In the October issue of women’s mag Glamour , Ugly Betty’s America Ferrera graces the cover for the very first time. Although her face looks utterly flawless, that cropped and digitally enhanced body that WE ALL KNOW IS NOT HERS, looks a hot mess.
So, just as I wrote to Terrence Howard, it is now Glamour’s turn….
Dear Cynthia Leive (Editor-In-Chief) and Suzanne Donaldson (Photo Director),
I am writing to inquire why in the hell and who in the hell approved the October cover of Glamour? We all know that this is not America Ferrera’s beautiful and curvy body–that is Nicole Ritchie’s emaciated corpse with America’s fierce face. This is insulting for many reasons: one, because you assume that this is what your readers want to see and two, that we are so stupid that we were actually going to believe this nonsense. Try again. Look at those arms!
If a celebrity does not fit your backward ass standards, then DO NOT BOTHER PUTTING HER ON THE COVER IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU ARE JUST GOING TO EFF IT UP. What’s next, you will put Venus Williams on the cover and make her as light as Beyonce? I mean, Photoshop can really do anything.
Let me be clear: You are not doing us women of color or curvy women a favor by putting us in your publication. It’s not like Ugly Betty just came out–it has been on for a year and now after the Golden Globe and the SAG and the Emmy nomination, she gets to be on the cover. It is bad enough that we are barely represented, but PLEASE represent us right or not at all! (Pass this message on to your fellow Conde Nast EIC Anna Wintour because March 2007 Vogue’s cover and spread with Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson looked as if Ms. Lebowitz took the photos with her eyes closed.)
And you have the audacity to call it the 1st Annual Figure-Flattery Issue.
How do you think America feels about this? You don’t think that being brown, short, and weighing over 100 pounds has been a roadblock in her career? You don’t think that she realizes that roles that she should have gotten have gone to the same boring cookie cutter actresses that you seem to love to plaster on your pages. I find it very ironic, that America’s character Betty represents the beauty on the inside and sadly your cover perpetuates that inner beauty is just another word for “ugly.”
Glamour has really been messing up lately. Last month, you all had that little slip up with your racist editor who referred to twists and dreads as “political hairstyles” and claimed that they “had to go,” now this. Please get a grip on things over there at 4 Times Square, because I would hate to cancel my subscription, especially since I need to write it off on my taxes.
Much Love,
KT
Pop Gumbo 
September 7, 2007 at 4:58 am
That’s truly terrible. Her arms are just not right at all. It’s like they aren’t even trying to cover-up the fact that they photoshop!
Love the blurb: “1st Annual Figure-Flattery Issue!” Give me a break. How’s my bicep supposed to look good in anything if the only thing we ever see is retouched non-arms?
Speaking of disgusting retouched non-arms: here’s a related story from Jezebel.com: http://jezebel.com/gossip/photoshop-of-horrors/heres-our-winner-redbook-shatters-our-faith-in-well-not-publishing-but-maybe-god-278919.php
Click around for the numerically-annotated version of the pre-photoshop pic.
I’m so creeped out. Thank god I have real arms.
September 14, 2007 at 3:42 pm
it’s a shame – they made her look plastic. I mean come on, her stiff looking arms say it all. I’d be pissed if I were her.
September 14, 2007 at 8:08 pm
[…] A little less photoshopping in the face. You are fly without it. […]
September 20, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I saw that cover while standing in line buying groceries. I was appalled because I love America and they made her look like a freak. I immediately went home and emailed Glamour to complain and ask why in the world they would do that to her. They actually replied and told me they didn’t photoshop her at all, and that is how she appeared for the shoot in June.
Yeah, right. Who’s gonna believe that?
October 15, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I love ugly betty.America ferrara is suposed to represent real women but glamour has made her look like just another mode girl-not hot!
March 19, 2008 at 1:23 am
Actually, she’s not all that photoshopped. She went on a diet and lost a few pounds. If you look at more recent photos you can tell that she actually looks like that. I understand why everyone is freaking out and all, but the reality being; she really looks like that now. She lost weight. Yes, it is obviously poorly photoshopped. But she does really look like that now.
March 19, 2008 at 1:38 am
Sam, are serious? This is not what she look like. At the Emmys which took place around the same time as this photo shoot, if not later, her body looked nothing like this. This may be what she looks like now, but this is not what she looked like then. Try again.
April 10, 2008 at 3:19 am
[…] under Celebrities, Culture, Entertainment, Hip-Hop, Humor, Media, Music, Race This is what Photoshopping was really meant for! Only someone truly crazy genius would come up with something so ridiculous. […]
April 30, 2008 at 3:03 pm
This issue was actually an issue in an ugly betty episode, where Betty was putting together a “real woman” issue of mode, and all the plus-size models were airbrushed and photoshopped (and as a faithful viewer, i was very disappointed with the alterations made to this picture). I respect that America may have dropped a few pounds, but this picture is clearly altered, she simply looks disproportionate.
I hope Glamour can recognize that its readers aren’t as blind as they seem to think we are.
May 31, 2008 at 6:28 am
you guys are so stupid!!!!! have you at least compared the photo with another one???? of corse its her arms,with a little retouch like evry photo that goes to a cover but defenetly its her arms,stop writing nonsense things..
August 5, 2008 at 1:10 am
You know what I don’t understand? Why did they shrink her BOOBS?! America’s got beautiful boobs, but they made her look like a flatass gringo.