SI "went too far in this year's swimsuit issue" by
featuring models "posing nude" with "swimsuits on
clotheslines," according to Bob Matthews of the Rochester
DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE. Matthews wrote, "Not to sound like a
prude, [but] when models aren't wearing the clothes, can
they really be considered fashion models?" (Rochester
DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE, 2/15). In San Jose, Reggie Hayes
wrote under the header "No Excuse For SI's Skinsuit
Edition." Hayes: "There are at least 18 naked women in this
issue of Playboy -- or Sports Illustrated, if you insist ...
there's nothing semi-suggestive this year, and I'm now
siding with the prudes." More Hayes: "If I wanted Sex
Illustrated, I would have ordered it" (SAN JOSE MERCURY
NEWS, 2/14). In Milwaukee, Gary D'Amato wrote that "it's
time the SI swimsuit issue joined Playboy and Hustler on the
shame shelf," as the issue "isn't even remotely about
sports." D'Amato: "This isn't sports. In fact, it's a lot
closer to smut" (MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, 2/13). In
Memphis, Geoff Calkins wrote under the header, "Maybe SI Has
Gone Too Far This Time" (Memphis COMMERCIAL APPEAL, 2/14).
SI FEELS THE HEAT? In Canada, Jim Bray writes that
"with the evolution of ESPN The Magazine, SI's monopolistic
hold on the sports magazine market has become increasingly
fragile." ESPN "has duplicated the strengths" of SI without
the swimsuits "while offering a fresh, often irreverent,
look that is certain to erode SI's popularity with youth."
ESPN "has established itself as hip and strong," while "all
SI has done in the process is expose itself as the lecherous
old boy of the industry" (NATIONAL POST, 2/16).
