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.”

Just Jared on Facebook
Posted to: Angelina Jolie

JJ Links Around The Web

Getty
  • More details have been revealed about Florence Henderson's death - TMZ
  • Jimmy Kimmel is hosting the Oscars! - Gossip Cop
  • Camila Cabello looks unrecognizable in a blonde wig - Just Jared Jr
  • Get all the behind-the-scenes details from the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show - Radar
  • Mariah Carey had a busy weekend! - Lainey Gossip
  • Lebron James won't stay at Trump Hotel - The Hollywood Reporter
  • lovely

    OFCOIRSE I CAN SEE THEM TELLING PEOPLE MAGAZINE. PLEASE MAKE ME LOOK LIKE AN ANGEL TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD. BUT HAS SHE TRIED TO PATCH THINGS UP WITH HER FATHER. HA! AND SHE CALLS HER SELF A ROLE MODEL!!! U NEED TO START FROM HOME BEFORE U CAN CALL UR SELF A HUMANITARIAN!!!!!!!!!!

  • repost

    bdj @ 03/08/2008 at 6:02 pm

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4413688&page=1

    Celebrities Give Diplomacy A Star-Power Punch

    Bono, Angelina, George, Mia and More Work Closely With The United Nations On Relief Efforts
    Beyond the glamour of the red carpet and the clamor of fans at a rock concert, an elite group of celebrities have gotten so involved in diplomacy that they are eclipsing true diplomats.

    Photos
    Starstruck Heads of State

    “You know the Secretary General very often tells me, ‘You know, whenever there is an opportunity we need a star.’…He says, ‘Every time a star speaks, what I have to say just disappears, it has absolutely no meaning, no one listens to me, but people will listen to the star, will listen to the celebrity,’ said U.N. spokesperson Michele Montas.

    Nowadays these celebrities are taking on increasingly complex and weighty roles in the fights against poverty, pestilence and war.
    U2’s lead singer, Bono, has direct access to world leaders, and he’s credited with bringing worldwide attention and money to the poverty and HIV crisis in Africa.

    “I tell you what my Messianic complex is, I wanna have fun and I wanna change the world. That’s it,” he told ABC News Nightline anchor Cynthia McFadden.

    Oscar winner Angelina Jolie recently traveled to Iraq for the second time and wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post about the refugee crisis there.

    Tune in to Good Morning America Weekend on Sunday to see more celebrities on the frontlines.

    “Generals in Iraq, presidents of Iraq, they know if somebody like Angelina goes in they are going to be able to get the message across very quickly.

    Jolie has even been invited to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee and has teamed up with California Congresswoman Diane Feinstein to lobby for legislation on Iraqi refugee relief.

    Jolie says her activism helps her counter the shallowness of Hollywood. “It gives celebrity some reason. Celebrity is very weird … So when you’re doing something good, and you can bring attention to that, or discuss that, then it feels like you have some sense in your life,” Jolie told ABC News “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos

  • well

    oh yeah she’s controlling the media and creating the perfect image while she’s on drugs? LMAO She is better than I thought.

  • juju

    Natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 8:12 pm
    _______________________________

    Here she is again announcing that she is “I go out with friends” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Man you people are pathetic and have some serious issues.

  • org

    Being a celebrity today means many things: walking the red carpet, dodging the paparazzi. It also means using your attention getting powers to better the world.

    Thanks to the power of celebrity influence, consciousness and dollars get raised.

  • awards

    Chris Good
    November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

    Ignorance is not only bliss, haters count on it.

    So, we are back to that old argument again – what came first? People’s interest in ‘Brangelina,’ or the pictorial of their firstborn? Since I’m a photographer, and know that people were offering me and my brethren a million dollars cash back in the spring of 2005 for a picture of Brad & Angelina together, a full YEAR before Shiloh was a twinkle – I would say the pictorial is a result of the rabid full-on chase we were exacting on the family.

    Have people forgotten the exodus of every major media outlet and pap agency to Lake Como, Italy in 2006 because they thought a wedding was taking place? Or how about the CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS stories and crawls about a New Orleans wedding less than 8 months ago?

    So again, I’m sorry — if I’m Angelina Jolie what are my choices again?

    1) I can be chased down in the street for the elusive first photographs of my child which will endanger my family and fatten the photographer and that of American Media Inc (tabloid behomoth) OR…

    2) I can arrange a pictorial in a benign reputable weekly like People, get paid 14 million and distribute it to people around the world in need – it may even actually SAVE LIVES.

    Hmmmm…decisions, decisions. Well, since I have a BRAIN. I’m going the Angelina Saves Lives route.

    Let’s examine the Halle Berry route. Halle decides not to publish any pictorials, stating her daughter will “not be a public figure.” The papz laugh in her face. Halle’s home and property get invaded by papz trying to take pics of her infant daughter. Halle then decides to give them what they want and go to the zoo and the park and let the papz have at. Well, the next week, the pictures come out and the tabloid papz and tabloid publishing companies make their millions on the backs of her and her child.

    I saw the many pics & stories about baby Nalah in People, US, STAR and the Bauer Publications – they ran them a good month. What does Halle get in return? well…NOTHING.

    Not even a promise to not do it again, because OF COURSE, the papz will be out tomorrow and the next day and the next – annoying Halle and her child once again.

    You can kind of view it like this:

    Halle = O

    American Media Inc & Bauer Publishing (In Touch, Life & Style) STAR, Natnl Enquirer, US Magazine, People magazine = 20-30 MILLION

    Via Angelina Jolie & the Jolie Pitt Foundation: Drs Without Borders, US Military Children’s Foundation, UNHCR, AIDS & Malaria Foundations in SE Asia and Ethiopia, Millenium Project, KIND (Nationwide Network of Lawyers Assisting Minor Refugee Children) = 10 MILLION

    Oh, and the PR Agencies/Agents that take 15% of whatever Angelina Jolie makes = ZERO. Because Angelina has NO agent, NO CAA, NO ICM, NO PK. Just her. That’s 15% back in her pocket, or rather to whatever charitable noble foundation she desires to give it to.

    Yes, and now you see why you’re getting these strategically timed and placed articles – it’s very clear why Angelina Jolie must be punished.

    Wonder when someone will write a story about THAT?? I say no time soon, because most of the entertainment reporters writing for so-called reputable outlets get greased by the PR agents. KNOWN FACT. And another reason for this piece most likely, it’s all about competition – you heard Tilda Swinton last year. She knows what’s up.

    Good for People Mag for standing up. They know where all the bodies are buried. I’m sure the People editor was fit to be tied, here he gets raked over the coals for publishing a 6 year old story about Angelina’s Cambodian son, and the orphanage he was in, and the poverty in that country….

    …and he knows just last WEEK he’s taking calls from CAA & PR power mogul Huvane asking him to publish Jen & John at the Sunset Towers, and to please write how loving they seemed. Or worse yet, he’s being asked to run a piece on how Jen’s 4th nose job isn’t really cosmetic, it’s all about her deviated septum.

    Yet he takes it in the gut, for publishing skyrocketing HIV infection rates in Ethiopia, along with Angelina’s pictures of her daughter Zahara?

    Wake up Hollywood. Though you may claim, this page is turning into Perez Hilton, most people would say, that happened a long time ago. It’s true, very seldom do you get an Oscar winning actress who is topping both the tabloids as well as the critically acclaimed list. The last person may have been Julia Roberts, but when she was peaking, the media wasn’t as incestuous as it is now. You didn’t have papers of note, quoting tabloid editors known for their lies. You can choose to view Jolie and her level of fame as an anamoly and something you don’t need to deal with – but the same problems will exist whether you discuss her or not — and that is, at the end of the day, what truly makes this a story to pay attention to, is that she, one of the biggest stars in the world, is NOT OWNED by the Death Star.

    She’s powerful, all by her little self. In my book, that’s a reason to be admired, not exposed or cut down.

    Hence why she’s on page 1 of the NYT. “Scary Smart,” indeed.

  • UN Freedom award

    International Rescue Committee to honour UN refugee official, Angelina Jolie

    6 November 2007 – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres and internationally renown actress Angelina Jolie, one of his agency’s most active supporters, will receive the International Rescue Committee’s annual Freedom Award for 2007 in New York tomorrow.

    The award being given to UNHCR and its Goodwill Ambassador recognizes extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom has previously been given to another UN High Commissioner for Refugees – Sadako Ogata, in 1995.

    Other Freedom Award winners include Winston Churchill (1958); George Soros (1993); Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (1995); Vaclav Havel (2003); and former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton (2006).
    The IRC has for many years been UNHCR’s largest NGO partner.

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24539&Cr=UNHCR&Cr1=Jolie

  • Angie, you have my RESPECT

    Here is the one of the Q & A from msnbc.com.

    Sean Smith is the senior writer for Newsweek.

    Sean Smith: Your frustration here is not with Angelina, but with the media. She does, in fact, go lots of places without cameras, and works with refugees with no one looking at all. I had a section on that in the story that didn’t make it into the final version, becasue of space restrictions. It would be a wonderful world if people who do good work—non-famous, non-beautfiul ones—were rewarded and covered as much as stars are. She is aware of her privilege, by the way. How could she not be? You know, she really could just stay at home in her mansion in LA. and go to parties and things, and adopt no one. Would things really be better if she did?

  • Angie, you have my RESPECT

    Here is the one of the Q & A from msnbc.com.

    Sean Smith is the senior writer for Newsweek.

    Warwick, NY: Does Angelina TRULY want to save the world or just look good for the media??? Personally I think she just wants to appear to be wholesome in the public eye.

    Sean Smith: This is too cyncial, even for me. And it’s my job to be. She’s been doing this for six years. If it’s a lark just to get publicity, there are about 1 million easier ways to do that. Also, that headline is something one of my editors put on the story. I don’t think she’s trying to save the world, and she’s never said so. I think she’s just trying to be of use, and make some positive change. We really should not have put that headline on this story. It’s inaccurate

  • bdj

    awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm
    RIGHT ON. Very good Post from Chris. Everyone knows Huvane and company flood People Magazine and Blogs with Poor pathetic eternal victim Jen’s every move. This hatchet job by NYT was instigated by people that do not like that AJ is the biggest star in the Universe without PR representation and some greedy agent. More Power to the Jolie.

  • aniston HATES her MOM

    Report Abuse
    # 152 lovely @ 11/21/2008 at 8:15 pm OFCOIRSE I CAN SEE THEM TELLING PEOPLE MAGAZINE. PLEASE MAKE ME LOOK LIKE AN ANGEL TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD. BUT HAS SHE TRIED TO PATCH THINGS UP WITH HER FATHER. HA! AND SHE CALLS HER SELF A ROLE MODEL!!! U NEED TO START FROM HOME BEFORE U CAN CALL UR SELF A HUMANITARIAN!!!!!!!!!!
    ______________________

    Uh, aj’s dad was a deadbeat who abandoned his family and didn’t support them financially. he’s lucky to have gotten as many chances from his son and daughter as he has, especially since he was absentee…and going by reports, it looks like they are giving him another one. He’s lucky they are so compassionate.

    Aniston however, is another story – she has kicked her elderly mother, the only parent who raised her single handedly, out of her life and on the streets with no healthcare – has not even spoken to her in 12 years – forcing her mother to have to seek healthcare from indigent services in Los Angeles, not inviting her to her wedding (the woman never met Brad Pitt), and refers to her as a ‘disease.’

    That is a true cold hearted b*tch of a monster. Some say she’s fabricated a ‘war,’ with mom, just because she’s embarrassed of her face…rumor has it, jen’s mom is a plastic surgery victim like her daughter and that jen was always embarrassed of her.

    I guess you could call Jen Aniston a cold hearted monster who has no business being a mother to anyone – she should NEVER be a mother…let those ovaries dry up all the way, if this is the way she treats the only parent who ever raised her, and provided for her like dog sh*t..or worse than dog sh*t.

  • REPOST

    quiet no more : 09/23/2007 at 10:33 pm

    Why does it bother people so much that Brad and Angelina do chairty work and have their picture taken?

    Isn’t it more important that they are actually doing the philantropic work that they are doing?

    Isn’t it more important that people see what is happening around the world and become encouraged in making a difference?

    I think its absolutely ridiculous to put people down for helping the world become a better place. Which is more than we can say because we sit on our computers reading and arguing working ourselves up into maddening fury about the lives of people whose movies we watch or in the case of non fans don’t watch….if you don’t like how someone lives their lives, thats fine. if you don’t think they are genuine in the reasonings behind the work they do, thats fine also but don’t put them down for trying. it isn’t your place or my place to judge. Afterall we are the ones at our computer not out there flying to Iraq or Africa or Cambodia orVietnam or New Orleans trying to bring awareness. That is the hope at least in what they are doing… and if they get some publicity from it then thats just part of the deal the give and take of life. At least conversation is being started and people are going hmmm maybe theres something I can do….

    the people on this page who are so full of anger are saddening… celebrity gossip should be fun and mindless. Nothing to get so worked up about… It isn’t ourreality it is theres… just everybody breathe and take a moment to reflect on the fact that these people could care less if we think they are doing charity work for the wrong or right reasons or for making decisions in which partners they choose or how they raise their kids. On the larger spectrum of the world we are insignificant in their lives.

    Fans take no offense… I am a fan as well… but as a fan I know that my place is to appreciate their work and that is all. I am the first to admit that I enjoy reading about the things they do in their daily lives or their lives outside of film. Which is why I am on this site reading these stories…. but don’tallow these “haters” to fill you with negative energy. Read the stories and remain fans believe in the good of everyone and hope that the people full of hate sarcasm and anger will find their way to more positive energy and lives…
    END RANT

  • POOR JARED

    I feel sorry for you Jared! :)

  • bdj

    Just Jared is crying all the way to the bank(Just Jared Jr and Sr.)

  • Mrs. Smith

    #157 Award….
    Thanks for posting that wonderful article, saying everything I’d like to say, and then some.
    So glad that Larry Hackett at People is telling his side of this stupid bogus NYT article.

  • spl

    So the Times thinks Angelina told People 1. you will pay me 14 mill for the pics 2 you will not use the word bangelina 3 you will write about my charities 4 you will write nice things about me, brad and my family not only in this issue but in future issues. The Times wants us to think People said yes to all these things. WELL YOU GO GIRL. Forget Hillary we need Angelina as Sec of State.

  • Orchid

    Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm 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?
    ——-
    What an ignorant and dumb post!

  • lulu

    lovely @ 11/21/2008 at 8:15 pm

    Angie and her father have been in communication, Jon even visited her prior the twin birth, as reported recently by Contact com.

    But what’s the fuss if she’s not talking with her dad , it’s none of our business just like we don’t criticize President elect Obama in not reconciling or talking with Dad till his death bed..

  • lulu

    lovely @ 11/21/2008 at 8:15 pm

    Angie and her father have been in communication, Jon even visited her prior the twin birth, as reported recently by Contact com.

    But what’s the fuss if she’s not talking with her dad , it’s none of our business just like we don’t criticize President elect Obama in not reconciling or talking with Dad till his death bed..

  • Sharon

    so true so true. did you see how phony brad pitt was with his interview with oprah? phony and his stories seem strange. they are strange.

  • bdj

    Poor hens. Still mad at Papa Pitt because he did not mention Jen on Oprah. They are tearing up Oprah’s forum, canceling their O Magazine subscription and will not camp out for the Oprah favorite things show. Sad world when the hens turn on Queen Oprah.

  • STOP!

    People should mind their business and leave Angelina alone.

  • guli

    # 171 Sharon @ 11/21/2008 at 8:41 pm –ok are you kidding me rigth???
    It was one of his best interviews showing how much he loves Angie and their kids…I guess that’s why you are soo pissed off … it is b/c all the fugly has the peeboy and her dogs ROTFLMAO! :lol: Honey..just move on…and your idol has to move on..it has been FOUR fcuking years…you all are looking more hidious, desperate and frrankly scary…like stalkers… just move on…
    JP’s are a loving growing family..and nothing you can try to do is going to change that…poor pathetic thing..I feel for you but I am really hoping you can get help before you are served with a restraining order :)

  • Respect

    Angelina Jolie Most Respected Celebrity Humanitarian Of 2007

    Angelina Jolie has been voted the Most Respected Celebrity Humanitarian of 2007 for her work as a United Nations (UN) goodwill ambassador as well as being praised for her efforts to publicise suffering in Africa.

    An online poll of 606 people, carried out by the Reuters news agency, put the Tomb Raider star ahead of U2 frontman Bono, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

    Peter Walker, director of the Feinstein International Famine Centre at Tufts University, commented: “People aren’t stupid. They can really sense when it’s just an endorsement and when somebody really means it.

    “Someone like Angelina Jolie comes across as having more integrity than some celebrities and a greater sense that she doesn’t just do this for the publicity.”

    “She does this in a very low-key way,” said UNHCR spokesman Peter Kessler.

    “She goes out to see for herself, to get up close and very personal. She doesn’t travel with film crews, and I think that is real testimony to her dedication to the cause.”

  • DECENCY

    awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm

    Wonder when someone will write a story about THAT?? I say no time soon, because most of the entertainment reporters writing for so-called reputable outlets get greased by the PR agents. KNOWN FACT. And another reason for this piece most likely, it’s all about competition – you heard Tilda Swinton last year. She knows what’s up.

    Finally. Come on we need more people in the media to stand up. Does anyone know what Tilda said last year about the media.

  • Respect

    Celebrity etiquette: A humanitarian tour of duty can help save the world

    Gone are the days when attending a benefit ball counted as celebrity charity work. Today’s stars take direct action. Mick Jagger has stumped up the cash for a video shot in a refugee camp for a new single to raise awareness of the situation in Darfur. The song’s by hip-hop duo Mattafix, but the promo features Scarlett Johansson, Matt Damon and Kanye West.

    Angelina Jolie is now as famous for her charity work as for her acting. On a recent visit to Iraq, she said: ‘It’s absolutely essential that the ongoing debate about Iraq’s future include plans for addressing the enormous humanitarian consequences these people face.’ More people probably listened than if a politician had made a similar statement.

    It’s not just the A-list that care: James Nesbitt has vowed to visit war-torn areas of Africa annually as a Unicef ambassador. Ross Kemp filmed a report from Afghanistan. Though his most chilling pronouncement was: ‘I still consider myself first and foremost an actor. I want to go back to acting.’ And Jude Law made a BBC documentary to raise awareness about problems in Afghanistan.

    Critics say these humanitarian efforts are self-serving, but no one can deny these celebs have publicised important issues. We do wonder what some of the affected think, though. Madonna recently celebrated Jewish New Year in Israel. She met president Shimon Peres and told him: ‘I am an ambassador for Judaism.’ Cue a collective Jewish shudder.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2007/sep/30/features.magazine17

  • bdj

    DECENCY @ 11/21/2008 at 8:54 pm
    Tilda thanked her PR Manager for getting her the Oscar in her acceptance speech.

  • QQQQ

    Entertainment Weekly magazine:

    The 50 Sexiest Movies Ever!

    3. MR. & MRS. SMITH (2005)

    The power couple as action heroes: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made a movie about John and Jane, married assassins who must take each other out with really big guns, which ends up turning them on — on screen and in real life, as it happened.

    Sexiest Moment Angry, aroused, and armed to the teeth, they hit the dance floor to surreptitiously pat each other down. Quips hubby to his touchy-feely wife: ”That’s all John, sweetheart.”

    Via BaFans
    ___________________

    The HAG is not gonna be pleased… LOL!

  • http://lohrsy@bigpond.com nicole

    Angelina Jolie the most intelligent Human being on the planet !
    Angelina Jolie……. RULES !

  • estelle

    awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm Chris Good
    November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

    Ahhhhhhhhhh…thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!! WELL SAID AND SO SPOT ON.

  • Respect

    The top 14 international celebrity humanitarians

    The results of Hello! Canada’s exclusive global poll is revealed in the issue hitting newsstands starting today; one big-hearted Canadian make the list

    TORONTO, Oct. 5 /CNW/ – From the first star-studded AIDS fundraising dinner hosted by Elizabeth Taylor to the current humanitarian efforts of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, celebrity philanthropy has gone far beyond the concept of reaching into one’s pocket. This is the age of participation, and with that in mind, Hello! Canada conducted an online poll over a two-month period to find out who Hello! readers – in Canada and all over the world – felt were the most admirable celebrity humanitarians.

    This week, Hello! readers will be given a glimpse into the charity work
    of the 14 stars they voted the most generous, with a 13-page photo spread of these celebs in action.

    The top spot goes to celebrity duo Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, who can be credited with humanizing the plight of Africa’s many poor countries.

    Anyone who suggests pop stars can’t change the world need only glance at the record of Bono, in the No. 2 spot, who has been recognized for his work in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

    Composer, singer, author and actor Sting takes the No. 3spot for his various contributions to charity, including his dedication to theenvironment.

    Other names on the list include Oprah Winfrey, Bill and Melinda Gates,

    Sir Elton John and, of course, our very own Bryan Adams, who placed No. 11 for his involvement in innumerable charitable organizations. This year, he becamethe first Western artist to perform in Karachi, Pakistan, with a benefit concert to help underprivileged children.

    The complete list of winners can be found in the issue of Hello! magazine hitting newsstands this week.

  • Jill

    Oh wow! Time Inc. vs. The New York Times? Bring it on. I want a ringside seat.

    I would love to see the Times eating crow over this one.

  • Orchid

    52 Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:20 pm

    Our donations to charity remain anonymous because we’re not famous. When very famous people donate, the media finds out and reports it, or these famous donors announce it themselves. That is not a bad thing. Hopefully it encourages more people to donate too.
    As for what she does for the UN refugee agency, it’s part of the job that it gets widely reported, complete with pictures.

    Nobody has said that AJ can do no wrong. You don’t have to praise her. In fact, I don’t understand why you’re even here posting about her since you don’t like her. I can see you expressing your dislike once or twice, and then go away, but you seem obsessed and fascinated by her. You can’t ignore her! :smile: Btw, I don’t drink kool-aid.

  • Orchid

    candy @ 11/21/2008 at 6:22 pm Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm

    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 the same thing to Bill Gates!
    ——-
    Great comment!!! Also Warren Buffet and Ted Turner. Of course the idiots only target Angie.

  • NYToutedthemediaho

    Angie claims the only paper she take seriously is the New York Times!!
    bwhahahahaah the delicious irony!

  • sonia

    we love and respect your work Angie, thanks for being a leader and helping people who can’t help themselves. god bless you and your family. you are beautiful inside and out.

  • Shrink

    The New York is a credible newspaper. I can’t see why they would have any investment or reason to purposely try to make Jolie look bad by printing untruths. People Mag is one step above a tabloid and is on the defense because the Times made them look bad. i would say People is being less than candid and self-serving in printing this response.

  • Orchid

    161 bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 8:24 pm awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm

    RIGHT ON. Very good Post from Chris. Everyone knows Huvane and company flood People Magazine and Blogs with Poor pathetic eternal victim Jen’s every move. This hatchet job by NYT was instigated by people that do not like that AJ is the biggest star in the Universe without PR representation and some greedy agent. More Power to the Jolie.
    ——-
    Ditto!

  • NYToutedthemediaho

    Berliner Photo

    Is the New York Times on Team Aniston? It would seem so, judging from this article that examines Angelina Jolie’s crafty ways with the media.

    The story explores how Angie manipulates crucial media moments in order to portray herself more favorably—all without the help of a publicist. This may seem pretty obvious to even the most casual tabloid reader, but we’ll give the Times room to make their case.

    For example, remember when she was a crazy blood-vial-necklace enthusiast who had sex with husband Billy Bob Thornton in the limo on the way to a red carpet event and then told reporters all about it? Well, after she decided she was done with that and the couple divorced, Us asked for an interview. She declined, but reportedly did offer a time and place where she would be hanging out with Maddox in public, so the mag could snap a few pictures of her looking like a single, young mom who was struggling to enjoy some private time with her son.

    Or how about that time she fell in love with Brad Pitt while he was married to Jen?

    Yeah, that was a mess, but it was also the perfect time for Angie to visit Pakistan for a tour of Afghan refugee camps and Brad to visit Kashmir to bring attention to the earthquake victims.

    Angie’s philanthropic adviser Trevor Neilson dismisses any connection between those two events, telling the Times, “People don’t realize the complexity of what Angie is doing. A lot of her charity work is done quietly and not in front of the media.”

    Right on for charity work, but when she is in front of the media, the timing is definitely convenient.

    As far as the baby-picture selling goes, the Jolie-Pitts seem to be very involved in the editorial process. In order to win the privilege of paying $14 million for pictures of the twins this past August, People reportedly had to submit an “editorial plan” for the layout, promise to never use the moniker Brangelina and guarantee positive coverage would be positive forever. Breaking any of these rules is punishable by, er, death?

    Anyone surprised? Yeah, didn’t think so. It’s more surprising the Times cares so much, but they have to keep it fresh over there. In other Team Aniston news, the Daily Beast just came out as a supporter, so once again we’re going to have to give Jen the win this week.

  • cc

    Has the NYT writer of the article met Angelina?

  • bdj

    http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/20/poor-needy-pathetic-desperate-jen/

    Poor needy pathetic desperate Jen

    How did Jennifer Aniston, once America’s Sweetheart, morph into America’s Spinster?
    Tags: Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston

    Poor needy pathetic desperate Jen

    Vogue editor Anna Wintour knows how to sell magazines, which explains the “What Angelina Did Was Very Uncool” line on the cover of the December issue next to Jennifer Aniston’s face. The quote was lifted from an interview in which the former Friends star was asked about Angelina Jolie’s gushing to the magazine in 2007 about falling in love with Brad Pitt while he was still hitched to her. Playing Aniston’s first public comment about Jolie so boldly was a master stroke destined to generate epic buzz.

    For Aniston, though, the incident ushered in yet another of the “Poor Jen! Duped again!” moments that have dogged her since her 2005 divorce from Pitt. Not only did Vogue exploit Aniston’s tepid smackdown, making her appear obsessed with the siren who stole her husband, it squared the two women off against one another more subtly. Astute fashionistas were quick to note that the cover image of Aniston posed on a beach in a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Narciso Rodriguez gown echoed the cover shot of Jolie in January 2007 in which she rocked a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Bill Blass against a sandy backdrop. Jolie’s cover line, however, was a more triumphant “Why Her Real Life is More Romantic Than Any Movie.” The disparity continued inside: in 2007, Jolie was shown with Pitt and their numerous children; in the current issue, Aniston is pictured with her dog Norman.

    Aniston’s Vogue appearance is part of a publicity blitz for her two new movies, Marley & Me, which opens on Dec. 25, and He’s Just Not That Into You, which arrives in February. Neither role, it’s safe to say, will eclipse the one she currently plays in the cultural imagination—that of the archetypal Wronged Wife subject to an endless loop of “Jen Is Devastated!” “Jen Is Furious!” “Jen Gets Revenge!” bogus theorizing. Since her divorce, America’s Sweetheart has morphed into America’s Spinster. The unmarried, childless Aniston has become the tabloids’ Miss Havisham, portrayed as lonely, needy and locked in the past. The website Dlisted.com recently advertised a US$19.95 “Boyfriend Arm Pillow” thus: “Now, every time the Jennifer Aniston in your life calls you, wanting to whine for hours about how they are so f–king lonely and their cats are even giving them the side-eye, you can simply say, ‘Aniston in my life, go canoodle with the Boyfriend Arm Pillow I got you for Christmas.’ ” Celebrity gossip site PerezHilton.com refers to her cruelly as “Maniston.”

    Her alleged tribulations sell big time. “We can’t get enough of her,” says Dina Sansing, entertainment director at US Weekly, where every issue features at least one Aniston photo or story. She’s No. 2 on the “Most Valuable Celebrity Faces” of 2008 list in terms of newsstand sales, according to Forbes. (In a rare case of tabloids imitating life, “Poor Jen!” was knocked off her No. 1 perch this year by Jolie.) Women relate to her, says Sansing, a bond that dates back to 1994 when Aniston entered homes as flaky, likeable Rachel Green. Female fans flocked to copy Aniston’s haircut, known as “The Rachel.” And now they rally to share her pain—as well as a schadenfreude thrill.

    Aniston’s position atop the tabloid pantheon was cemented with her union with Pitt, whom she met Hollywood cute in 1998 through their mutual agent. The merger of America’s Sweetheart and the World’s Sexiest Man in 2000 was a lavish event that featured a 40-person gospel choir and fireworks over the Pacific. They were the king and queen of the Hollywood prom, with matching tans and blond streaks. When they split Aniston was poised for post-Friends career breakout; initially she was the one blamed for being unwilling to “have Brad’s babies,” to employ tabloid lexicon. When Jolie’s involvement became known, Aniston became the object of sympathy, and pity. After all, what chance did the Girl Next Door have against the Girl From the Next Galaxy? The New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane summed up perception of Jolie’s snaring of Pitt: “She took one look at the world’s most widely desired man and scooped him up with no more ado than a Parisian grande dame tucking a chihuahua into her clutch bag.”

    The scandal was likened to Eddie Fisher leaving Debbie Reynolds for Elizabeth Taylor in the ’60s. But back then there wasn’t a celebrity media complex ready to pounce on Reynolds’ every humiliation, real or imagined. For the wounded Aniston, the salt poured down, beginning with an arty 60-page photo spread in the June 2005 W titled “Domestic Bliss,” in which Pitt and Jolie presided over a band of little blond Brads.

    Aniston shot back with a tearful Vanity Fair interview in which she admitted to being hurt and lonely and denied rumours that she didn’t want children: “That really pissed me off. I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children. I did and I do and I will!”

    The trendy L.A. store Kitson capitalized on the conflict, selling “Team Aniston” and “Team Jolie” T-shirts. “Team Aniston” outsold 25-t

  • D. kay

    cc #191

    Not likely, but I’m sure he’s met Huvane.

  • juju

    NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:20 pm
    _______________________________________

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

    You know what ironic, the time and effort you waste on someone you don’t even like. Angelina Jolie owns you’re ass!

  • piper, with a low

    # 172 bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 8:49 pm
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Unbelievable!

    I went over to Oprah’s website and some of those b*tches acted like Brad’s sole life purpose was to talk about ___.

    Oprah’s been on for nearly 25 years and it’s like these women don’t know that divorce is a fact of life.

  • bdj

    http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/20/poor-needy-pathetic-desperate-jen/

    Vogue editor Anna Wintour knows how to sell magazines, which explains the “What Angelina Did Was Very Uncool” line on the cover of the December issue next to Jennifer Aniston’s face. The quote was lifted from an interview in which the former Friends star was asked about Angelina Jolie’s gushing to the magazine in 2007 about falling in love with Brad Pitt while he was still hitched to her. Playing Aniston’s first public comment about Jolie so boldly was a master stroke destined to generate epic buzz.

    For Aniston, though, the incident ushered in yet another of the “Poor Jen! Duped again!” moments that have dogged her since her 2005 divorce from Pitt. Not only did Vogue exploit Aniston’s tepid smackdown, making her appear obsessed with the siren who stole her husband, it squared the two women off against one another more subtly. Astute fashionistas were quick to note that the cover image of Aniston posed on a beach in a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Narciso Rodriguez gown echoed the cover shot of Jolie in January 2007 in which she rocked a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Bill Blass against a sandy backdrop. Jolie’s cover line, however, was a more triumphant “Why Her Real Life is More Romantic Than Any Movie.” The disparity continued inside: in 2007, Jolie was shown with Pitt and their numerous children; in the current issue, Aniston is pictured with her dog Norman.

    Aniston’s Vogue appearance is part of a publicity blitz for her two new movies, Marley & Me, which opens on Dec. 25, and He’s Just Not That Into You, which arrives in February. Neither role, it’s safe to say, will eclipse the one she currently plays in the cultural imagination—that of the archetypal Wronged Wife subject to an endless loop of “Jen Is Devastated!” “Jen Is Furious!” “Jen Gets Revenge!” bogus theorizing. Since her divorce, America’s Sweetheart has morphed into America’s Spinster. The unmarried, childless Aniston has become the tabloids’ Miss Havisham, portrayed as lonely, needy and locked in the past. The website Dlisted.com recently advertised a US$19.95 “Boyfriend Arm Pillow” thus: “Now, every time the Jennifer Aniston in your life calls you, wanting to whine for hours about how they are so f–king lonely and their cats are even giving them the side-eye, you can simply say, ‘Aniston in my life, go canoodle with the Boyfriend Arm Pillow I got you for Christmas.’ ” Celebrity gossip site PerezHilton.com refers to her cruelly as “Maniston.”

    Her alleged tribulations sell big time. “We can’t get enough of her,” says Dina Sansing, entertainment director at US Weekly, where every issue features at least one Aniston photo or story. She’s No. 2 on the “Most Valuable Celebrity Faces” of 2008 list in terms of newsstand sales, according to Forbes. (In a rare case of tabloids imitating life, “Poor Jen!” was knocked off her No. 1 perch this year by Jolie.) Women relate to her, says Sansing, a bond that dates back to 1994 when Aniston entered homes as flaky, likeable Rachel Green. Female fans flocked to copy Aniston’s haircut, known as “The Rachel.” And now they rally to share her pain—as well as a schadenfreude thrill.

    Aniston’s position atop the tabloid pantheon was cemented with her union with Pitt, whom she met Hollywood cute in 1998 through their mutual agent. The merger of America’s Sweetheart and the World’s Sexiest Man in 2000 was a lavish event that featured a 40-person gospel choir and fireworks over the Pacific. They were the king and queen of the Hollywood prom, with matching tans and blond streaks. When they split Aniston was poised for post-Friends career breakout; initially she was the one blamed for being unwilling to “have Brad’s babies,” to employ tabloid lexicon. When Jolie’s involvement became known, Aniston became the object of sympathy, and pity. After all, what chance did the Girl Next Door have against the Girl From the Next Galaxy? The New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane summed up perception of Jolie’s snaring of Pitt: “She took one look at the world’s most widely desired man and scooped him up with no more ado than a Parisian grande dame tucking a chihuahua into her clutch bag.”

    The scandal was likened to Eddie Fisher leaving Debbie Reynolds for Elizabeth Taylor in the ’60s. But back then there wasn’t a celebrity media complex ready to pounce on Reynolds’ every humiliation, real or imagined. For the wounded Aniston, the salt poured down, beginning with an arty 60-page photo spread in the June 2005 W titled “Domestic Bliss,” in which Pitt and Jolie presided over a band of little blond Brads.

    Aniston shot back with a tearful Vanity Fair interview in which she admitted to being hurt and lonely and denied rumours that she didn’t want children: “That really pissed me off. I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children. I did and I do and I will!”

  • juju

    what = what’s

  • just me

    Completely bogus..I agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a conspiracy theory behind this. Hint: a lot of people are envious about the Brange; some are haters. They publish something like this which is totally irrelevant..not even news-worthy. People like Brange are treated like public property and they’re not. They, among others(businessment, politician, anyone in the public eye) has every right to control their own images. I think Angie and Brad just wants their private lives to be private and controls what they want the public to know about them and that is ok. They also want to turn things around ..so aside from reading about them..you also gain awareness of the countries/charity work that they’re helping out. I’m just amazed at the hype this article has generated. Remember JA at the Ivy? Wasn’t the papz informed hours before that she was coming? And there’s other millions of instances when other stars have manipulated the media?? Why is it only the Brange that’s relevant to this author? And based on the article…there’s a personnel from People that should be fired for this. The author got an undisclosed source from People? from dozens of people who worked with the Brange? Really? Is he for real? He can’t even make up his mind to admire or hate the Brange? He even had to recount Angie’s past? Wow…this person is really a moron…sorry..not buying it and not changing my opinion about the Brange. I just simply admire them and their works. I’m pretty sure the Brange has done more than this manipulative writer to help people in need.

  • NYToutedthemediaho

    Angelina Jolie said last year that if there’s gossip about her or her family she’s not likely to worry about it unless it’s in the NY Times. The NY Times has a story about Angelina today and it’s not that positive. It’s all about how the 33 year old actress and mother of six uses the press to manipulate her public image. It looks like that same press is starting to buck the trend. Angelina isn’t all that different from other celebrities who employ the same methods to ensure positive coverage, they say, except she does it mostly on her own and doesn’t use a team of PR experts.

    Angelina’s masterful manipulation of her public image all started when she first split up with Billy Bob and arranged for the paparazzi to take photos of her out with Maddox. It continues to this day, with Angelina and Brad dictating the terms to the magazines that buy rights to their family photos. In fact the $14 million deal with People for the twin baby photos is said to have included the stipulation that they never use “Brangelina” again and that they always have glowing reports about the couple ad infinitum. This isn’t Star reporting this either, it’s the NY Times, although they do quote Star’s editor so who knows if they’re adhering to high journalistic standards. It’s all kind of blending together lately.

    Angelina Jolie does a lot of good, but she also takes credit for it and it could be part of her strategy to be seen as a caring mother at this phase of her life. She definitely seems like someone who genuinely cares about other people, but she’s also rather cunning and the press is calling her on it. There’s been a mild backlash against her since she’s been doing so much publicity for her movie and blathering on about her family. People are interested in her and she wants to talk so it’s been working out pretty well for her so far though. As long as she learns to step back a little as she keeps saying she’ll do, the press will come around again.

    While doing research for this story I came across this unintentionally funny quote that Ann Curry wrote about Angelina’s charity work. It seems over the top and like it really doesn’t reflect reality:

    How common is it to find someone who embraces the idea that any true gift is given anonymously? Angie’s like that, not wanting to publicize her efforts, unless some greater good might come of it.

    Now people stop me to say how much they admire her, how she inspires them.

    I have concluded that Angie represents the transformation that is possible in all of us, when we step outside our own suffering, and open ourselves to the suffering of others.

    [From MSNBC]

    How could people admire Angelina if she did give anonymously? As it is, we get press releases from the Jolie-Pitt Foundation. They’re doing a lot of good but it’s hardly anonymous.

    Here are photos of Brad and Angelina in Africa with Maddox in April, 2005. It’s said to be a “secret vacation.” If that’s true then how did a photographer get there? Credit: Bauergriffinonline.

  • Passing Through

    # 33 fan @ 11/21/2008 at 5:53 pm
    # 34 fan @ 11/21/2008 at 5:54 pm

    http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4093#comment-32684

    No offense, whoever you are, but could you at least give ME credit for finding the oringal Awards Daily posts to begin with? I’m the one who posted them on the other thread…and don’t bother to say you got them off the Awards site yourself because there’s an error in the original copying I did and it’s duplicated in post #34!

    Sheesh…credit hogs…can’t keep ‘em, can’t kill ‘em…

  • juju

    you’re = your

A Member of Townsquare Entertainment News | Advertise here