I have been reading George sporadically since it premiered while I was in college. After all, I was at school in Washington DC, and reading George was what everyone was doing. It was a new magazine, put out by America’s most eligible bachelor.
The cover was what attracted me to it right away. Each cover had a celebrity dressed up in full George Washington garb. There was Cindy Crawford, Robert DeNiro, and many others. Since I attended The George Washington University, I would clip the covers and post them on my wall. In all sincerity, many GW students did this. We would also pour over the cover at the lunch table, trying to find the “hidden George”– An image of George Washington is hidden on every cover. Pretty neat, if you ask me.
The articles were terrific. They were, of course, political, but they had a young and hip edge to them. The magazine seemed to be of the Independent Party, giving both Republicans and Democrats a fair amount of press. It was what a political magazine should be.
After John F. Kennedy, Jr. died, things began to change. The covers were no longer the cool impersonations of George Washington. For example, the September 2000 issue has Cindy Crawford and her husband in an embrace, with a headline blaring “Pillow Talk & Politics.” I’m sorry, but I didn’t realize that Cindy Crawford and Rande Gerber had anything to do with politics. When I think of a couple that has different politics, I think of James Carville, a raging Democrat, and his wife Mary Matlin that is an astute Republican. They aren’t even mentioned in the article inside about couples who have a different point of view with politics.
What was once a drop of celebrity in the issues has turned into a flood. Danny Glover is going to tell me not to vote for either candidate? Sure, I understand that, but what about a solution? The celebrities featured just whine and moan about politics, but don’t offer any solutions or anything. It’s ridiculous.
I was quite excited when I saw that there was an article about Bush. I was horrified when I turned to the story and found that George portrayed Bush as some Bible-banging freak who was told by God to run for president. “His faith runs so deep, it may blur the lines between church and state.” Where is the objectivity? Unfortunately, all of the “articles” in George are editorials.
Sure, there are some interesting articles, such as “The Day Everyone Got Married” in the September 2000 issue. It tells of how people tried to avoid the draft by getting married on August 26, 1965. Of course, the reader is influenced to have the writer’s opinion, but it is a viable opinion (this time).
The final reason that I now turn my nose from George is because they’re just making a mockery of politics. Coming from a very political family, I don’t find this funny nor appropriate. This isn’t something that JFK Jr. would have wanted, in my humble opinion. On the last page of the September issue is an interview with Shannen Doherty, entitled “If I Were President.” Doherty is asked a plethora of questions about what would happen if she were president. A joke is made out of the entire 2000 election by this page-long interview alone. She mentions 90210 twice, and says she would appoint anyone “who kisses (her) (butt) the most” as ambassadors. What would John-John say to that?
In conclusion, I think a WRITEin response from Patrick Stewart regarding an article/interview with him sums up the current standing of George the best:
“As outlined by my publicist and based on conversations I had with your magazine, your reporter and I were to discuss my lifelong interest and involvement with politics and the political scene, including my impressions of American politics after 13 years of living in the U.S. as a resident alien.
For 90 minutes, the reporter and I discussed all these topics. Although two pages are devoted to the July profile you published about me, the text was a grotesque and cynical misrepresentation of everything I said. You chose to omit the many positive comments I made about the U.S. and my life here.
The article is also riddled with irritating observations. My low-key statement about the Schubert Organization was hardly a ‘hissy fit,’ and my remarks that I had ‘lost confidence’ in the producers of my play would surely not qualify as a ‘lambaste.’ Also, the president of the United States is not ‘a pal,’ nor did I imply that.”
It’s too bad, you know. What once seemed like a terrific, politically charged magazine is suddenly turning into Entertainment Weekly for Washington DC.
