How else did you expect BratPack Demi to land herself a little piece of Ash many years her junior, as well as a cosmetics contract, without some major facial and body reconstruction? Otherwise, Ash would've dumped her faster than you can say Nicole/Paris/Brittney/Mary-Kate/Ashley...

Let's face it...Demi is the Phyllis Diller / Joan Rivers of the Brat Pack generation.

Gonna backfire on those ad execs.

I'm about to turn 45, and if she's the face of women over 40, I can tell you I'm NOT buying any Helena Rubenstein.

Helene Rubinstein should take a page from the book of the smart folks at Dove. I think their Campaign for REAL Beauty is RIGHT ON THE MONEY...

www.campaignforrealbeauty.com

And I've been using more Dove products as a result...

So Demi and Helena can stuff that in their Botox needle and inject it!

Maybe it's time for disclaimers in tiny type at the bottom of ads.

Results not typcial. Miss Moore was paid for her participation. Her face has been surgically altered & possibly Photoshopped too.

Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the Dove website. The film of a regular woman being turned into a model via tons of make up and hair professionals and photoshop is something every woman needs to see. That gives me a lot of food for thought. Thanks again.

But it was widely reported that before she made her screen comeback in Charlie's Angels that she had spent a whopping $330,000 on plastic surgery, including a face lift, liposuction to her hips, thighs and stomach, a breast lift, collagen, a brow lift, knee resculpturing, and regular Botox treatments.

Holy utter lack of even rudimentary journalistic standards, Batgirl!!!

I remember how this story was originally reported in the National Enquirer, which was where CBS and everyone else got it from.

It was completely speculative. How much would it have cost if Demi had really had all of these treatments? That was how they reported it. Because they didn't have the sourcing required to report it any other way.

The Enquirer took pains to be avoid alleging that they had any reliable information whatsoever that she had ACTUALLY HAD ANY of these treatments.

So you're turning their speculative insinuations into some kind of recorded fact without even a SINGLE source, not the double sourcing that the Enquirer would have required of their own reporters.

If the Enquirer had been able to find any reliable sourcing for this story, they wouldn't have reported it as speculation. DUH!!!!

Rebecca, you really honestly disgust me.

Your standards as a "journalist" really truly suck.

You're so eager to score political points, you don't seem to care at all how you score them.

If 10,000 people circulate the same piece of unsubstantiated gossip, the fact that this gossip was "widely reported" does not constitute substantiation of said gossip.

When you felt the need to preface your attack on Demi Moore by the phrase "It was widely reported that..." -- that was when you should have stopped yourself and asked yourself --

DO ANY OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE ANY REAL ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE SPECULATIONS ARE ACTUALLY TRUE?

But you couldn't stop yourself, because you don't even have the journalistic ethics of the average tabloid reporter.

Patricia Schwarz, why do you have to be so caustic and abusive? You could have made your point without resorting to a personal attack. I wish Salon would ban you until you learn some manners, but I imagine they are reluctant to silence anyone, even someone who cries out for it like you do.

you are right, of course. I suppose a little evidence of Demi's supposed work would be journalistically valuable here.

OR you could look at a few pictures of Demi Moore taken over the last ten years or so and come to the same conclusion.

The point, I believe, of this blog entry (and remember, that's what it is--not the front page of the NY Times) is that Demi Moore is in no way the face of the over-40 woman aging gracefully. And to suggest that she is insults those of us who are trying to be just that.

The Dove campaign, which reader AncientAssyrian referred to, is a much healthier and provocative approach to wooing the baby-boomer demographic. Particularly compelling is the video that reader CJ mentioned. A link to the video has been widely circulated among my women colleagues and is making a huge impression.

Rebecca, despite the criticism of the "widely reported" facts, I hope you keep your astute and critical eye on this important issue. Like many 42-year olds, I refuse to see the Demis of the world as my role model.

lots of people question the results but everyone with the means still wants to keep doing it. Is it that the failures are more obviously visible than the successes.

They had an old paparazzi photo of Demi Moore from several years ago when she'd gained a little weight and looked bloated and puffy and tired.

Next to that, the Enquirer placed a studio publicity photo of Demi Moore surfing in a scene from the movie. A photo that was obviously heavily airbrushed and Photoshopped by the publicity department of the studio before it was relased to the public.

Then the Enquirer asked a bunch of plastic surgeons how much it would cost for the average women to change herself surgically from the sloppily dressed, bloated Demi surprised by the paparazzi on a bad day in the first photo, to the sleek, flawless bikini-wearing movie star in the publicity still.

And they added up all the different figures given to them by these doctors who admitted they'd never treated Demi Moore in real life, and that's how they arrived at the number Rebecca quoted as being "widely reported."

There was never at any point anyone who came forward and said "I can testify that she really had all of those procedures and that's what really she paid for them."

I went and had a look at the photo of Demi Moore in the NY Post. She does NOT look young. At all. Serious crowsfeet, loose skin under the jaw, etc. She looks... fake. I mean... those cheeks! I am almost sure they are implants. The permanently startled look one gets from too much Botox. I'm about the same age, and I look a lot younger -- no plastic surgery here, just good genes and staying out of the sun and never smoking cigs.

I am not criticizing her at all, except perhaps to wonder why, if she spent however much she did on plastic surgery, she doesn't look better.