For example, News is launching a series of “confidential” sites. The gossip industry has left magazines behind. Reading magazine is not a measure of gossip, you can get your daily intake without touching glossy paper these days.

The other thought that occurs to me is that sports reporting, that goes into detail about who has a glamorous girlfriend or not, is very similar to some of the “hollywood” gossip. So why are us blokes getting off so lightly in this issue?

Archie Poulos - 28 May 2007 10:30 PM

Martin, I can’t speak for the others, but Ainsley having to put up with me is enough expertise.

I’m convinced ;-). Perhaps our experts could publish their own Women’s Mag so we can see what a good example would look like!

The problem is that if I buy a Women’s Weekly is it for gossip, news or recipes?

Hi Jean,

News in Women’s Weekly? Really?

I get most of my recipes off the net. I’ve found some great recipes here!

cheers,
Andrew

Should I plug my recipe book? Naahhhh.

Jeremey wrote:
“...this survey proves these mags have a big impact on Sydney Anglican women as they do on Aussies in general.”

Unless I missed something, isn’t that a long bow? Reading something doesn’t mean that it has a big impact on you. Plenty of current atheists have read the Bible, without changing their POV.

I don’t see any figures offered in the article about impacts. Just reading rates. Isn’t the rest of the article just opinions (qualified and professional ones though they might be) rather than actual facts about the impacts of reading these magazines? I think it’s a bit much to claim that anything is proven by the survey other than a lot of women (and others) read magazines, based on the figures supplied in the article.

JA

[color=green]John

Your point that the pagan who reads the bible but us nonetheless not impacted by it in the slightest is in a slighty different position to the situation of women reading trashy mags.  For a pagan to see any influence in the bibe, the holy spirit must be ay work, so it is never the content of the words which have the impact upon the reader but the impact comes from the redeeming work of the spirit.

Accordingly, the example of a woman reading a bibe with no impact makes no comment about the impact of the words on a particular person, it instead comments on the work of the holy spirit choosing to either enlighten at that time or to not do so. For that reason I would not rely upon the reverse argument that because our books can be read witout any impact upon the pagan reader then we can’t be affected by the words we read in the women’s mags.  They are an insidious entry into our minds, quietly used by the devil as the time is opportune, to engage in a itte aviarace, a litte jealousy, and a little greed, and a little selfishness by the ever more popular “me tme” epidemic. 

To truly demonstrate that there is neither a hold nor an unhelful influence ceated by these magazines I challenge any women who do read them thinking they’re just a harmless diversion to not read them for 2 months (INCLUDING) not reading the covers at the checkouts AND no discussing the content of the latest mag with you friends - that’s as bad as reading them.  If at the end of two months you can honestly say you don’t miss reading them then you are in control of reading them not the otherway araound, and if you had no change in gossip level then you probably aren’t at risk of gossip (well, about the mags at least....) - but if you’re burning to “get back up to speed” then it’s a pretty good indication the gossip rules you not the other way around.  God teachess to be godly in all that we do and say and think, and it seems to me that when you are exposed to the greed,aviarace, selfcenteredness and inappropriate displays of sensualty then you aren’t honouring God in all you do and say and think. Instead, think of the work of the kingdom which could be done in the time it takes to read one of those magazine which fill your mind with the things of this earth - instead, why not contact a woman from church who nobody really knows, or who’s been missing a bit lately; meet them for coffee and a chat. That then becomesa perfect opportunity to love and spur one another on to good deeds, to enter into a slightly deeper relationship with a sister in christ.  Even if you spend only a minimal time, or even none, expressly dscussing gospel/churh/theology issues, you can by a conversation seasoned wth salt give great encouragemet to one another, and not a mag in sight! I’d take deeply satisfying relationships over momentary shallow one sided flirtations with greed and excess any day.  I should declare that I do regularly read a magazine, the Economist, for the political articles.  There is a large amount of aviarace based content in it (ads for stupidly expensive bling and toys) but I am truly able to ignore those ads, and if I don’t read the economist for a few months I have no recollection the ads etc are missing, just the articles.  The majorty of the articles betray a world view that borders on undeclared attack on christianity, but engaging with a world view of that nature IMHO can be OK where you are aware of the biblical implications of the issues raised and have a clear ynderstanding of why that world view is wring. 

So for these reasons I think women’s mags are unhelpful in their highly unbiblical content which invidiously sucks the reaser in to a world where it is OK to judge and criticise and admire other people on such shallow reasons as how they dress.

SO take the challenge - no mags for three months, no discussions with friends about what is in mags, and instread spend time catching up 1 on 1 with other women at church who maybe aren’t so regular or who are going through a rough time.  Take the kids for an afternoon for another family to give the parents some time to work on their relationship between themselves (or even have the kids overnight if that could be done) Spend the hour a day you’d spend reading magazines and read a book of the bible instead (I’d suggest Galatians, then Ephesians, if you’re stuck for some starters).  Visit an older member of the congregation who lives on their own - you’ll get your cup of tea that way, and a chat as well - just not a chat based on magazines and hollywood “stars”.  Give it some thought.[/colour]

Kathryn,
Your argument [or at least a bit of it] seems to be that “The Economist” is good and women’s magazines are bad. There is no doubt that the standard of journalism in the Economist is very good. But while you say that “here is a large amount of aviarace based content in it (ads for stupidly expensive bling and toys) “ that you ignore I would argue that it has a world view in it that is not christian. It unashameably mixes its world view in all its articles. So for that reason I chose not to read the Economist regularly, because it exerts such a powerful effect on how I think - and unless I take the time to reflect on it I will do that uncritically.
So while i agree with you about the doubtful agenda of many magazines, I would also apply some caution to upmarket ones with few pictures in them too.
The Economist of course refuses to call itself a magazine, adopting the title newspaper.I think we should be talking about all media here. Most of the material we are talking about is distributed via bi-media if not tri-media. In britain the same article or pictures that appears in “New Idea” may appear in the “Sun”, my point is that this gender boundary is very permeable.