Forum

This made me think of the interesting dynamic in "empowerment" across a broad swathe of issues, not just female body image. We want to be empowered to solve our problems, but we do not want to be so empowered that our problems are not caused by some malignant, outside, powerful force – be that advertising or the Devil.

It was just another column, one of about four I wrote that week. I came across a poll suggesting that—contrary to popular belief and statements from a high-profile British minister—90% of girls were well aware that photos in fashion magazines were airbrushed and unrealistic. I read the available poll information, wrote a column that included other similar studies for context and perspective, and posted it to LiveScience.com. 

You should read the original column, but here’s a synopsis: “A cosmetic surgery website, Good Surgeon Guide, conducted a poll of 1,078 teenage girls to discover how they feel about airbrushing and other digital manipulation of photos in fashion magazines. Contrary to popular assumption, the poll reveals that nearly 90 percent of girls are aware that the majority of celebrity images are airbrushed, and not an accurate representation of the celebrities' appearances… The findings are in line with earlier research suggesting that teen girls reject fashion models as realistic role models…. (I then cite two studies, and end with a quote from Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth): "Today you would be hard-pressed to find a twelve-year-old girl who is not all too familiar with the idea that 'ideals' are too tough on girls, that they are unnatural, and that following them too slavishly is neither healthy nor cool."

I didn’t give it much more thought; the poll showed that teen girls were more intelligent and media-savvy than often given credit for—they saw right through the advertising bullshit. Even Naomi Wolf’s statements agreed with the poll’s findings.  I thought the poll and column would be welcomed as positive news. 

 

I was wrong. The column appeared on no less than three Facebook pages, and the reactions were fascinating. There were well over 100 comments that fell into three general categories. 

 

1) “Polls are worthless/flawed.” Several people expressed doubt about the poll’s validity because it was conducted on behalf of a surgery Web site. Others suggested that logical, critical analysis could not be applied to self-reports. Clearly, some polls are better than others, but well-designed and well-conducted polls have been shown to have very good validity. It is simply not true that polls and self-report surveys are worthless. Furthermore, many of the claims about how women feel about themselves (and their influences) are based upon personal questions and self-evaluation. If we dismiss all self-reports as inherently unreliable, then what objective measures can we use to determine women’s feelings of self-esteem and body satisfaction? I did not hold this poll up as a model of brilliant scientific research, I simply reported on one interesting finding in the poll that I had previously written about.

 

2) “Ben Radford is full of shit.” One poster challenged my research and claimed that I had presented a biased picture of the poll, and was proffering “lousy reporting.” While admitting that the data I presented in the column was completely accurate and correct (87% of girls said they knew fashion photos were airbrushed), one person stated that I “cherry picked the info on the poll… a whopping 62% from wanting to look like them and 79% from wanting to change at least one body part.” This seems to be a misunderstanding, both of the poll and the column I wrote from it. The column topic is about one finding among several in the poll; I have a strict word count, and did not have the space to discuss in detail all the poll’s findings and their implications. This is regularly done in journalism and science reporting; just because a column or article does not discuss every aspect of a study does not mean the author is cherry-picking evidence or presenting a biased view. 

 

It is quite true that the poll found that 62% of girls wanted to look like celebrities, but that has nothing to do with the subject of my column: airbrushed fashion photos. The claim is specifically that manipulated photos cause problems for girls by creating unrealistic expectations—the 62% measure had nothing to do with airbrushed photos, it was simply a question, “Would you like to look like Britney Spears?” (Or Fergie or Kim Kardashian, etc.). Frankly, I’m surprised that only 62% said yes, since the media myth is that nearly all women want to look like celebrities—if that is true, why do nearly 40% of girls say they don’t? So if you actually read the study, and understand the point of the column (as well as the constraints on it), you realize that the piece was not biased or slanted. I simply don’t have the luxury of extra hours and extra pages to fully analyze parts of the study that aren’t relevant to the subject of photo retouching.

 

3) “That can’t be right because it’s not what I’ve heard.” One woman sarcastically wrote, “Yes, you know more than me, a woman, who has to deal with these issues everyday, because you did research,” to which I replied, “The research I'm reporting has been done over the past 20 years by this country's top eating disorder experts. With all due respect, I will take their scientific, peer-reviewed findings over your personal experience as a woman…” 

 

Another woman noted, "Someone at SI is really intent on pushing an agenda on this issue. Disturbing." I had no idea how to respond to this… What possible “agenda” was SI (or, more accurately, myself) pushing by factually reporting the results of a poll that found that 90% of girls know that fashion photos are airbrushed and unrealistic? When I debunk homeopathy I’m accused by alt med supporters of having a pro-Big Pharma agenda; when I disprove UFO claims I’m accused of having an agenda to help the government cover up UFO information. And when I help debunk the widely-held idea that most girls are fooled by airbrushed photos of celebrities, I have some other hidden agenda. My agenda is testing popular assumptions for their accuracy and truthfulness—even those which I generally agree with. It's always struck me as odd that when I offer evidence and arguments that challenge people's beliefs, their first assumption is always that I haven't researched the topic sufficiently (or that I have some hidden agenda). It rarely occurs to people that perhaps I am more familiar with the topic than they are, or at least approaching the subject from a different perspective. A lot of skeptics have no problem asking psychics or UFO buffs for evidence of their claims, but get very defensive when their own assumptions are challenged. 

 

It was also clear from the comments that some—perhaps many—of the people commenting on the column didn’t actually read it. They were simply responding to what others were saying, instead of taking a minute to read for themselves what the column said and did not say. I recognize that not all Facebook respondents were skeptics or critical thinkers, but the fact that so few bothered to actually read the poll (or my column on it) was disappointing. 

 

If readers want to challenge the methodology of the polls and surveys I reference that’s fine. That is healthy and quite appropriate; all facts, claims, and methods should be challenged. But accusing me of biased or shoddy research—or having some mysterious hidden agenda—is quite another. 

 

So for readers who disagree with the poll, here’s the upshot:  If you believe that this poll is wrong, and that girls and women do not know that fashion photos are airbrushed and unrealistic, please provide evidence for your claim. 

 

Interestingly—and somewhat disappointingly—few if any of the commenters actually addressed the point of the column, and the poll’s main finding: that almost 90% of girls know that fashion photos are retouched and not realistic. Why don’t we talk about that?