Jul23
Vogue Schmogue
Posted at 03:43 PM | Permalink
| 
Comments (17)
 |
The September issue of Vogue will no doubt be full of the usual "fashions" and more animal skins than the Queen of Mean can count on her two grubby hands. But what will not be in the issue, at least not in the U.S. edition of Vogue, is the usual hefty number of advertisements.
According to this story, last year's Vogue had 50 more advertisement pages than the 2008 edition will have. Translation: dollar signs are not in season.
Earlier this year, we even offered financial help to Aretha Franklin so that she could keep her house—granted she hand over the furs. And now we’re trying to help bail Anna out. If she would like to accept one of our advertisements to help her fill those empty pages, we’re here. Perhaps our beautiful Eva Mendes ad? Or, maybe our racy Joanna Krupa ad or even our sexy Imogen Bailey ad! How about a little memorial of Anna Nicole Smith?
In the past, our ads have not been welcome at Vogue. Anna is far too friendly with the fur industry which anally electrocutes animals and bodies wrapped in fur skinned off the backs of fully conscious animals to accept them, but perhaps the downturn in the economy will mark the upswing of the moral code at Vogue?
Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky
TAGGED:
Fur anna wintour vogue
Comments
Way to go, PETA. All Vogue needs is MORE objectified women. You people need to sort out your priorities.
XOXO, Cait, 5-year vegetarian, one-year vegan.
Posted by: Cait | July 23, 2008 06:15 PM
fur is evil and i hope vogue flops!!!
Posted by: nicole | July 23, 2008 06:21 PM
it would be great if anna wouldn't just be convinced by the poor economy but she should change her ethical attitude and recognise the cruel and by every rightous person unsustainable fur industry! a fur-wearing woman is no lady but a hag!
Posted by: SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION | July 24, 2008 11:45 AM
There is nothing pretty or nice about this ugly little troll. Vogue sucks too!
Posted by: AnnaWintourIsATroll | July 24, 2008 12:11 PM
Easy for that woman to sit there being smug. She's not the one having her skin flayed from her body. The fur trade must surely be the No.1, horrendous abuse of living creatures supported by humankind ever.
Posted by: keith | July 24, 2008 01:17 PM
Anna Wintour has been destroying this magazine for a long time
with her dull, housewife style
She's just a selfish middle-class twit trying to be something she is not
Posted by: kelly | July 24, 2008 01:47 PM
Unfortunatly some people just see past the end of their own nose. Anna Wintour probably being one of them. Some people are far too greedy to care about the rest of the world. I don't feel sorry for people like that.
Posted by: brandie | July 24, 2008 02:52 PM
even better .. less and even less fewer people buy her horrid shallow, narcisstic, pointless magazine..
Posted by: bet | July 25, 2008 07:56 AM
Peta's priority is animals. As in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Posted by: Daniella | July 25, 2008 08:19 AM
This hag needs to go away forever!!!!!
Peace for all animals!
Posted by: Judith | July 25, 2008 11:32 AM
You're taking credit for this?
Bad economy, people. I work at a newspaper. EVERY PUBLICATION is suffering because of BAD ECONOMY.
Posted by: Tabitha | July 25, 2008 11:58 AM
Tabitha,
Huh? Nowhere in the blog did PETA claim credit for Vogue's downturn. Matter of fact, they said, "Yes, it seems that these tough economic times have hit even the fashion industry." You've only paraphrased what Jennifer had already posted.
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | July 25, 2008 05:36 PM
I have a confession to make. Last night whilst knocking back a couple of brews and having a smoke with a friend; my friend caught me laughing to myself and wondered what I was laughing about. He said really tell me what you are laughing about. I thought carefully for a moment and said OK I will tell you what I'm laughing about. I was picturing Ann Wintour severed head in my hand and wondering what I would do with it if I were to pull it off. What tools would I use, and at 44 how many years could I possible do for such a heainous crime and would it be worth it.
Posted by: Saucy | July 25, 2008 10:20 PM
"You're taking credit for this?
Bad economy, people. I work at a newspaper. EVERY PUBLICATION is suffering because of BAD ECONOMY."
In just a cursory scan of the post I see this sentence: "Yes, it seems that these tough economic times have hit even the fashion industry." And this one: "...but perhaps the downturn in the economy will mark the upswing of the moral code at Vogue?"
Where in the post do you see PETA taking "credit" for this?
I really don't mind naysayers and cruelty-mongers posting here (because they always sound so stupid), but I do wish they'd actually read the posts, watch the videos, and think before commenting.
Posted by: sharik | July 25, 2008 10:31 PM
I cant believe that the fashion industry hasnt waken up yet. FUR is WRONG.
one question though...you know now domestic animals such as dogs and cats are stripped of their skin for their fur...i always wondered what happens to them IF the animals are alive...do they just walk around as usual? are they in shock? do they kill them then or just let them die?
and again, how can a human do this? apparently there are A LOT of people without morals, ethics and consciences that need the money. how sick!
Posted by: Kelley | July 26, 2008 12:34 PM
tabitha if you work at a newspaper you should probably know the diffrence between sahring news (as peta is doing here) and taking credit... PETA is not taking credit for this they are simply letting people interested in animal welfare know what is happening out there. i think you continuosuly miss the point because i have read your posts before. read the story not just the headlines
Posted by: nicole | July 27, 2008 05:24 AM
Maybe it's the overall arrogance of it?
See, this is what I don't get. Why is PETA not spending the money caring for the animals they take in? Why waste in a magazine you obviously don't care if it goes into the ground?
And Nicole, the headline should match the story. ALWAYS.
Posted by: Tabitha | July 28, 2008 12:22 PM