Washington Post Health Section: News or Advertorial?

You've seen them. They're among the cheesiest ads in print. On the left is faded (sometimes black-and-white) "before" photo of a frowning woman -- sometimes obese, sometimes wrinkled like a prune, sometimes both. On the right is the smiling "after" shot -- slim, smiling and smooth.

Even the people who buy the products being peddled must understand that the photos were deliberately chosen to show each condition (before and after) in its worst and best light, respectively. After all, it's just cheesy advertising.

But what was I to think this morning when the Washington Post Health section ran one of those cheesy before-and-after shots. Well, they're in business to make a profit, too. It's just advertising, right?

However, this before-and-after shot wasn't in a quarter-page ad at the bottom of page three of the section. It was on page one. It was at the top of the fold. And it wasn't an ad. It was an illustration for a news article.

How far has the Post sunk in this latest example of advertorial behavior on the part of American journalism? The photo on the left of a 54-year-old woman before her "thread lift" (an increasingly popular alternative to face lifts, the caption informs us) has her in a tight-lipped frown with deathly pale skin, unkempt hair, no make-up and bags under her eyes large enough for a weekend getaway. The picture was provided by Dr. Ricardo Rodriguez, the Baltimore physician who performed the procedure described in the first paragraph.

And how did Ms. 54-year-old look afterwards? The picture on the right, taken by a Post photographer, shows a smiling woman with attractively groomed hair, eyeliner and eyebrow setting off her gleaming blue eyes, and a smile so wide you could see seven -- count 'em -- seven top teeth.

How long will the look last? "May Take Some Time to Tell," the subhead informs us. Unbelievable. The hoariest cliche in journalism.

The only question for the Post in the wake of this mini-fiasco is not whether the editor should be fired, but whether the section has a journalistic reason for continuing.

Posted by gooznews at January 24, 2006 02:08 PM