14 DAY TRIAL // The issue of just how acceptable retouching photographs that run in glossy and fashion magazines is has long been on the table, with both pro and con sides giving the dispute their best arguments. As of now, no form of middle-way has yet been found, but Liberal Democrats are finally making a move in the direction of banning the procedure in all magazines and ads directed at youngsters under 16, BBC News says.
Airbrushing should not be allowed in materials that target impressionable teens, because they project an image that has nothing to do with reality, since it’s one-hundred-percent perfect. While completely unattainable, said image almost always makes young girls and boys think that only perfection will work in their case as well, either in terms of boosting their self-esteem or getting accepted by their peers. The health implications of this reasoning are numerous and extremely complex, front-bencher Jo Swinson says for BBC, which is why retouching should be banned.
However, the Lib Dems are not asking for airbrushing to be eliminated altogether, but rather that it be done with good measure and keeping several important aspects in mind. Thus, materials targeting youth under 16 should include no retouching, save on stray hairs and other details that do not alter the body itself, while other materials can be as airbrushed as the magazine / promoter in question sees fit, granted they also include a “note” where the elements altered are named. The idea behind the initiative would be that the photos, while still perfect and beautiful, would also send the message that they do not reflect reality, so people looking at them know they’re not supposed to look like what they see in them.
“The focus on women’s appearance has got out of hand – no-one really has perfect skin, perfect hair and a perfect figure, but women and young girls increasingly feel that nothing less than perfect will do. Liberal Democrats believe in the freedom of companies to advertise but we also believe in the freedom of young people to develop their self-esteem and to be as comfortable as possible with their bodies. They shouldn’t constantly feel the need to measure up to a very narrow range of digitally manipulated shapes and sizes.” Jo Swinson says of the Lib Dems’ proposal.
Pressure from the industry to look in a certain way can have the most troubling consequences on impressionable teens, especially on girls, Swinson believes. If political intervention is what it takes to get advertisers to be more honest in their approach to various campaigns, then Liberal Democrats are convinced they can do it. Either way, they say, even if the ban is not accepted, the idea that promoters should be extremely careful about the message and image they put out there, into the real world, still holds true.
“If you make this change with adverts then it would have a knock-on effect. I am not suggesting that advertisers should stop using models who are perhaps more beautiful than the average person. But there is a difference between doing that and using a beautiful model and nipping in her waist by two inches or taking slathers of flesh off her thighs. There is lots of evidence to show that children under 16 – particularly those aged around seven or eight years old, are not particularly good at telling the difference between adverts and editorial content on TV or magazines. They view it all the same way. Young girls also aspire to be like the celebs they see in those adverts at a very vulnerable stage in their lives where crash dieting can be extremely damaging.” Swinson says.