NRL News

Cosmopolitan magazine to jump into partisan politics—aka support pro-abortion Democrats

by | Sep 4, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

Joanna Coles, Comospolitan magazine Editor-in-chief

Joanna Coles, Comospolitan magazine Editor-in-chief

First things first. An old codger like me , we can safely say, is not Cosmopolitan magazine’s target audience.

But judging by what its website is about to undertake, its target audience now excludes pro-lifers, male or female. And that is deeply regrettable.

Since I don’t read the magazine, I have no idea what forays “the legendary women’s glossy” (POLITICO’s description in an article that ran today) had made into the abortion issue, until recently. As I reflect, it’s easy to see why they are about to set sail into the sea of electoral politics—with only pro-abortionist candidates allowed on board.

Remember it was Cosmo’s website that provided the platform to Emily Letts to explain ”Why I filmed my abortion.” Filming the final minutes of her baby’s life and uploading it to the Internet, in my opinion, represented a new low for a movement that is ceaselessly in search of new depths to sink.

This is the woman, by the way, who said in describing her abortion in Cosmo

“I know that sounds weird, but to me, this was as birth-like as it could be. It will always be a special memory for me. I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.”

Cosmo gave her a forum to put her grotesque action and revolting rationalizations in the best possible light.

And then there is the “Maggie Award” Planned Parenthood handed out to Cosmopolitan. A press release from PPFA announced, “This year, for the first time Planned Parenthood awarded a brand new category for Excellence in Media, which was presented to Cosmopolitan magazine for its comprehensive coverage and discussions of women’s health — both in its print and online editions. Since Joanna Coles became editor-in-chief in 2012 the magazine has increasingly focused on reproductive and sexual health issues.”

But according to POLITICO’s Hadas Gold (under the headline “The new Cosmo: Love, sex, politics?”)

“The magazine known for its celebrity covers, fashion tips and relationship advice is diving into politics on Monday with its #CosmoVotes campaign, a new effort that will include candidate endorsements, stories on women-centric issues by a recently hired political writer, and a social media effort to get readers to the polls and be part of ‘the party of the year.’”

Presumably their audience skews youngish, so Coles tells POLITICO that it will be big into social media. So what is going to have every week, beginning September 8? “ editors will endorse from one to three candidates based upon an ‘established criteria agreed upon by Cosmo editors.’”

Criteria? What criteria? According to Gold

“The Cosmo endorsement criteria fall squarely into the liberal camp — equal pay, pro-choice, pro-birth control coverage, anti-restrictive voter-ID laws. Asked how a candidate who might line up on certain issues like equal pay but is pro-life would fare, Odell said that would be a deal breaker.

“’We’re not going to endorse someone who is pro-life because that’s not in our readers’ best interest,’ Odell said. ‘[P]eople say that’s a liberal thing, but in our minds it’s not about liberal or conservative, it’s about women having rights, and particularly with health care because that is so important. All young women deserve affordable easy access to health care, and that might include terminating a pregnancy, and that’s OK.’”

Consider: If a male editor-in-chief had announced that the magazine couldn’t recommend pro-life candidates to Cosmo’s female readers on the grounds that he had decided it was “not in our readers’ best interests,” the outcry would be swift and loud. That kind of paternalism—from a man or a woman—treats Cosmo’s readers as if they are too dull to think on their own.

Second, Coles deflects the charge that the magazine has lost its way by plunging into politics. She tells Gold

“People keep saying, ‘Oh, you’ve made the magazine much more political,’ but I feel that these are about lifestyle issues for women. The biggest single decision which will impact your life is when you have a child. I want women to have control over that, not a bunch of old white guys sitting in D.C. That to me is why I am doing this.”

Of course this is thinly-veiled advocacy for pro-abortion Democrats, masquerading as female “control,” otherwise known as unvarnished partisan politics.

Too bad Cosmo has become just another outlet to promote the candidates supported by NARAL and PPFA and EMILY’s List with gushy profiles and uncritical PR.

Categories: Media Bias