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
  • Blake Lively feels relaxed in a pair of Christian Louboutin - US Weekly
  • The Academy just added a lot of new members - TMZ
  • Watch Demi Lovato and Nick Jonas' first Future Now concert - Gossip Cop
  • Listen to the secret album Keke Palmer recorded back when she as on Nickelodeon - Just Jared Jr
  • Get the latest on Khloe Kardashian and Lamar Odom's divorce - Radar
  • Paul Simon may be done making music - Huffington Post
  • Is Drew Barrymore getting her own talk show? - Lainey Gossip
  • Check out a review for The Legend of Tarzan - The Hollywood Reporter
  • guli

    NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:20 pm —-well you twit with an IO of 80 or 90 the most..Let’s see if your IQ can comprehend…..It’s that NYT stooped to level of the raggazines to make money off the JP’s. OMG we are talking about NYT….and the as@hole is quoting Bonni Fuller….is he fcuking kidding me????..Oyyy NYT is is quoting Fuller as a legit quote…ROTFLMAO :lol: how pathetheic is that, can they and tabloids and supposed legit media get get more sick….OK, the media ho…who is screwing anyone that gets in her 50 feet radious…is supposed to be handled with kid gloves b/c she is FOURTY and does not want kids but fakes it for 6 .years as if she does…we have all the interviews and videos pathetic liar JEN…

    Soo Jen hens..you are some sick puppies…get a life or pray for X not to be dumped by JM again…oyy how embaressing… well maybe he’ll do it on ET instead of TMZ… :lol:

  • bdj

    piper, with a low @ 11/21/2008 at 9:40 pm
    Of course the hens were on this blog talking about how Brad Pitt was going to throw AJ under the best and talk about whiny X (can’t say Jen to much or you get moderated) for his movie. None of them came back to gloat.

  • Passing Through

    # 36 fan @ 11/21/2008 at 5:56 pm

    Oh for fcuk’s sake! This is ridiculous. This is the THIRD POST YOU COPIED WITHOUT CREDITING ME! Go find your own ironic rebuttals to the NYT and stop stealing the ones I found! Nobody likes a credit-stealer!

  • bdj

    under the bus

  • tizzy

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

    —————————————-
    Excellent, intelligent post

  • adora

    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.

    bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahha
    bwhahahahahahahahahahah
    bwhahahhahahaha

  • Reposting

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

    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.

  • bdj

    When the NYT sinks to the level of a Rag, then there is not too much left to worry about. A rag is a rag.

  • Passing Through

    # 79 African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 6:44 pm

    ALL HAIL THE POWER OF THE JOLIE!!!

    Rotflmao! I looooooooooooooooves it!!!!!

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    AG -

    It’s like I posted on another site this morning – the media is just pissed that Angie is better at their job than THEY are. These are people who went to college for 4 years to learn the ins and outs of the biz…and along comes the upstart who graduated high school at 16, lived a while youth and was candid about it, grew up and decided to put an end to the one-way relationship she had with the media. The media hates it that Angie plays their game better than they do. For years she just did interviews to promote her movies, and as she said, she had no real purpose in life. But once she found a purpose she realized she could use the media’s (and the public’s) interest in her to achieve the greater goal of highlighting humanitarian issues. What’s ironic is that the media was perfectly happy to use her without regard for her personally…but when she turns the tables on them, THEN suddenly it’s a problem! They’re just jealous little b#tches who want to take their ball back now that they’re losing the game.

  • voe

    Incredible! Every one wants a piece of the money Angelina Jolie generates now. She is not done, au contraire! She has just been made bigger, more famous, more powerful

  • heaven

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

    GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

  • bdj

    NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:54 pm
    Your one troll mission is too funny. You clearly are not hurting AJ or the fans. worst have been written about AJ and she is still standing. Stating that she is smart and master of her career and image is a walk in the park.

  • Ace tomato

    The New York Times isn’t fit to wipe anyone’s a**.

    Come to think of it, that would be redundant.

  • http://firefox gena

    Angelina is a wonderful person who cares deeply for others who are less fortunate. She is just trying to live her life and raise her family. It is not right that she is being attacked during the the time when award season is about to start.
    All should look at the good that she does. She is an talented actress. I really don’t care the the stuff that NYT is writing. It does not change my opinion about her at all.

  • Passing Through

    # 85 African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 7:01 pm

    Ted is an idiot, How can he say someone is finally listenting to his calling AJ out for something he also says other celebrities do?

    What sense does that make???!!

    ++++++++++++++++

    Ted is worse than an idiot – HE’S A JEALOUS IDIOT. I put 100% of Ted’s dislike of Angie down to the fact that she’s smarter than him and beats him at his own game. Brad had him barred from all the O13 PR events last year…but he, like X, is STILL kissing Brad’s ass. He constantly says things like “Brad’s a sweetie”. Yeah, he’s ANGIE’S “sweetie”…and therein lies the problem! Ted and X both need to get over it already!

  • :)

    NYToutedthemediaho

    Whose interview or pictures would People, Time mag, NY Times or any of those sites you posted from preferred to have today, tomorrow or 10 years from now. Aniston or Jolie

    If you and these hypocrites writing these articles are truthful it would be Jolie. Aniston’s Vogue mag raced through the internet because of her remark from Jolie. Very few cared what she said to the new york times. But people want to read,see and post anything having to do with Angelina.

    Today the new york times just made Angelina more powerful. Thanks for clicking on Angelina name on all these sites. It just tells the owners of the sites to write more about her.

  • guli

    # 203 Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 9:46 pm —
    Hey I know some JJ fans got on my case re giving credit about two years ago b/c I wanted someone to give credit where it was due …But that long ago….I really think it is the right thing to do …B/C someone takse the time to search for it or like you did last night scanned it for all of us and bdj hunts all those articles…it is JMHO necessary to give credit….

  • bdj

    Whoa the hen is having a meltdown. Too funny.

  • voe

    #214

    If you didn’t put up with a cheating husband to stay married, why the hell are you here whining about his cheating years after the divorce?

  • Vogue Payback

    http://msn.jolienyt.com/html
    November 21st, 2008 at 8:58 pm 28

    The latest NYT missive regarding Angelina’s media prowess, is definitely a hit. It’s payback and deflection regarding Jennifer Aniston’s Vogue interview which used Angelina’s name to kick up sales and interest in her doggie rom-com this month. That was a fail in every way imaginable, as Aniston was ridiculed for not only using Jolie, but the whole world was screaming, ‘Move On,’ and calling her a whiny, weak lame.

    It didn’t help that Brad Pitt followed Aniston’s Oprah appearance in which she again talks ‘Brangelina,’ and didn’t say word one about Aniston. Double fail. So this nyt piece on Jolie, is in response to that whole brouhaha – it is a CAA, Huvane hit for Aniston their coddled TV cash cow & puppet. The Deathstar (aka CAA) VS Jolie.

    They got to the ‘new’ LA based entertainment reporter and requested a hit on Jolie. Nice. Jolie may be smart, but they have the connections to really do her in if they want. Why would they want to? 15% of the Aniston millions. You can’t have Jen flame out because of a bad Wintour decision, so you get some NYT piece that digs up all Jolie’s old People mags featuring her kids. Odd, sure.

    Notice how anytime Aniston and Huvane make a misstep (that has nothing to do with Jolie) we’ll usually see a Jolie smear immediately follow in the mainstream press.

    Deflection, deflection, deflection.

    The Deathstar is very close to facing a major defection.

  • anustin

    new york tyms!ppprrrtttttt!

  • Passing Through

    # 93 Natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 7:09 pm

    juju @ 11/21/2008 at 7:03 pm anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm
    ________________________________

    Ted C?? Man, you really are desperate aren’t you?

    People mag?? So are you losers!!

    +++++++++++++++++

    ROTFLMAO. I’m a celeb in need of publicity…who would I rather have at my back -

    - People magazine – subsidiary of Time, Inc., weekly circulation of 3.9MIL, known ass kissers but harmless, website that gets over 6MIL unique hits per day

    - Ted C – piddly paid gossip columnist/blogger, fired former editor of a movie magazine, demoted former tv show reporter, cranky self-proclaimed “fagola” who can’t be trusted with your dog, let alone your reputation, website housed as part of a much larger site for a cable tv station, daily unique hits of about 27 trolls…

    Hmmmmm….decisions, decisions, decisions…

    Okay…call me silly…BUT…I’m going with the Peeps mag…

    Stupid trolls…

  • http://justjared dina #1

    Good evening to all BAMPZSKV fans. Just got home and what do I see People bytch slapping some really ugly person trying to make his bones by using Angie. Isn’t it just so wonderful how the truth always comes out. Peace

  • anonymous

    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?

    #####

    Okay, this post goes into the Dumbest Post Hall of Fame.

    Final analysis: Mush for brains LOL

  • New People Subscriber

    I’m subscribing to People Mag today. :-D

    I say all of us do the same, that can – and make sure you let them know why.

  • Jill

    Shrink @ 11/21/2008 at 9:28 pm
    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.
    ********************************************************************************************

    Don’t kid yourself. They printed a viciously snarky article about Jolie right after her mother did and ate shít for days when their readers reacted.

    Not to mention the whole Jason Blair debacle. He almost destroyed the credibility of the newspaper. It took them months to recover from that one. Google it for details.

  • Jill

    Ooops… that should read right after her mother died.

  • groundcontrol

    yoki @ 11/21/2008 at 6:21 pm # 46 whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes?

    where do u come from? where i am leopards have spots. tigers have stripes. zebras have stripes. giraffes have spots. bumble bees have stripes. ladybugs have spots

    ############

    LOL!! Thank you, Yoki, for that.

    Whatevernitwit is hilarious. She’ll be flailing around all night.

  • guli

    Goodnight JP fans…many thanks for the links and great posts… Chat with you all tomorrow :-)

  • diane

    NYT needs to sell their newspaper….and who they turn to MS Angelina Jolie!!! And now they got soo much attention because of it…Ignore NYT!! They need Angelina Jolie!! I hope Angie won’t give them any interview. Or probably Angie turn them down!!!! NYT are desperate.

    God Bless the Jolie-Pitt!

  • Passing Through

    # 133 Keep an Eye out for Deceivers @ 11/21/2008 at 7:53 pm

    Boy, are you reaching. Name me one celebrity/millionaire who doesn’t get “something”/some kind of return out of their philanthropy. Good luck with that one. However, here’s the difference. What YOU see as their reward may not be the reward THEY see. Angelina gets more personal satisfaction in helping refugess than she gets from being on the cover of people or having the NY Times digging into her business or fans fawning over her. She gets satisfaction in teaching her children to give to others and be generous and thoughtful individuals. These are the EXACT same things that Bill Gates, Bono, etc., get out of their philanthropy work. The fact that all YOU can see is the material gain, is your problem, not Angie’s. She’s in Germany with her family right now living her life. You, on the other hand, are sitting here on a celeb blog btiching about her. Ironic, ain’t it?

  • Passing Through

    # 136 thelookoflove1365 @ 11/21/2008 at 8:00 pm

    So Ted Casa bakla still thinks he’s in the know? A mutual friend relayed to him? Bahahahah! It’s nice of him to scour blogs and internets, read ragazines and then write about it as if he talked to some one with the real insider knowledge. Ted is prolly the one with drug problems, based on these stories/fictions he keep on writing.

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who got a chuckle out of Ted C saying “a mutual friend”. Ted doesn’t have “friends”. He has people he uses as sources. That’s NOT friendship. That’s USERY. Someone needs to explain the diff to Ted!

    Seriously though – the very idea that Ted would have a common friend with Brad and Angie slays me. What person in their right minds is “friends” with a gossip columnist? Sooner or later that person is going to use info you asked him not to and your ass is going to be in hot water. Ted doesn’t have any “friends”!

  • Passing Through

    # 139 DECENCY @ 11/21/2008 at 8:03 pm

    See how low the NY Times has gone, Ted C thinks his work is equal to what they write

    ++++++++++++++++

    Oh snap! You’re dead on. Oh how the mighty have fallen. If I’m the NYT reporter I’d be saying, “Fcuk! Now Ted C thinks I’m as low as he is!” An endorsement from Ted is NOT anything to write home about…

  • cnn

    They treat Angelina like she’s Hilary Clinton.

    She’s powerful for sure, but what are they so afraid of – an enemy that travels the world calling attention to atrocities and helping to svae lives?

    Angelina Jolie’s example says that you can be the most famous woman alive, and rule all media and get an Oscar nomination all while having NO PR representation, then the reason for this nyt piece becomes OBVIOUS:

    Ruin her charitable efforts, revise history and make sure she doesn’t get a nod.

    The purpose of this article is for people to see Jolie as this super smart media mastermind, and they want people to know, that while Jolie may be capable of doing it, the average person she is not (hence the “scary smart” type language).

    It’s the PR agency message to other new and existing talent in Hollywood, you DO need us…you won’t get the press you need, nor will you get the award noms either, if you follow Jolie’s example.

    It’s a threat. A warning.

  • whateverangie

    groundcontrol @ 11/21/2008 at 10:15 pm

    yoki @ 11/21/2008 at 6:21 pm # 46 whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes?

    where do u come from? where i am leopards have spots. tigers have stripes. zebras have stripes. giraffes have spots. bumble bees have stripes. ladybugs have spots

    ############

    LOL!! Thank you, Yoki, for that.

    Whatevernitwit is hilarious. She’ll be flailing around all night.

    ______________________________________________

    I admit I said stripes instead of spots. I’m not flailing by the way. We honest people can admit when we are wrong but can Angie? You people are insane. You are so happy to just sit around waiting on her to adopt/have another child. Does she attend to all these children? No… She has nannies to do it. Why would you adopt/have more unless it is a media ploy. Please people grow up. She crazes attention and people like yourself are more than willing to give it to her.

  • diane

    jared just post another article from NYT about Aniston!!! oh oh oh..tsk tsk tsk…they are trying to sabotage Angie!!!
    I rather post here than post on that article. NYT times are desperate and losers. They are going down together with aniston.

  • You and me

    No one is shocked or surprised. Everyone in the business, yes even bloggers know that stars manipulate the media all of them do it.
    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    The calling out of angelina only says one thing: CAA
    Why only angelina is attacked and Brad gets a free pass when we all know he does the same thing?
    One more time CAA

  • bdj

    It’s the simple mistakes troll that show that you are ranting just to rant. Facts help in making an case.

  • bdj

    a case.

  • juju

    whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 10:32 pm
    _____________________________________

    You know what you need to “grow”? A brain. My god, you people are stupid.

    If Angelina wanted “atention” she didn’t need to put her life in danger or adopt kids. She just needed to do as all other actress do and go to parties, fashions shows, hollidays… and kiss all HW people and media asses.

  • You and me

    Ted Casablanca “source” is George Clooney and Jules Asner but clooney knows nada about angelina.
    Ted has no real sources. There was a time, long long ago when Ted was a power house in the gossip world like Perez is now.

  • WASHINGTON POST ROCKS!

    WASHINGTON POST is my fave @ 11/21/2008 at 10:25 pm

    JOLIE is TEAM WASHINGTON POST!
    JOLIE is TEAM WASHINGTON POST!
    JOLIE is TEAM WASHINGTON POST!

    She writes for the WASHINGTON POST every now and then.

    I will subscribe to People mag and Washington Post.

  • lulu

    cnn @ 11/21/2008 at 10:31 pm They treat Angelina like she’s Hilary Clinton.

    She’s powerful for sure, but what are they so afraid of – an enemy that travels the world calling attention to atrocities and helping to svae lives?

    Angelina Jolie’s example says that you can be the most famous woman alive, and rule all media and get an Oscar nomination all while having NO PR representation, then the reason for this nyt piece becomes OBVIOUS:

    Ruin her charitable efforts, revise history and make sure she doesn’t get a nod.

    The purpose of this article is for people to see Jolie as this super smart media mastermind, and they want people to know, that while Jolie may be capable of doing it, the average person she is not (hence the “scary smart” type language).

    It’s the PR agency message to other new and existing talent in Hollywood, you DO need us…you won’t get the press you need, nor will you get the award noms either, if you follow Jolie’s example.

    It’s a threat. A warning.

    ————————

    EXACTLY !!!! I hope Angie get a Oscar nom this year. which she probably getting a big chance , that ‘s why the PR agency are nervous and start this smear campaign. by bribing some of this wannabe journalist. Media are becoming like a Mafia org. so don’t believed every thing they write. when come to certain topic, they are so objective and bias, and they do play a big part in the down fall of the great USA.

  • Passing Through

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

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

    +++++++++++++++

    BRAVO! And A-effin’-MEN! I don’t know who this Chris Good is, but good for him. ITA 110% on so many levels…starting with Halle Berry’s naivete and yes, stupidity! I said earlier this morning and I’ll say it again – Go on Angie (and Brad) with your bad ass self! This NYT article was like punishment for making the media work FOR her.

    In the past celebs have had to bend over and let the media have their way with them and THEN they MIGHT get a positive story. But in this case it’s simple economics – supply and demand. Angie’s got the Golden Uterus. She’s being stalked and hunted all over the earth…so why shoudn’t she and Brad and their humanitarian work benefit from the interest in them? It really pisses me off that someone like JLo can sell ther baby pix for $5MIL…and nobody is asking, “Where’d the money go?” But Angie? It’s, “They SAID the money was going to their foundation…” Where’s an article on JLo pocketing millions off the fruits of her uterus and her hubby still owing as many millions in back taxes? Oh yeah, JLo is 5 years ago’s news, so the media doesn’t give a shite. Only Angie matters…and for that reason she MUST be punished. Or so says the media.

  • Orchid

    208 voe @ 11/21/2008 at 9:56 pm

    Incredible! Every one wants a piece of the money Angelina Jolie generates now. She is not done, au contraire! She has just been made bigger, more famous, more powerful.
    ——-
    So true, and she does it all without a publicist.

  • whateverangie

    Goodnight people. It was good debating with you. Team Aniston, Team Angelina! It is good to know we live in a country where we have freedom of speech. Love you all including Angelina. Keep up the good work Angie.

  • anustin

    yeah miss dina…truth always comes out!

  • Passing Through

    # 179 QQQQ @ 11/21/2008 at 8:59 pm

    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!

    +++++++++++++++++++

    BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

    No, 4Q…this one will be okay…cuz Angie didn’t say it herself. It’s only when Angie talks about Brad & M&MS that X has a problem with it. Waaa waaa weeeee…

  • NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS!

    New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent

    NEW YORK (AP) – New York Times Co. says its second-quarter earnings fell 82 percent from the year-ago quarter boosted by a one-time gain. Meanwhile, print advertising revenue continued to shrink.

    The New York-based newspaper publisher says its quarterly net income dropped to $21.1 million, or 15 cents per share, which included 11 cents per share in buyout costs.

    Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected income of 22 cents per share in the latest quarter. Analyst estimates typically exclude special items.

    Revenue dropped 6 percent to $741.9 million, missing the average Wall Street estimate for $754 million. Ad revenue slipped down 11 percent, hurt mostly by fewer classified ads.

    Chief Executive Janet Robinson says business was hurt by the “U.S. economic slowdown and secular forces playing out across the media industry.”

    Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

  • NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS!

    New York Times profits down 51%
    Comments (0)

    The New York Times company’s third-quarter profits were down by 51% on the same period last year, falling from $13.4m to $6.53m (£7.23/3.52). Revenue dropped 9%, with advertising sales falling 16%, much steeper than the 11% reduction in the first six months of the year.

    Online revenue grew by only 6.7%, much lower than the 12% average growth rate in the previous six months. Meanwhile, the company announced that its debt now stands at about $1.1bn (£590m). It ain’t a pretty picture. (Via Washington Times/AP)

A Member of Townsquare Entertainment News | Advertise here