Porizkova has never particularly interested me, so I knew/remembered little about her. For someone bringing no outside knowledge to the article, it reads as a typical first-person essay. She has tried, however, to give it the patina of truth.
The "tricks" of the writer's trade jump out. Of course, without those tricks a lot would go unwritten. I think, though, that most people would see--if they read the article more than once--where the subjectivity is overwhelming the content. For example, to develop sympathy for her character, she tells the anecdote of being "kicked off" Dancing with the Stars and likens it to being the least-popular kid in her school. Who can't identify somewhat with that? Very few. She neglects to consider the possibility that the Stars departure might have had some relation to her being the worst "dancer" on the stage.
Subtle, yet clearly bending the facts with her own interpretation.
But what bothered me most about the article was that it offered nothing new. It's the same old story that's been reprised thousands of times since The Valley of the Dolls. Her only twist is her character, a woman at once naive enough to fall into the trap yet clever enough to diagnose her own problem and treat herself. For a character to accomplish this much growth would take a novel. In an essay, the character's only two-dimensional. Believe it--if you want to.