Kate Moss Now Ineligible for Canonization

Relatively few of W’s readers were pleased with Kate Moss’s “comeback” appearance in November’s edition, it seems.  Of the three letters to the editor about her printed in the January issue, two are decidedly cranky and overwrought.

...many readers consult your publication on how to look and act...featuring an unhealthy and distressed individual such as Kate Moss was an ethically dangerous decision...

...W apparently believes that a pretty face excuses immoral behavior and drug use...I am insulted by your magazine’s message that drug use is not only pardonable but also acceptable.

(We assume these same readers will be writing to complain that featuring Mary-Kate Olsen, this month’s cover girl, encourages dropping out of college, drinking a growth-stunting volume of coffee, and wearing prodigious amounts of oversized clothing and black eyeliner.)

Leaving aside the question of whether anyone should take moral guidance from the pages of a magazine, perhaps these readers would prefer W (and other publications, too—why not?) administer a extensive physical and psychological exam of potential models before their shoots, and then have them followed for a few days by a team of private detectives to ensure their personal lives meet subscribers’ lofty standards. 

Smoking a cigarette?  You’re gone.  Cheating on a partner?  Cancelled!  Ordering a full-fat latte?  A very stern warning.  Illegal drug use?  Drawing and quartering, obviously.

Then again, such rigorous standards would probably leave magazines altogether devoid of photographs.  And then what would W’s readers find to express dismay about?  They might have to complain about, you know, actual problems.