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

  • Ben Affleck just took a major step in his relationship with Lindsay Shookus - TMZ
  • It doesn't look like this character will be on a possible 13 Reasons Why third season - Just Jared Jr
  • Angelina crashes Jersey Shore: Family Vacation and ignites the drama- TooFab
  • The Arrested Development UK press tour has been canceled because of Jeffrey Tambor - The Hollywood Reporter
  • Fans are convinced this Shawn Mendes song is about Camila Cabello - Just Jared Jr
  • lulu

    The vulture media are looking for another prey. it used to be Madonna,then Britney, now it’s Angelina.

    while for politician, we had Hiliary Clinton and Sarah Palin. though, I don’t agree with Palin agenda but , gosh , the way the media treated her was just too much , too harsh and bias.

    Thanks god , Angie had Brad , her 6 little angels , James, dear and close friends always at her side supporting and giving her strenght. If this constant microscrutinize of her words or action, regular harassment of press and razzie did not let her fall, she will survived !!!

    Go Angie, Viva Angie !

  • Vee

    Just logged on–so, I hope other JP fans are here–Hello! It’s about time People stood up for both Anglelina, Brad, and integrity. Nice story!


    NYTimes profits slide; S & P downgrades credit rating

    The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.

    The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from 13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a year ago.

    The company, which owns, The Boston Globe, International Herald Tribune and 16 other daily newspapers besides the flagship The New York Times, said overall advertising revenue fell by 14.4 percent during the quarter.

    Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times’s credit rating to “BB-,” or junk status, while Moody’s Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade.

    Moody’s changed the rating outlook for the company to negative from stable in July. A further downgrade would reduce it to junk status. Both companies said the moves were based on the uncertain outlook for newspaper advertising.

    Print advertising revenue has been declining at newspapers across the United States as circulation drops, more readers go online for their news and advertisers shift their dollars to the Internet.

    The New York Times’s share price rose slightly on Wall Street on Thursday, gaining 0.19 percent to close at 10.70 dollars, but was down 3.74 percent to 10.30 dollars in after-hours trading.

    The Times said print advertising revenue fell by 18.5 percent in the third quarter while online revenue from and other websites rose by 2.5 percent.

    “The decline in print advertising revenues this quarter accelerated as the economy slowed,” New York Times chief executive Janet Robinson said in a statement.

    While print advertising revenue fell, online advertising revenue grew by 10.2 percent in the quarter to 74.4 million dollars, The New York Times said, and now accounts for 12.4 percent of revenue, up from 10.6 percent in the third quarter of 2007.

    It said total revenue fell 8.9 percent in the quarter to 687 million dollars from 754.4 million in the same quarter last year.

    Circulation revenue rose by one percent due to an increase in home-delivery and newsstand prices for the paper.

    The company said it managed to reduce operating costs by 6.8 percent during the quarter and “given the adverse economic conditions, we will continue our strict cost discipline.”

    The New York Times also indicated in its statement that it may cut its dividend. “Our board of directors plans to review our dividend policy before the end of this year to determine what is most prudent in light of the overall market conditions,” said Robinson.

    It also said it was looking at writing down the value of assets in its New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe, by 100 million dollars to 150 million dollars.

    Copyright AFP 2008


    Desperate NEW YORK TIMES needs those hits desperately!

  • Passing Through

    # 215 guli @ 11/21/2008 at 10:01 pm

    # 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….


    It really irked me tonight because I came across the Awards Daily posts by accident! LOL. I wasn’t even looking for stuff on that NYT article. I was looking to see if either of them had gone to the CCOBB screening last night. Turns out it had to be cancelled and rescheduled for tomorrow night. So I just happened to stumble across those posts…and took the time to copy and paste them to show that not everyone in the biz is blinded by what the NYT did. It’s not just Angie, it’s EVERYONE, but the media has it out for Angie because she’s doing it on her own terms.

    Anyway…a little credit where cred it due, folks. Kindly remember that in the future…thanks…

  • Orchid

    72 Andrómeda @ 11/21/2008 at 6:38 pm Of course the NYT article was a lie.

    Plus Angelina is one of the actresses who is more critize in magazines, they write lies about her every week in order to sell…
    So i don´t understand why they are saying she is manipulative…
    AJ is smart! I see nothing wrong with being manipulative. Don’t we all say and do things every day to get what we want? We manipulate people. I do it all the time to get what I want. I find men easier to manipulate than women.

    manipulate = cleverly handle, control, manoeuvre or influence. Nothing wrong with that, imo. As long as you don’t go too far. :lol:

  • You and me

    The vulture media are looking for another prey. it used to be Madonna,then Britney, now it’s Angelina.

    while for politician, we had Hiliary Clinton and Sarah Palin. though, I don’t agree with Palin agenda but , gosh , the way the media treated her was just too much , too harsh and bias.

    Thanks god , Angie had Brad , her 6 little angels , James, dear and close friends always at her side supporting and giving her strenght. If this constant microscrutinize of her words or action, regular harassment of press and razzie did not let her fall, she will survived !!!

    Go Angie, Viva Angie !
    The media hates powerfull women, the don’t have issues with men just with the ones with v a g i n a s :)

  • Passing Through

    # 232 cnn @ 11/21/2008 at 10:31 pm

    They treat Angelina like she’s Hilary Clinton.


    I’ve said for years that there are 4 women who can divide a room in half like nobody’s busines – Angie, Madge, Hillary and Okra. They’re people you either love or hate – not a lot of middle ground for any of them.

  • Vee

    As most of you know, sometimes the NYTimes is WRONG–as in their problems a few years ago with editors:

    NEW YORK (CNN) — The New York Times Thursday announced the resignations of its two top editors — the latest bombshell in a journalistic melodrama since a rising star reporter was forced to resign for plagiarism.

    Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd had been particularly criticized for their roles in the scandal surrounding the reporting of 27-year-old Jayson Blair, who quit the paper May 1.

    Blair resigned after a Texas newspaper questioned whether he had plagiarized a story about the family of missing U.S. soldier Jessica Lynch. The Times ran a multipage self-examination of how the reporter managed to stay on staff after multiple errors and editors’ suspicions that his reporting was fraudulent.

    In a news release, the newspaper said Joseph Lelyveld, 66, former executive editor of The Times, has been named interim executive editor, assuming the jobs of both men.

    Raines, 60, led the paper to seven Pulitzer Prizes last year — several for the Times’ comprehensive coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Neither he nor Boyd, 52, would comment on their resignations.

    Not only this time was the NY Times wrong, but a simple obituary for VERY famous Orson Welles, taled about his only SON Christopher, who actually happpened to be his DUAGHTER, Christopher.

    It happens, fans– I had an aunt named “Cllifford,” for my grandmother’s favorite brother. The NY Times is not the “be all and end all” to news.

  • Passing Through

    # 247 NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS! @ 11/21/2008 at 10:58 pm

    New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent


    LOL…and along comes an article on Angie…POSTED IN THE BUSINESS SECTION, NO LESS…

    Coinkydink? Seems less likely the longer the day goes on…

  • anustin

    always punished the good looking………ugly! nah! nothing lift.

  • ebmo

    # 52 Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:20 pm bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 6:15 pm:
    Yeah bdj, I do my part but unlike Angelina, I do it anonymously and from my heart, not outwardly and for my pocket. I’m not whining about anything, I just pity all of you Brangelina kool-aid drinkers who believe she can do no wrong. She does a lot of wrong, look into it and stop praising her already.
    I pity anyone like you who convinces themselves that not only do they know the facts about someone elses personal life, but also has that “oh so sanctimonious” ability to pass judgement on everyone else.

    Keep focusing on the perceived faults of others, that will distract you from having to look in the mirror and seeing the smug, spiteful, self-righteous beyotch staring back at you

  • Vee

    Oops, I meant “talked,” “DAUGHTER,” and “Clifford.” Can’t blame these mistakes on anyone but myself. :-(

  • anustin

    yeah…..she manage to manipulate brads ballz, giving him 6 kittens and 2 dogz .so hard to manipulate when ur ugly……unless u got huvane.

  • Can someone tell me please

    Where is this picture from (the one Jared has up)????

    Is it from a recent interview? If so, can someone post the link to the interview please?

  • neer

    I am glad we don’t have NYT here in the Philippines (for obvious reasons). NYT is a disgrace to New York for the simple reason that a publication carrying the name of the state is featuring “tabloidish” kind of journalism.

    Economy must really hard and it affected NYT income, thus it resorted to evil means even by besmirching Angie’s reputation. It resorted to unverified sources and false stories just to create a negative image of the most popular woman in the world. NYT knew that anything written about Angie spells money. So it allowed some writer with apparent hidden agenda to write imaginary feature on Angie. What NYT miscalculated is the backlash this it might have caused. Now, this is being discussed all over the internet, blogs or what have you, and NYT motive is being questioned. NYT miscalculated that Angie is not just an ordinary celebrity /person but admired by well-respected VIPs, dignitaries, intelligent people etc. They underestimated Angie’s kindness, popularity, influence in the whole world. Some people may not like Angie but they don’t easily believe what NYT writes just because it is NYT. NYT is now a suspect for their subsequent articles. They will be scrutinized by readers. I won’t be even surprised if a number of readers will stop or withdraw their NYT subscriptions because of this.

    People Mag’s response to NYT bogus article becomes interesting. It will turn to People (or other reputable publications) vs. NYT (and other tabloids). Jealousy on the part of NYT is what I think is behind all of this. It is a fact that People is making a lot of money and NYT is definitely is not very happy. So what better way to counter this is by attacking the very person (Angie) who they think is the major reason why People’s circulation is high. NYT is obviously threatened by People’s reputation & popularity.

    Once again, this is an instance of ongoing battle between Good & Evil. NYT chose the dark road by judging a person’s motive of doing good deeds, by trying to undermine humanitarian work of Angie. I know, Angie will still survive this because her heart is pure & she’s on the good side. She will still continue her advocacy no matter what the cynics say.

    NYT CAN’T JUST PUT A GOOD PERSON DOWN….. not with Angie, who has found her meaning purpose in life.

  • Sammy

    I believe the New York Times. There was also a article in a over-seas
    paper last week that they were investigating charties. They have
    been given 18 Million or more for pictures, also she is suppose to give 1/3 of her wages. Yet they published that they donated the amount shown by the Times in 2006 which is well below the
    amount they earned. Is it shown on paper anywhere that he really
    donated the money $5 million to New Orleans or is it the people
    that have donated to his fund that are paying for it?


    Holy sheeeeeit.

    This pic of maniston made me gag….

    Brad must give thanks every day.

  • Sammy

    Before you blindly say the New York Times is lying and printed a
    false story, maybe you better wait and see what comes out of it.
    If it isn’t true don’t you think they will be sued. I do. If Brad and
    Angelina have really donated all that they say they then if shouldn’t
    be hard for them to show their taxes returns and records showing
    it. Remember Cambodia was saying that they didn’t get the money
    that was pledge to them. I would be willing to bet that they aren’t
    going to do anything but keep still.

  • Ami

    So the NY Times is turning into a tabloid?
    Glad that People speaks up.
    There are so many sad people in this world who think nothing but the worst in people. I appreciate people who help humanity with their efforts or money. Anything for a good cause, I will support that!
    Blessing to the Jolie-Pitts! I am so glad I saw them this week!

  • cc

    Alright! Let all talk about the state of NYT’s finances. This is the only way to fight back. The only way to let them know we the readers/fans are not stupid. Insead of defending/discussing Angelina, we should all talk about their sleezey motives. Money talks. I hope the NYT goes down, just like all the other sleezy media. Print media integrity is dead and gone!

  • Sammy

    Just curious, why is People Magazine printing this article on Just
    Jared. Why isn’t there a story in their own magazine? I think that
    would be more in line.

  • anustin

    needs to be rejected! heheehe…along with the cover.

  • ebmo

    # 263 Sammy @ 11/21/2008 at 11:38 pm
    Hey Moron!
    Who said she is “supposed” to give 1/3 of her income to charity?

    She simply DOES give 1/3 of her income to charity. She has absolutely NO obligation to. Yet that is never enough for people like you.

    All her donations have been well documented by numerous INDEPENDENT agencies and foundations.

    All of Brad’s donations and NOLA’s work is documented as well. Non-profit agencies documentation of donations and expenditures are a matter of public record.

    The “investigation” is a figment of your imagination, something you have invented to try to create a controversy.

    Hop your happy A$$ to “google” and do the research.


    Sammy you are a f*cking moron…lmao…Angelina isn’t “supposed to give 1/3rd of her wages,” you f**king idiot – she does it because she WANTS to, just like Aniston gives 1/3 of her wages to Stephen Huvane, CAA, and her hair colorist, an expert in Peroxide…that’s not mandatory f*ckwad, that’s called CHOICE…yet you’d beat Angelina up for giving her money to impoverished children all over the world??!! I hope bad Karma is on you like whote on rice, and the Clay Aiken lookalike that is raining this silly trivial sh*t down on her out of nowhere…if people in Hollywood can’t see this for the smear job it is, they are worthless, and I hope she leaves and doesn’t ever come back. Brad can keep Angie pregnant and barefoot and raising babies…and you can be left with watching TV sit-com hack maniston’s bad schlocky rom coms and her tranny ugly face on the big screen as she tries yet again to be the new Katherin Heigl even as she deals with hot flashes and menopause. Hahahaha.

  • QQQQ

    Oh please samho, get a f*cking life. Bill O’Reily who hated AJ with a passion did an investigation about her giving 1/3 of her salary to charity and all the work she has done, and even he had to change his tune when he found out she WAS telling the truth.

    What don’t folks understand about the money from the Shiloh pics. Getty Images took care of it and distributed the money to charities that needed it.

    Roger fatass Friedman, dug up their 2006 tax info and wrote an article about it showing where the money went.

    Madonna had a charity event last yr for UNICEF with a gazzillion celebs and to this day no one knows where that money went but since u all have an hard on for AJ u all are questioning their charity endeavor.

  • debra77

    I wish someone would come up with a date for us all when this craziness regarding Brad/Angie and Jen will end. I just want to know how long….

    I don’t think some of the people on this post hate Angie as much as they claim. You would have to be a victim of some direct interaction with another for them to affect your life in this way. For the ardent Jen fans.. this thread has over 200 comments, still counting… Jen’s thread has 30 or 40+ by now. Why are you not there talking amongst yourselves. It is a true indication of how bad the economy is when the NY Times stoops to trashing a woman to sale papers. What have we come to. Everyone has a right to like or dislike whomever they want. But all this hate stems from a divorce that happened almost 4 years ago.. How many other divorces have happened since that divorce. How many other celebs have had scandal and relationships, as well as babies. Too many to count. But still the world and especially the web world is still fixated on Angie.

    The magic and joy of life is how we grow and change. How we should become an aware person who opens our eyes and truly see what the world is and what it could be. I don’t know many celebs who are constantly having their past thrown in their face the way Angie’s is. We say that the past is the past.. This should apply to everyone, not just a select few. This woman did not kill anyone. She fell in love and started a family. Whatever she did with BBT, he was her husband. Brad and Jen are over.. Jennifer is a woman no different then any other. A role on TV does not make her too wonderful to get a divorce. I find it so strange that Angie and Brad have to live to a standard that no other celeb is expected to Every word they say, every move or action they make is analyzed to the tenth degree.

    It would be nice if people would get a grip and let this crap go. If Jen is still holding on to this… Sad for her and her fans.

    Angie and Brad have moved on and are living and loving their life, each other and their children.

    Fans and haters should go back to their lives and do the same.


  • :)

    Report Abuse
    # 247

    Well this explains part of the reason the NYT wrote that article. It’s all about the Benjamins.

  • Clarice

    Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times’s credit rating to “BB-,” or junk status, while Moody’s Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade.

    Moody’s changed the rating outlook for the company to negative from stable in July. A further downgrade would reduce it to junk status. Both companies said the moves were based on the uncertain outlook for newspaper advertising.

    I guess the New York Times should seek Angelina’s advise on how to rebuild their tarnished image.

  • Katya

    Remember Cambodia was saying that they didn’t get the money that was pledge to them. I would be willing to bet that they aren’t going to do anything but keep still.
    Oh. you mean the Cambodian guy who ripped AJ off for over $300,00 dollars. AJ and Brad employ over 70 people they pay every month at The Maddox Jolie-Pitt Millennium Project [where there are 6,000 villagers, a school, a soy milk factory, roads and a nature preserve], they also fund a health care clinic and 3 orphanages in Cambodia.

  • QQQQ

    A few of their charity

    MJP Foundation

    Maddox Chivan Children’s Center (MCCC)

    Jolie-Pitt Foundation Donates $2 Million to Global Health Committee to Fight HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis in Ethiopia
    Grant will support first treatment program for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Ethiopia


  • cc

    Just logged on a few minutes ago. The scary face on JJ’s first page just about knock me off the chair. God, I hope I don’t have nightmare tonight!

  • cook

    Hola! Bonjour! Hi haterz!…the champ is here…

    …and, it’s still cold as a witch’s tit outside…

    …sit booboo, sit!…

  • :)

    Can someone tell me please @ 11/21/2008 at 11:30 pm

    Where is this picture from (the one Jared has up)????

    Is it from a recent interview? If so, can someone post the link to the interview please?

  • :)
  • QQQQ

    The folks that really matter appreciate what the J-Ps are doing. So FU to everyone else


    Samlaut district resident, Surs Moeurn, has had a difficult and unstable life. A former monk and soldier, Moeurn, now 50 years old, lost his sight and both his hands to a landmine. His injuries make it extremely difficult for him to provide for his family. For almost 20 years, between 1984 and 2001, Moeurn lived in a plastic tent with his wife and two children in extreme conditions. With little food throughout most of the year, his children could not attend school as they needed to help him tend to the meager crops in the field.

    Recently, this all changed for Surs Moeurn and his family. With assistance from MJP, who provided them with a proper house, a plot of land, a cow and other necessary equipment, Surs Moeurn can now build a better life for his family. “My dream comes true, Mrs. Angelina Jolie is like my parents”, he said. “My life is now meaningful, I have enough food, my kids can go to school, I have cow for reproduction and land for cultivation,” he added. Moeurn still worries about his children, his income is irregular due to his handicap, but he is in a much better place to be able to provide a healthy future for them.


    So, this is how it works:

    Huvane calls up the NYT, asks them to do a piece on maniston, in it she promotes corporate products like blackberry, facebook, and Wiii, in her inevitable boring, lame interview. It’s a tired snore of a read, but she’s in the mag which is all they care about. Aniston will write Huvane a check for 15% of her gross – which is most likely about 5 million annually for arranging her nyt piece and all other press for ’08, which includes enumerable staged photos on the beach with John Gayer and to restablish her as ‘sexy at 40.’ Additional stagings will occur on a regular basis at The Ivy, Sole, Sunset Towers and other papz hotspots.

    Conversely, Angelina who is being chased all over the planet, papz hiding in bushes, drilling holes in her hospital room while she was pregnant, trespassing on her son’s schoolgrounds, and burying themselves in the dirt on her property, decides to beat the papz and tabloids to the punch, and take the edge off the dangerous ‘first pics,’ frenzied chase, by arranging the family’s own pictorial. In it they dicuss their next charitable endeavor, an AIDS and malaria clinic in Ethiopia, to which the 14 million will help pay, along with homes for the MIR campaign, US military children’s foundations, and Iraqi war refugees.

    Angelina’s press is dissected up the wazoo for her noble causes that help humanity, while Aniston apparently gets a free pass on her banal sh*t plugging for various billion dollar entities (why plug genocide in Darfur when you can plug Wii and maybe get a free gaming unit for the boy that’s pizzzing on you every night? LOL) Aniston actually employs agencies and Huvane to operate for her on a 24/7 basis..but shhhhhh….we’re supposed to believe that Huvane had nothing to do with it, and that Aniston is so wonderful and so in demand, that she just got a call out of the blue on her cell from the nyt mag, asking her to please come down and do a photoshoot and a trivial interview about nothing.

    Angelina, despite raising 6 kids, doing her UN work, her CFR work, her critical acclaim in movies, her giving birth, her burying her mother, her supporting Brad – her fulfilling her own professional obligations – also has time to be as effective as CAA and control her own press…even the tabloids according to aol. lololol Yes, people behind blogs are so dumb nowadays, they don’t even bother to read the original articles they skim it, and write their own bullshit which says Angelina tells the tabloids what to write (popeater) – which by the way has amassed 300 replies already.

    Jolie is ‘spiking,’ boards and blogs all over the net, due to one nyt article…and people wonder why this happens periodically. She rules the world.

  • Vee

    #156–# 156 awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm

    Loved your post!

  • groundcontrol

    “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 ”

    Um, by plane? By astral projection?

    First of all that credit Line does not mean they necessarily took the photo. It means they own it. It could easily have been taken by an employee of the resort or another guest who finally figured out who to sell it.

    Pitt was photographed at LAX leaving for this trip. He also had to make connections and fly a private plane to get there. There are pics of him getting off the plane and being driven to the resort that came out later. Does anyone really think that Brad Pitt – famous the world over – went unnoticed every stop of the way to Kenya? Photo agencies have stringers everywhere – espcially at a luxury resort frequented by celebrities.

    And most telling was that the pics were snapped on or around April 17 and they didn’t make the press until many weeks later in May. If the paps had snapped them they would have been published immediately.

    I am loving this Jolie Power.

    The sexist depiction and words (“manipulative” “cunning”) not so much. I am really getting fed up with the Misogyny Wars of 2008.

  • Orchid

    263 Sammy @ 11/21/2008 at 11:38 pm

    …she is supposed to give 1/3 of her wages.
    Who says?

  • ebmo

    Maddox Chivan Children’s Center (MCCC)

    Brad Pitt and children from the MCCC during his visit with Angelina Jolie in November 2006. Photo by Brint Stirnton, Getty Images.The CHC opened the doors of the Maddox Chivan Children’s Center for AIDS infected and affected children in Phnom Penh in February of 2006 with the support of actress and activist Angelina Jolie. In honor of her work on behalf of children worldwide, the CHC named the center after her oldest child, who was born in Cambodia. To date, the Chivan Center has offered its unique program of multidisciplinary care to more than 600 Cambodian children infected and affected by HIV/AIDS.

    The center focuses on the growing population of children whose lives have been severely impacted by the AIDS epidemic. Before having access to therapy, support was limited to accompanying children in the last moments of their lives. Now, life expectancy is much higher, which changes the type of support that they need. These needs extend beyond mere medical ones. They are typically unable to receive schooling because of their illness or because they have to take care of their ill parents, or work to support their families. They are victims of discrimination at school and in their communities, traumatized by their parents’ death and often living in extreme poverty in which their opportunities are severely limited.

    Current estimates report that approximately 14,000 children in Cambodia are infected with HIV and mother-to-child transmission of AIDS is one of the major reasons for new infections. Without specific support that can help them cope with all of the obstacles and difficulties that they have to face, what kind of future can these children have?

    The MCCC aims to respond in a comprehensive way to this need by offering multidisciplinary care. This incudes medical treatment for AIDS affected and infected children, provision of a daily nutritious lunch, educational support from preschool through 6th grade, counseling (through art therapy, peer groups, life skills workshops), sports activities, English, computer, etc.

    Above all, the children get to be just children at the MCCC, not “children with AIDS or from an AIDS family”. A special focus of the MCCC is on the particularly vulnerable ages of preschool and the teenage years, which has very specific needs in terms of counseling, health, and education.

    The number of orphans due to AIDS in Cambodia is greater than 100,000. The multidisciplinary approach being pioneered in the Maddox Chivan Children’s Center, will give these kids a leg up through education and opportunities in addition to medical assistance. The project is designed to be a model for pediatric AIDS care globally, while providing integrated care for AIDS infected and affected children and their families.

    A new initiative underway is the construction of a new outpatient center at the pediatric ward of the KFSH and the renovation of the ward, which will care for approximately 500 children receiving care for AIDS. The new clinic will be opened in the spring of 2009.

    CHC News (February 2008)

  • cook

    …and I am telling you I’m not going…

  • Sammy

    Why is People Magazine denying this on Just Jared. They can
    write a article in their own magazine and explain it all. Brad
    and Angelina can show all their paper work on how much
    money they have actually donated. It should be in their
    2007 tax returns as a deduction. They also have a foundation
    that would should show every cent that they have given. I
    read another article early in the week about charity organzations
    being investigated. Their names and another were mentioned.
    I find it hard to believe that the New York Times would print a
    story like this if there isn’t some truth to it. They would certainly
    be leaving themselves open to a law suit. They did show their
    donations in 2006 less than the money they received for pictures,
    and she has always claimed she donates 1/3 of her wages.
    Cambodia complained that she pledged money and they
    didn’t get it. Later she switched the people handling the money.
    I realize that most people on this sight worship her and I am sure
    that is why People picked this sight. It does same rather
    strange to me. I am waiting for a article to appear in People,
    them asking for a retaction or something.

  • cc

    Interesting BBC interview. Looks alike it was done right after the NY premere. The commercial is a little annoying but watch both parts. They are nicely done.

  • Sammy

    If Jolie hasn’t done any of this and they are giving away all the
    money they say they are (the pictures and etc) then it should be
    easy enough to prove. She has made a lot of money off her
    kids and so far we have seen nothing showing that she has
    donated it. That is what they said it was for. As far as the
    New York Times printing the article, how can you be sure
    that they don’t even know more than they are printing? I
    can’t imagine a paper that size risking a law suit to print
    it. People should be denying this in their own magazine,]
    not on Just Jared. It should be interesting to see how it
    all plays out. A good image is one thing, but out lying to
    get one is quite another thing and it should bother every
    one. Maybe we should see the 2007 tax returns or the
    records for their foundation.

  • You and me

    Sandy and Mary type the same way


    That’s cause along with being a moron, it’s the same person (sandy/mary) . Apparently she’s unaware that she’s on a fan site, and that we know the JPs philanthropic and charitable dealings backwards, forwards and sideways and have the stats, resources and links to back it up. They hire the right people, that follow the letter to a T. AJ even had FOX news and O’Really on her tail, and even they say she’s the real deal. Furthermore, only a moron would believe that with the double standard and witchhunt tactics that exist out there for Jolie, if even one thing was out of sorts re their funding, the media would be all over them, or rather all over Angelina, since Brad is non existent in these stories.

  • Dumb Hag

    You and me @ 11/22/2008 at 12:55 am Sandy and Mary type the same way

    Yup Jenhags changes names a lot of time just because they want it to appear that their are “many” that hates angie which is the opposite people love STRONG, INDEPENDENT and SMART, GORGEOUS, LOVING MOTHER AND A HUMANITARIAN woman like ANGELINA JOLIE. Who wants to be in the team whiny, boring, ugly, never grow up, desperate cougar who dates a urinator ..bleehhh NADA!!

  • Dumb Hag

    opps sorry their are = there are ..

  • Mondo Bongo!

    Crazy ass comic relief trolls………. Pathetic! :lol:

    Angelina Jolie~ Super Star!

  • bdj

    Poor pathetic eternal victim Jen cannot bask in her product placement NYT article. NYT had to go and throw in an article on the iconic legend Jolie. Fire your PR Jen. Too funny.