There's a female magazine exposed there that prides itself on endorsing ordinary beauty and other academic topics. It's called "Redbook" and it's quite the attraction for married women who need to know all sorts of tips and tricks to make their lives easier, but also some gossip and celebrity action, so that the ladies don't get bored while at home, cooking for their (possibly) drunk husbands.
I've noticed a pattern in modern press: if the media always publishes hot juicy stories of the rich and famous, the average guy or girl feels less miserable about themselves, thus contributing more to society, keeping busy and continuing the status-quo. But I'm not here to make social statements about press hypocrisy (which is normal), but just to make a little fun of this certain magazine for manipulating the photos of Faith Hill, making her look at least 10 years younger.
Why would they do such a terrible thing if their target audience is the middle-aged house wife? These women would feel much more related to the topic-at-hand if the magazine kept Faith's natural look. Sure, she was a beauty back in the day, but she's only human, and humans grow older (and wiser). It's not a bad thing this old age, it makes you more respected and such. But hey, if they were to show these stars as they normally look, without touching the pics, they would give a bad example to the public and nobody would buy anymore cosmetics that "make you look younger".