I finally came across the full text of the press release attacking Massey University over its story on its alum Rhonda Grant, Miss Universe New Zealand’s second runner-up.
   You can read the statement from the Association of University Staff’s president, Assoc Prof Maureen Montgomery, via Scoop. I think she was pretty persistent, sending it out to the NZPA as well as other news sources—she really disliked the story.
   It’s a shame Dr Montgomery has received anonymous hate mail over this today, when her release is filled with good targets for debate.
   I respect her right to hold an opinion and I think she was right to circulate it, but I wonder just how it might benefit the Association of University Staff, or any institution promoting tertiary issues.
   A lot of the arguments are addressed in our own release, which pageant director Val Lott asked me to write. I was more than happy to put the record straight, something that Dr Montgomery gave me a good opportunity to do.
   You can tell Dr Montgomery failed to do what I thought academics should do first and foremost: get sufficient evidence and maintain an open mind.
   The story on Rhonda Grant was no better and no worse in quality terms than the puff pieces about alumni on the Massey University website, so we know she has been singled out.
   Dr Montgomery writes, ‘Massey’s story reads like the formulaic sort of thing that aspiring beauty queens are expected to say when interviewed on the catwalk.’
   As I said in our release, the reality is the interviews are tough—and there are no expectations of formulaic answers at Miss New Zealand.
   I defend the pageant because I know how tough the judging got: Rhonda was allowed to talk about nutrition, and other contestants were quizzed about everything from the moral repugnancy of bank charges to genetics versus socialization, depending on their university specialization.
   ‘One might expect a university public relations office to do more than piggy-back off what comes across as a publicity statement produced by the Miss Universe organisation,’ she said.
   Publicity statements from the Miss Universe Organization seldom focus on second runners-up but, whether we like it or not, Massey has engaged in journalism. We might argue over the quality.
   I share some of her concerns over objectification but I believe that was sufficiently addressed when Rhonda’s bikini-clad photograph was removed from the Massey University website in favour of something more conservative.
   Once that was done, then the complaint really is a case of the lady protesting too much, unless all alum puff pieces are equally, to use Dr Montgomery’s word, ‘banal’.
   And as deep journalism, maybe that’s not unfair—but it should apply fairly to all puff pieces, not just Rhonda’s.
   If it were couched in such terms, I would gladly stand by her.
   Dr Montgomery’s complaint on Rhonda’s piece specifically might be better directed at government educational policy that has supposedly bred a generation of sex-obsessed high school graduates who might find Rhonda Grant’s figure the reason to join Massey University.
   Actually, on the sexualization of youth, I would also gladly stand by her.
   But for now, as a colleague here at Lucire said to me today, ‘You have to ask yourself: what does Maureen Montgomery get out of it? It’s none of her business. Why has she been allowed to be involved?’
   I suppose the answer comes, rightly or wrongly, from the anti-American stances of liberal universities around the world, and Dr Montgomery’s own informs them. It helps the profile of the University of Canterbury, where she works, and cements its liberal position.
   My own father equated Dr Montgomery’s release to Rosie O’Donnell’s outburst on The View against Miss Nevada 2006 and Donald Trump: ill-considered, narrow-minded, poorly investigated and founded on opinion.
   Where Dr Montgomery and I do share some basic views is how images can shape agenda. I know this. I publish fashion magazines. Let’s not kid ourselves. 
   She wrote, ‘Massey University has provided an excellent example of how the desperation to market universities as “attractive” places to gain knowledge and transferable skills intersects with the use of the sexualized female body as a site of desire.’
   There is an element of truth to such statements, but I question if university choices are made based on attractive alumni—even with my rant yesterday on sexualization.
   When I went to university, I had far more pressing concerns such as degree programmes and career prospects.
   Vitally, we are talking about a story that is hard to find on the Massey University site—a site that had proxy errors in the small hours of this morning that rendered it inaccessible. If it were not for her own strong and widely disseminated disapproval, it would have been seen probably by a few dozen people—perhaps one prospective student.
   I’d personally have saved the energy for when universities started putting out alumni swimsuit calendars.
   By all means, speak out—I do on even lesser issues. But consider the effect of the publicity: right now, it seems Rhonda Grant is going to be promoted to national stardom on Close-up and Campbell Live, and the pageant will get prime-time coverage on the same day Miss New Zealand Samantha Powell did her Good Morning interview on TV One. Earlier today, Paul Holmes promoted this as a major item on his radio show in Auckland.
   We couldn’t have dreamed of this profile.
   This has played into the hands of the pageant exceptionally well and, as a judge, I thank Dr Montgomery, even if I do so somewhat selfishly.

Pageant judge and Lucire publisher Jack Yan has defended Miss Universe New Zealand second runner-up Rhonda Grant after criticisms about a Massey University story from the Association of University Staff.
   ‘It’s the usual story of pulling down someone because of her looks or her success,’ he says. ‘I believe she’s been singled out.
   ‘Journalistically, Miss Grant’s interview was no different in quality to others that have appeared on the Massey site.’
   Miss Grant gave an interview to her Alma Mater, Massey University. The Association’s national president Assoc Prof Maureen Montgomery called the article ‘one of the most banal news features emanating from a university this year’, and that it read ‘like the formulaic sort of thing that beauty queens are expected to say when interviewed on the catwalk’, according to a New Zealand Press Association article.
   Mr Yan says pageantry is far removed from Dr Montgomery’s suggestion.
   ‘I laugh when people assume that pageant contestants answer easy questions, showing that they are so very ignorant of the interview process.
   ‘Formulaic answers are rejected,’ he claims, ‘and they are certainly not expected.’
   Mr Yan recalls that questions in the 2008 pageant, held two weeks ago in Auckland, concerned everything from immigration policy and globalization to the debate on genetics versus socialization.
   ‘They are not bimbos and they are not judged by morons. We don’t prejudge these young women as harshly as the Association has. I expected that someone of Dr Montgomery’s qualifications would make a simple academic inquiry into the process before attacking it.’
   Mr Yan says that he has guest-lectured at various universities and contributed to academic journals in Great Britain, and that his fellow judges are well qualified in their areas of expertise.
   ‘We can’t afford to send someone to Miss Universe who cannot think on her feet or produces insubstantial answers.
   ‘For anyone to suggest that unintelligent women enter pageants is an affront to the contestants.’
   He admits that he has only read the criticisms as reported in the NZPA piece as run in The New Zealand Herald and that he does not have the full text.
   ‘Based on the Herald article, the message that the Association is sending is that young men and women who have good looks should not be fêted for their accomplishments, which they worked hard for.’
   He says he does not deny evidence that suggests looks can contribute to one’s career but points out that on the flip side, people like Miss Grant have to contend with being stereotyped as vacuous.
   ‘Miss Grant is an able, bilingual young woman with a science degree, running a nutrition business with a growing number of contracts,’ he says.
   Mr Yan believes that Massey University should be proud to have such talent and entrepreneurship among its alumni.
   He acknowledges that beauty pageant entrants run the risk of objectification but he did not think this was an example.
   A photo of Miss Grant in a bikini was removed by Massey University in favour of a more conservative shot.
   ‘I can understand complaints about the earlier photograph, but after it was changed, it still seems that the Association can’t let the matter go,’ says Mr Yan.
   ‘While I cannot speak for Massey University, I know earlier versions of web pages can go live, and I imagine what we see now is the final one.
   ‘To me, this was a non-issue sparked by a single image, and the Association is now grasping at whatever is left of the article to cement its self-importance and to belittle Miss Grant’s academic endeavours. That, to me, devalues the degree of any New Zealand university graduate.’

Each time we put out a Lucire in print, regardless of country, I wonder: do the folks in the countries (such as the UK) where the magazine is not available know what some of the layouts look like?
   This time around, Laura and I decided we would do a 52 pp. downloadable PDF, containing some of the pages, for those who can’t get Lucire where they are. And for those who can, such as in New Zealand, the downloadable PDF contains some extra pages, and even an article that we’ve earmarked for issue 26. There are two more pages for a shoot; in fact, there’s one shoot in there by Hannah Richards that you won’t have seen at all.
   It’s almost full circle: I remember putting together a 52 pp. PDF in 2003 as a L’Oréal New Zealand Fashion Week special in the pre-print days. It was hugely successful, and was used extensively by New Zealand Trade & Enterprise to market Kiwi designers offshore.
   Readers unaccustomed to the print Lucire might know we have pretty outstanding journalists among our team based on the longer articles that appear online. But you don’t get to see the fun we have with the look, and the PDF addresses that.
   We also thought we’d champion some of our advertisers as an extra thank-you.
   Since the book is 200 dpi and 13 Mbyte, it was better stored on a free service. Head over to Rapidshare, where you can download the issue 25 supplement, as we call it, free. There may be a small delay for the free service but we think it’s well worth it.

How reliable are these readers’ polls? The British edition of Glamour (May 2008) puts Kate Moss at number one for Britain’s best dressed woman, with Agyness Deyn not even making it into the top 50. It’s a switch from earlier polls, which had been putting Moss lower during the last four months.
   Britney Spears was named worst dressed, with Jodie Marsh and Amy Winehouse making it on to the same list.
   Following Moss were Sienna Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Rachel Bilson, Jennifer Aniston, Alexa Chung, Reese Witherspoon, Jessica Alba, Keira Knightley and Victoria Beckham.
   Glamour attributed Moss’s success to her Topshop range and her willingness to be experimental with her clothing.
   A month ago, the UK edition of Tatler, owned by the same group as Glamour, put Deyn at number one, and Moss at number two, though the list looks very different.
   Between the two polls, Moss, Chung and Knightley appear.

I know this is a fashion magazine, but through Elyse Glickman and Karen Loftus we cover so much of the Hollywood scene that you sometimes feel you should give a star a send-off. Therefore, today, I want to say goodbye to Charlton Heston, who passed away aged 84 with his wife of 64 years, Lydia, by his side.
   Heston had already bid a farewell to his fans after being diagnosed with the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in 2002.
   Born John Charles Carter in 1924, he studied acting and served in the USAF during WWII. He waited for his break after returning to civilian life.
   He had made his reputation playing iconic figures, such as Moses and Ben Hur, in blockbuster films in the 1950s. Scenes in The Ten Commandments, where Heston’s Moses lifted his staff toward the heavens, and the 15-minute chariot race in Ben Hur, are two of cinema’s greatest moments.
   He had also played Andrew Jackson and Michaelangelo.
   Heston might be better remembered for his influence on modern culture, from lines in Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green (‘Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!’ and ‘Soylent Green is people!’).
   Politically, Heston was a supporter of Dr Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights’ Movement. Later in life, he defended the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and was a supporter of the National Rifle Association, which he served as president from 1998 to 2003.
   Earlier, he had served as president of the Screen Actors’ Guild and was chairman of the American Film Institute.
   Farewell, Chuck—you gave us some of the best moments in cinematic history. Thank you.
   A private memorial service will be held.

According to some sources, Heather Mills will be a judge at Miss USA, joining Rob Schneider, actor–musician Joey Fatone, actress Kristian Alfonso, Olympic champion swimmer Amanda Beard, actress Kelly Carlson and San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman.
   Donny and Marie Osmond will host the 57th annual pageant in Las Vegas.
   Ms Mills recently won a £24·3 million settlement in her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney. She has also been active in trying to restore her reputation after getting criticized heavily in the British media.

This photograph was shot for a motoring-and-travel story about the South Island, New Zealand in Lucire no. 26, but it’s one that won’t run in the print magazine as the quality’s not up to scratch. The light is far too strong, but I like the concept: the new Renault Clio meets an old Renault Dauphine. We have no idea which Renault fan in the Otago region put his or her rusting Dauphine on top of a container but it juxtaposed with the new Clio well. I did great mileage in the Clio as part of an extended road test from Christchurch to Dunedin and back, which readers will see in a future issue.

This was a nice email to get today:

Our editors recently reviewed your blog and have given it an 8.0 score out of (10) in the Entertainment category of Blogged.com.
This is quite an achievement!

http://www.blogged.com/directory/entertainment

We evaluated your blog based on the following criteria: Frequency of Updates, Relevance of Content, Site Design, and Writing Style.
After carefully reviewing each of these criteria, your site was given its 8.0 score.

We’ve also created Blogged.com score badges with your score prominently displayed. Simply visit your website’s summary page on Blogged.com:

http://www.blogged.com/blogs/lucire.html

   This explains the extra link in the sidebar to Blogged.com as of today—and we’re grateful that this relatively young blog has received some acclaim. We checked and the top blogs in our section are in the high eights (Blogged.com gives tenth scores). Thank you, Blogged.com, and thank you, Lucire readers—if no one was popping by we wouldn’t bother. Blog and audience help each other.

With all the negative attention that Britney Spears gets, is it a good time to be marketing her Believe fragrance? It’s what we’ve alluded to in our beauty article online today.
   We hope Ms Spears will get well—and that the paparazzi lay off her a little. Unfortunately, the Britney economy is worth hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, thanks to an appetite out there for negative news on the pop star.
   There’s a valid argument to say she brought a lot of this on to herself: driving without restraining her child properly in her car, or going out on the town with an absence of underwear.
   Her family is wise to rein in some of this behaviour: her father, Jamie, for example, is selling some of her seven cars and trying to bring Britney back down to earth.
   It’s a double-edged sword. The quirky, inexplicable behaviours she has engaged in have helped up her profile, and that, in some way, drives the Britney economy. The quieter she gets, the less likely that she stays in the public consciousness.
   The best thing to do is probably to lie low and come out with a comeback single or album, having reinvented herself and finding an image that ties in more accurately to how the public is feeling. History might give hints on where Britney Spears can position herself by the turn of the decade. She can brand herself out of her troubles—and she might just have enough clout with the record labels to do so.
   But, if she lies too low, what happens to products such as Britney Spears Believe, bearing her name? 
   Answer: they might be able to maximize their investment through authenticity. Rather than say that a certain product has been inspired by Britney, go inside her home and show that she is actively working on it during her recuperation.
   ‘Britney gets her act together,’ the headlines might read—and she can slowly begin showing that she is not a victimized pop star but someone prepared to take charge and deal with her problems. Get agreement with her family to do this.
   Make it real—and feed the Britney economy, paparazzi, licensees and the public. By the time she’s ready with her new image and new music, she’ll have based it on two years of more positive press. Her core fans, then older, more sensible themselves, will appreciate a more inspirational Britney.
   In fact, her recent downfall is a good catalyst to this new direction: if there’s one thing the public loves more than a feel-bad story, it’s the turn-your-life-around story.
   Ask Oprah Winfrey. You can do exceptionally well with them.

Related articles
Lucire: ‘Expressing youth’ (2008)
Lucire: ‘At the Crossroads with Britney Spears’ (2002)

Late last week, Angelina Jolie, UNHCR ambassadrice and actress, wrote an open letter published in The Washington Post, reporting her observations in Iraq.
   I am always keen to hear first-hand reports rather than things filtered through some editorial agenda. This publication is no exception: I make it no secret that we support environmental causes—and have done so long before they were trendy. (We probably made them trendy, or played a part in that, which was my stated aim when UN Radio asked me why Lucire would help them promote the environmental movement in the early 2000s.)
   I also make it no secret that we support animal welfare and humanistic business practices.
   When Michael Yon telephoned me a while back I wanted to hear directly from him about his experiences being embedded with US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
   Too many media, sadly, function on sensationalism and sales first, the personal aggrandizement of the journalist second, and the truth somewhere further down the line. On that we differ. We see reporting as a cherished duty and it is Job No. 1.
   Over the weekend I told three of my cousins, who are in their late teens to early 20s, the same thing and they agreed. They are obviously very perceptive but it is worrying we have already given our young people that cynicism.
   Thus when I read Ms Jolie’s letter, I thought we finally read something fair with the only agenda being pushed those of the UNHCR. There are no politics in there, or the taking of an anti-war or pro-war position. It certainly made better reading than some of the Hollywood rants over the last (almost) five years.
   Some highlights include:

Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country—without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man’s land. … 
   An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. …
   I’m not a security expert, but it doesn’t take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden.

   Ms Jolie met with Gen David Petraeus, the commander who is leading the surge against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups within Iraq. She also met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
   She continues:

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.
   Today’s humanitarian crisis in Iraq—and the potential consequences for our national security—are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won’t explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder? …
   As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. …
   It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

   Ms Jolie believes that spending on humanitarian crises makes sense, and the expenditure to help the people of Iraq is a lot less than on the war itself.
   Through their return and the rebuilding of their lives, they will be able to stand up against the terrorists.
   What would be fatal is leaving the Iraqi people to fend for themselves, and it is up to the international community to show its goodwill in helping another nation.
   Pro-war or anti-war, I believe most of us share the view that we humans are capable of helping one another and should when the occasion arises. The UNHCR appeal amount is US$261 million for this year, which Ms Jolie is set to help bring in.