The Impact of Media Images on Body Image and Behaviours

Fed up with faking it | The Courier-Mail

A RECENT report entitled The Impact of Media Images on Body Image and Behaviours: A Summary of the Scientific Evidence, signed by 45 academics, doctors and psychologists from around the world, places the issue of digitally enhanced images back in the spotlight.

And it doesn't look pretty.

According to this report, we're consuming, on average, 3000 advertising images a day that feature heavily airbrushed men and women, portraying an idealised and completely unrealistic notion of beauty.

The cumulative effects of this exposure are potentially very serious.

For example, a 15-month subscription to a women's magazine can induce psychological and physical problems such as low self-esteem, bulimia and extreme dieting in adolescent girls with low social support.

The report concludes by recommending that all digitally altered images be labelled; that none be used in advertising aimed at under-16s; that a diversity of body sizes and shapes be shown; and that media education programs be introduced.

None of this is actually new and neither does it sound too difficult to make mandatory.

Yet, despite increasing pleas from various bodies and public criticism of the overuse of airbrushing, very little has changed.

Instead, magazines and fashion houses have very publicly used non-digitally enhanced images, or "normal" women, in targeted ways to raise their own profiles, stem the backlash and demonstrate that they're in tune with their audience.

But even this has backfired.

"One-offs" don't work, especially when profits are being pocketed.

Their efforts – from "plus-size" models on catwalks, to Sarah Murdoch appearing on the cover of the Women's Weekly, to Jennifer Hawkins in Marie Claire – have provoked controversy, debate and disappointment in equal measures.

Women (and men) didn't feel relief. We felt cheated.

These shoots weren't about addressing concerns, change or acknowledging flaws in practice – they were about fiscal strategy.

A similar accusation was levelled at the Dove campaign for "Real Beauty" run several years ago. On the one hand, Dove was praised for revealing what occurs in a typical photo session, while on the other, sceptics noted that it is a product of Unilever, a company that sells an enormous number of beauty products (among other things), completely undermining the message behind "real beauty".

It wasn't altruism or a belief in real and long-lasting change to advertising that produced the campaign, but pandering in a superficial way to consumer demands. It was another form of commercialism.

So, can the superficial become deeper than skin? Because it's clear that it has to and soon.

According to a University of Queensland study, 80 per cent of Australian women are dissatisfied with their own body image, while 90 per cent claim they know other women who are unhappy with their shape.

The Women's Forum, Australia, published Faking It: The Female Image in Young Women's Magazines, a report that claimed that thin, sexualised and digitally enhanced images of women were tied to women's experiences of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and poor body image – something the UK report also identifies.

Are airbrushed and digitally altered images alone to blame for young women's and men's poor self-esteem issues?

No. But they contribute in an enormous way.

If they existed in isolation, we may be able to accept them for the fantasy and marketing tools they clearly are.

But they don't. They exist in a world in which facades have too much emphasis, cosmetic surgery is on the rise and stories about diet, make-up, skin care and fashion scream from screens and pages. It's a world in which even little girls are being taught to compare themselves with their dolls, their televisual and film idols and one another, and to despair.

Men, too, are falling victim to this struggle for a perfection that has never existed.

Whereas digital enhancing/retouching has been around for a long time, it has become so extreme it's no longer about removing a blemish, stray hair or piece of unruly fabric. These days, wrinkles are erased as if they're symptoms of disease, necks and legs are elongated, cellulite has become the eighth deadly sin, waists are shrunk, breasts are pumped, so not only bodies but expectations are disproportionate and unhealthy. It's no wonder that one photo retoucher told Newsweek magazine he felt "like Frankenstein".

Studies also reveal that we're sick of these defaced faces and craving "normality", diversity and wrinkles in our visual diet – not at the expense of the digital "perfection", but alongside it, to create balance.

But do photos need to carry a warning?

Legislation is not the answer, education is – about the media, about what they do to images and how they circulate and for what purpose – for all ages. The younger this starts and the more age-appropriate the lessons, the better.

So is shoring up resilience and self-esteem in our young people by ensuring they have, as the British report suggests, solid social support. This means being ready to intervene in the messages they receive and, to the best of our ability, setting boundaries around what young people access. Most of all, we can provide enormous support through our own behaviours and attitudes, becoming "perfect" role models in the process.

Dr Karen Brooks is an associate professor of media studies at Southern Cross University.