I've been pondering this for a while now..... because I think it's getting a tad ridiculous how people cry out in aghast as soon as they sniff out an actress being on a cover of a magazine....
Does that mean an actress by profession is not worthy to be on a cover? I know the vast majority here would prefer models as opposed to actresses. But what if an actress is AS photo-genic as a model but just happens to be an actress. For example, if Mischa Barton was a model instead of an actress and she was on the cover of Vogue, would we be boo-hooing over her being on the cover? Isn't it better to judge a cover by its aesthetic merits rather than the person's profession? An actress on a cover can look just as good as a model. I've seen bad covers from both sides. Is a bad Gemma Ward cover a whole lot more preferable to a really great Cate Blanchett cover?
Jennifer Connolly was a model prior to being an actress - but oh deary me....she entered into the realms of being an actress and ergo she can no longer grace magazine covers??? I actually think the model:actress ratio on covers is still pretty much weighted on models if we count ALL magazines - mainstream and independent, and with publications like Vogue, being THE mainstream fashion magazine - it's not surprising for them to venture into celeb land every now and then.
I don't want to offend but seeing as this Paris Vogue cover hasn't even been posted yet.... I think people are a little quick to judge.