Why naming Kim Kardashian "Woman of the Year" probably isn't a good idea

On Wednesday morning, (American) GQ had to issue a statement to its readers, because so many were enraged that its British cousin had, among other things, named Kim Kardashian "Woman of the Year."

Just to clarify: We didn’t give out any awards last night, in case you’re directing some rage at us this morning.

— GQ Magazine (@GQMagazine) September 3, 2014

People were not really fans of this choice, threatening to cancel their subscriptions:

Twitter

Kardashian, of course, is a popular female human and reality television star. She also has one of the most profitable apps of the year, Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, which brings in $700,000 per day. But these accomplishments, people feel, do not a "Woman of the Year" make. This backlash is like when Vogue put Kardashian on its April cover, and people were angry that a woman who was "famous for being famous," being friends with Paris Hilton, and making a sex tape was on a cover of what they believed to be a classy magazine.

People weren't just annoyed with GQ's choice of Kardashian. They were also irritated with the magazine's selection of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as "Philanthropist of the Year."

The Independent explained the backlash stems from Blair's involvement in the Iraq war and his current position as  Special Envoy for the Quartet Representative, a mandate set up to facilitate Israel-Palestine peace negotiations.

The outrage is a bit perplexing, since Nobel Peace Prizes these are not. They're awards from a magazine, and are largely forgotten. For instance, it would probably take a Google search to tell you that last year's British GQ Woman of the Year was Emma Watson.

But apparently, people are deeply invested in the awards. Or, you know, hating Kim Kardashian.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. We can’t do that if we have a paywall.

That’s why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via