Top Stories

People Magazine: NY Times is Bogus

People Magazine: NY Times is Bogus

Larry Hackett, managing editor for People magazine, just sent this email to staffers to address the recent NYTimes piece titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”:

“I don’t normally address press stories about how we do our business here at People. But today’s New York Times pg. 1 story about Angelina Jolie requires a response. In the lede, the story strongly suggests that People, while negotiating for the twins pictures, had explicit conversations about our “editorial plan” and made ‘a promise’ that coverage would be positive.

“These sorts of stories have appeared in media gossip columns before. I have ignored them in the past as the unfortunate fallout of competition and sour grapes. But today’s story, in a much different venue, takes these rumors to a new level, so let me be absolutely clear: The suggestion that we have ever made any promise of positive coverage, or have submitted an editorial plan, is completely false. That I or anyone else would promise, on paper or verbally, to purposely slant coverage as condition for acquiring pictures, is insulting to all of us.

“Here’s what is true: Celebrities-and senators and business executives and athletes-are always trying to bend stories their way. We deal with that pressure every single day and engage in many conversations regarding all elements of coverage. Angelina Jolie is very candid about wanting attention for her charitable efforts, and we have covered many of them because we believe they are interesting stories. But in doing so, we have never relinquished editorial control. There have been occasions when her goals and our needs could not be reconciled, and we have walked away, as we have with countless other story subjects.

“In our coverage of both celebrities and everyday people, People certainly often celebrates their accomplishments and milestones. To say that our coverage of Angelina Jolie has not been admiring would be disingenuous. But the suggestion in today’s Times that this ‘positive’ coverage is codified and promised is totally bogus, and needs to be rejected.”

Like Just Jared on Facebook

JJ Links Around The Web

  • Jared Leto's glorious hair evolution- US Weekly
  • Guess who this little Santa Claus turned into- TMZ
  • Ariana Grande reveals she's repulsed by Santa Claus- Gossip Cop
  • Sweet Suspense and Jordan Fisher drop "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" after JJJ takeover- Just Jared Jr
  • Exodus banned in Egypt due to historical mistakes- Entertainment Weekly
  • Eight movie scores we'll still listen to in 2015 - Huffington Post
  • Prince Harry's hot Christmas exercise- Lainey Gossip
  • North Korea calls President Barack Obama a monkey- The Hollywood Reporter

962 Responses to “People Magazine: NY Times is Bogus”

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 739 » Show All

  1. 26
    LLM Says:


  2. 27
    LLM Says:

    should read “clapping”

  3. 28
    bdj Says:

    Angelina Jolie almost turned down her latest film role because the subject – the kidnapping of a child and a woman’s betrayal – was too painful for her as a mother. But, as she tells Steve Pratt, she became fascinated by the story.

    BEING a mother, Angelina Jolie found her latest screen role – playing a woman whose nine-year-old son goes missing – one of the toughest of her career.

    Shooting the scene when she reports the child’s absence was the most difficult in the movie. “It’s such a serious fear, especially for any parent, that you just don’t want to physically do it,” she explains. “You don’t want to go up to a phone, pick it up and report a missing child. It’s horrible. So that was hard to do.”

    The latest addition to Jolie’s own ever-growing family, twins Knox and Vivienne, are upstairs – “hopefully asleep” – while their mother talks about the Clint Eastwood-directed movie, Changeling, downstairs at London’s Claridges hotel.

    She doesn’t say if her other half, actor Brad Pitt, is babysitting but, unlike other Hollywood A-listers, hasn’t sent advance word that personal questions will not be tolerated. If she thinks someone is overstepping the mark, she’s quite capable of dealing with it. How’s your health, someone asks, mentioning comments about how thin she looks in the movie.

    “I don’t think that’s a question,” she says calmly, putting the lid on further inquiries of that nature. But she’s happy to talk about the family that she and Pitt have. In addition to the twins, there are two-yearold Shiloh and three adoptive children, Maddox, Pax and Zahara.

    That’s unlikely to be the end of it. Can we expect to see her family expanding further? “I’m sure you can,”

    she smiles.

    ******Jolie has never been one to hide behind a publicist, perhaps being too honest for her own good. Interviews don’t only mention her work as a UN ambassador, but dredge up old quotes about her sex, drugs and rock’n’roll past. ***********

    She’s dressed in grey top and trousers with black boots. Her make-up is restrained and subtle, as befits the serious film about which she’s talking. Changeling is based on the true story of Christine Collins whose son went missing in 1928. Five months later the police returned a boy to her – that she knew wasn’t her son. The corrupt police department was hoping for good publicity by reuniting mother and son.

  4. 29
    luvangie4ever Says:

    I knew the NYT article was distorted to cast a bad light on Angie but all the same, I appreciate Larry Hackett for addressing the obvious slander.

  5. 30
    mm Says:

    I think most actors try to use their influence to get positive publicity. Angelina Jolie is just more manipulative than most.

  6. 31
    LLM Says:

    Angie should sue NYT and get some more millions to the charity.

    Thanks for all articles bdj.

  7. 32
    Passing Through Says:

    LOL! Good for Larry Hackett. This is shaping up into a People vs. New York Times pissing contest!

  8. 33
    fan Says:

    The New York Times has a cleverly timed piece up today by Brook Barnes which accuses Angelina Jolie of brokering a deal with People Magazine that would control how they cover her, Pitt and their family now and in the future:

    According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an “editorial plan” providing a road map of the layout, these people say.

    People denies it:

    Through a spokeswoman, People magazine, which is owned by Time Inc., released a statement denying that any conditions were placed on coverage. “These claims are categorically false,” the statement said. “Like any news organization, People does purchase photos, but the magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties.”

    The article continues to show Jolie manipulates the press in order to draw more attention to her charity work, which is admirable.

    The thing the NY Times neglects to mention, and what will probably never be talked about in the future when they talk about the stuff around A Mighty Heart is that the press at large, for the most part, focuses almost entirely on the silly and ongoing story of the love triangle. It never ends. Not only that but take a look at all of the tabloids on any given day — what kind of nonsense do they put on their covers day in and day out. But it isn’t just the tabs. The mainstream press are all over the story too. I finally figured out why: any news about Angelina but especially the private stuff draws big numbers across the board. When I do any post about Angelina the traffic spikes. Even on my level I notice it; I can’t imagine what the big magazines make off of her. They make money off of mostly fictional stories, sometimes complete lies, on a continual basis. That leads me to conclude that Jolie treats the press the way they deserve to be treated. This is not a woman who doesn’t respect the institution of journalism; this is a woman who is smart enough to see how it has devolved into a corporate-owned mess.

    She pissed off a lot of journalists during A Mighty Heart by attempting to filter how they interview her. She routinely, as do other celebrities, requests that no personal questions be asked and that if the questions are asked she won’t answer them. This frustrates her fans because all they want to know about is the personal stuff. Jolie wants people to see what she wants them to see. She has transformed herself from exhibitionist wild child to humanitarian and mother. She’s done a good job and it hasn’t been all press manipulation. Her past drags behind her like a piece of toilet paper and there isn’t much she can do about it. She is an icon, for better or worse, and to many she will always be the girl who stole Brad Pitt away from Jennifer Aniston or Billy Bob Thornton from Laura Dern.

    How does a negative article in the NY Times impact Jolie’s image, especially in terms of earning a “You Like Me” Oscar nomination? Maybe that depends on how the public views the victimized press. If people feel as I do that the mainstream has mostly let the readers down in its continual coverage of stuff that doesn’t really matter, well, maybe they won’t care that much that Jolie has no regard for journalism. But if there is a whiff of a “diva” in the air it may linger for a while.

  9. 34
    fan Says:

    1. Ryan Adams November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am 1

    “But it isn’t just the tabs. The mainstream press are all over the story too. I finally figured out why: any news about Angelina but especially the private stuff draws big numbers across the board.”

    So true, Sasha. The New York Times puts this piece in their Business section, and with all the economic turmoil and financial meltdown in the news, it’s the 2nd most emailed “Business” story at the NYTimes today. They feature it above the virtual fold on the main page if the Times website. They open it to comments (73 responses, so far) — the only business article I can find on the site that’s given the open forum feedback treatment.

    That’s why the Times piece seems a little self-serving and disingenuous to me. “oh look! Press manipulator! Please read our story revealing how Angelina is all about the publicity!”

    It makes me respect her even more. The main stream media are vultures when it comes to certain people and sensationalist subjects. Anyone who can figure out how to effectively prevent themselves from being repeatedly victimized by the press earns my respect.

    In tangentially related news: Jennifer Aniston attempts to control her publicity too today, albeit on what seems to me a much more petty level:

    Jennifer Aniston Begs Fans Not To Sell Their Photos Of Her

    So Angelina tries to manage her image when even the NYTimes is gossiping about her on its business page. And she does it in a way to bring attention to charitable causes. While Jennifer Aniston bristles at somebody selling a cell-phone photo so “they can dine out on me.”

    Not that different on a basic privacy level, but who’s attempting to finesse the press with the most class? And who has the most noble motivation?

    So where’s the NYTimes Business article about Jeniffer Aniston whining about fan snapshots?

  10. 35
    biggest manipulative Says:

    She is one of the biggest manipulative media whores ever in this industry.

  11. 36
    fan Says:

    All Editors’ Selections » EDITORS’ SELECTIONS (what’s this?)
    November 21, 2008 9:10 am

    As a PR professional, I find Ms. Jolie more adept at messaging and consistent use of talking points than many who have been in our industry for years. Should she decide to leave the motion picture industry, she’d surely be in high demand as the head of her own agency. Other public figures would do well to study the way she has developed her philanthropy and image – she is a total professional.

    Marsha Keeffer

    — Marsha, Santa Cruz, CA

  12. 37
    teamangelina77 Says:

    It’s interesting that the NYT chose to trash Angelina on its front page just a few days before featuring her rival Jennifer Aniston on the cover of their Sunday magazine. Smells funny to me.

  13. 38
    CLINIQUA Says:

    The sad thing is, The kids were born in July of ’08, all theother incidents referenced (July of ’06 Shi’s birth), (Angie’s Divorce and Adoption of Maddox (2002), a spread about Cambodian refugees (also 7 years ago?) — so what made the new nyt showbiz guy (based in LA, the clay Aiken lookalike) write this story NOW? At this juncture?

    The great news that Angelina has delivered – be it a critically acclaimed performance, 2 million to Iraqi children and US military children, the establishment of KIND (a nationwide network of lawyers set up to aid fleeing refugee minor children in dire circumstances), I could go on and on and on…about great things this guy could have written about – yet he decides to reach back as long as 8 years ago, and pull this out of his asss, making Angelina seem smarter than 99.999% of the rest of Hollywood in the process, while at the same time getting in his digs.

    The piece was all over the place. I couldn’t figure out if it was a slam, or if he’s telling the rest of HW to drop their high powered agents, or if he’s telling the rest of HW to keep their high powered agents because they’ll never be AS SMART as Angelina. LOLOL

    Whatever, he’s a wuss and a tool. Glad he’s getting smacked.

  14. 39
    bdj Says:

    Only hens would find someone that takes control of her life and image in Hollywierd a bad thing. Meanwhile, Whiny(X) is a pawn and big purse to her Super PR guy, CAA Agent, hair stylist, Plastic Surgeon, Doggy Therapist, boy toy, Echo as in no deals ProductionCompany, goddess Circle and spray on tan. Those the breaks.

  15. 40
    DECENCY Says:

    Angelina looks beautiful.

  16. 41
    bdj Says:

    This movie is by far one of the best movies of the year, and it would not surprise me to see this movie nominated for several Academy Awards. However, while this movie is very well done, it is also very disturbing, and leaves the audience with an uneasy feeling about the lives of Christine and Walter. What makes this movie even more disturbing is that it is based on a true story: exposing a side of our police force and people that society hoped never to see. I found myself becoming angry and upset with the circumstances of the movie, and while I do recommend this movie, I warn viewers that it is a very intense film that calls for the proper mindset.

    The acting in the movie was impeccable from major actors such as Angelina Jolie, Michael Kelly, John Malkovich and Jeffrey Donovan. The costumes, setting and props were very appropriate for the period and stylized for the 1920′s. I think everyone should see this movie. It opens eyes to ideas of corruption, redemption and the human character in general. It explores every type of human, from the normal and competent to the crazed and wild. It is probably the best movie in theatres now and one of the best we will see all year. Jolie gives the performance of a lifetime and is reminiscent at moments of her performance in Girl, Interrupted. If there is any movie to see right now, Changeling is it. I do not recommend this movie for younger audiences or for those who can not handle mature and disturbing events. However, for those who are looking for a thought-provoking and captivating film, Changeling fulfills every aspect.

  17. 42
    Um... Says:

    I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?

  18. 43
    RICHARD Says:

    They gave the 14 mil$ to CHARITY. duh.
    Angie has been a UNCHR ambassador for 8 yrs.

    NY Times is desperado & liars.


  19. 44
    Flippo Says:

    Seriously though EVERY celeb out there has some element of media manipulation (or at least attempts it). It’s part of the PR game & just like politicians, celebs want a certain image projected & go about doing certain things with the media in order to get that portrayed, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I’ve no idea if the specifics of what the NY Times said are true but I’ve no doubt that elements of it are true, but then I suspect EVERY celeb does it so it’s no big deal.

    Just goes to show that you should never believe everything you read is 100% true regardless of which publication has written/said it or even if it has come straight out of the celeb’s mouth. It’s all a PR game.

  20. 45
    whateverangie Says:

    People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes? You have a woman who is a homewrecker (Pitt was married when they starting dating). She admitted it. There are a lot of actors/actresses out there that don’t mention their charities and all they do for them. You have someone that is willing to put her kids in every magazine imaginable (even a breastfeeding picture) but YOU CAN NEVER ASK HER PERSONAL QUESTIONS!!!!!!. She is a media ***** and it’s always on her terms. She always complains of privacy and she sells personal photos. If she didn’t want Jennifer to respond to her saying things, then she should SHUT HER MOUTH. She is an actress and you all are falling for her lines.

  21. 46
    juju Says:

    Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Poor thing… Stop wasting you’re time obsessing and making up stories about Angelina and get HELP. You’re MENTALLY ILL.

  22. 47
    bdj Says:

    Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm
    She is waiting on you to do your part instead of whining about someone who has done more to help than a lot of self-absorbed, narcissistic Actors in Hollywood. Go tell Bono, Orpah, Whiny and a host of others to give all away. Angelina Jolie does what she can to bring awareness. It is not her fault, that she is making others look like slackers.

  23. 48
    Um... Says:

    #46, you have completely summed up the trainwreck, homewrecking, media attention Wh-o-r-e that is Angelina. She is so phony and she needs stop playing to the cameras already. She is playing the role of philanthropist mommy of the year and that is an act. She is an actress….WAKE UP PEOPLE and please take off the gullibility hats already!!

  24. 49
    justJared fan Says:

    I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?
    Tell that to Oprah, Bono, or even Princess Diana when she was still alive. HYPOCRITE!

  25. 50
    bdj Says:

    whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm
    Geez hens, pull out Whiny and the homewrecker card. Poor Pathetic eternal victim Jen is always good for a case against AJ or two. Let’s hope the girl stays single and whiny, so that you guys can have something to whine about.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 739 » Show All

A Member of Townsquare Entertainment News | Advertise here