When standing in line at the grocery store or sitting in a waiting room, Cosmopolitan Magazine is usually within two feet. But now, instead of simply skimming over pages of beautiful clothes, celeb gossip or “new” sex tips, women will reap the benefit of Cosmo’s counsel on how to vote. Starting September 8 and lasting until the November elections, Cosmopolitan.com will be endorsing candidates.
Last week on “The O’Reilly Factor,” I addressed Planned Parenthood’s “Women are Watching” fundraising strategies and said they should rename the project “Women who are watching Oprah to get their news.” Let me take this opportunity to apologize to Oprah. It’s worse than I thought. Women have stooped to receiving their news from COSMO–vacuous, insipid, commercialized, hyper-sexualized Cosmo.
Cosmo has made it clear they will only be endorsing pro-choice candidates. Amy Odell, Cosmopolitan.com’s editor, said in an interview with Politico, “We’re not going to endorse someone who is pro-life because that’s not in our readers’ best interest.” Really?
So who should decide what’s in the readers’ best interest, the reader or the editor? Does Cosmo think women aren’t intelligent enough to hear both sides and decide for themselves? Are the readers such blank slates that they will dutifully digest any political prattle dished their way?
Let me tell you what I want; I want women to be presented with the facts and to think for themselves, not to just listen to the empty dresses writing for Cosmopolitan. I want the group of American women who get their news from glossy paper to put it down and pick up a legitimate news source. Within valid news sources, they will learn fact and encounter legitimate women leaders from both sides of the debate who refuse to dumb down complex issues to empty platitudes. I want Cosmo to stop ruining nail salon visits everywhere by jamming its political agenda into its pages. Shut up and tell us how to scrunch our hair for beach waves.