Zoo magazine's editorial humor and tone were characterized by cheeky, often crass language that mirrored its rebellious editorial style. It commonly used clever wordplay, puns, and double entendres to engage readers in the conversation. Some critics argue that this humorous tone perpetuated misogynistic attitudes and objectified women.
The cover image for one issue featured a woman with her breasts exposed, accompanied by a caption reading "You can't beat the real thing." This provocative imagery was meant to be shocking but also contributed to negative portrayals of women. The magazine defended itself by saying it did not promote violence against women or advocate illegal activity.
The magazine's editorial team consisted of men who shared a common goal of challenging social norms and pushing boundaries. They believed that by creating an irreverent, edgy tone they could attract a younger audience who wanted something different from mainstream media outlets. The magazine frequently mocked celebrities, politicians, and other public figures, using jokes that bordered on cruelty at times. One example was a cartoon featuring former President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky which implied their affair had been consensual despite reports to the contrary.
Many people found this kind of humor offensive or insulting, especially those who saw Zoo as promoting sexist values rather than questioning them. Critics argued that the magazine normalized sexual harassment and objectification through its constant use of suggestive images and comments about women's bodies. One popular feature called "The 100 Hottest Women In Rock" highlighted only physical attributes like cleavage and hair color instead of musical talent or artistry. Despite these criticisms, Zoo continued to publish controversial content because it felt strongly about freedom of speech rights.
Although some articles were designed for shock value alone, others contained serious points about politics or society at large.
One article explored how pop culture has become increasingly sexualized over time and examined why we find certain topics taboo while others are acceptable. It included interviews with experts in psychology and sociology who explained how cultural mores change over time based on our evolving attitudes towards sex and gender roles. Another piece discussed the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals when trying to express themselves openly without fear of discrimination or violence. These articles showed that even though Zoo wasn't always subtle in its approach, it still engaged readers in meaningful conversations about important issues.