Brad Pitt is Impervious to Poo, Snot, Urine and Vomit

The digs are subtle and not so subtle, most people who aren’t fans won’t catch them. Like when they discuss the blood, they’ll just leave out the fact that it was her husband’s, and she did it to feel closer to him (which has been explained ad infinitum by Angelina, even telling Larry King on his show - and Larry was touched, not grossed out. We live in a country that is currently going wild for True Blood and Twilight, and ‘Vampire Bill,’ a sexy sob who regularly feasts on the blood of his girlfriend, and it’s like a phenomenon, and yet Angelina’s nicked finger being put in a flower press just is soooooo weird. LOL It’s funny too, how the blood vial never is mentioned in bbt’s interviews and articles either. It’s character assassination for women. Christine Collins circa 2008) the other thing they won’t mention is ‘age,’ they won’t say what Angelina has said about those times in her life, that she was young, lost, etc. Nevermind that she was several years younger than Britney Spears and Paris Hilton at the time. I swear you could read an article on Lohan today, just 12 months after she was passed out stoned in a car, arrested for reckless driving, and you wouldn’t read about it.

By the way - saw that pic of Brookes, dude looks like Clay Aiken. Except Clay looks more masculine. I see he’s relatively new and hadn’t yet made ‘a name.’ He is so on someone’s payroll for sure - they’re who determined what KIND of article it would be. I think Angelina Jolie is the meat on which these ‘new’ LA based nyt writers (unscrupulous ones) cut their teeth. They know writing about her will get them coverage, and the controversy will as well…that it will go around the net and be posted. That the article will be discussed.

The article was convoluted enough - that for the layperson who doesn’t know that actors, sports stars, politicians ALL employ PR agencies will think Angelina is conniving and manipulative. They’ll also think she does this a LOT, when in fact the only instances they refer to are her children’s pictorials that she and Brad sold to People mag…and really what idiot would not make a stipulation or a request that the article accompanying said pictures shall not be derogatory. Can you imagine if US weekly had won the bidding, and there was no such clause or request — I’m sure we’d get a 10 pager, with ‘Angelina’s Twisted Double Life…as a MOM,’ and then experts weighing in on Shilohs’ body language with Angie (she hates her!!) and then a point by point expert who discusses Jon Voight’s resemblance to Shiloh. They would definitely make the JPs pay for them paying thru the nose. lolol

The whole thing was just so disingenuous - it reeked of it, this guy much like bloggers, bad TV sit-com actresses and others are riding her - they want to use her, and use her up. I remember a while ago Angelina characterizing things as “attacks,” and she went on to say, ‘but that’s okay - people can say what they want….’ and that she would always be ‘the bad girl,’ for some of these outlets, and thinking to myself at the time — hey Angie, maybe you’re being a bit too dramatic. Which shows, she is waaay smarter than me, because that is EXACTLY what they do. She’s been proven out.

Okay, Reese Witherspoon calls the tabloids the “biggest detriment of her life?” I think she needs to go on a few of those field trips with Angelina to put things in perspective. Nevermind the fact that Reese W is hardly ever in them, so…umm…wtf is she even talking about?? LOL .

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 3:39 pm - the lying b*tch even had a website while she was on Friends “to help girls with self esteem problem”

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 3:39 pm

Just twixt us and everybody else, that Celebitchy moderator is a cúnt. She snipes at Angelina every chance she gets and as far as X is concerned, she might as well crawl up X’s ass. Fugly can do no wrong where Celebitchy is concerned.

One last thing about that nyt piece, they had to go back 6 years for this proof that Angie sets up her own papz shots general statement — but this time we got more info, seems US ragazine was all atwitter that Angelina Jolie’s marriage had gone bust after she had brought home a Cambodian baby that Bbt didn’t want, so they were begging for interviews and pics (thanks brooke barnes for the filler I didn’t have before) - Angelina refused the constant harrassment about an interview and a ’story,’ telling them ‘what went wrong,’ with bbt, and exploiting baby Maddox in a ‘tell all,’ — but what she did tell them so they could get off her asss, is where she would be if they wanted to take a few pics…??

Doesn’t seem that different from what Halle Berry recently did, after first proclaiming she would not sell her child’s pics, and then having her privacy invaded after papz broke onto her property to snap pictures - she set up trips to a public park, and a zoo, and carried Nalah face forward all around the park and let all the papz from various places snap pics. Ditto Fishyth Paltrow in a public park with Moses - when People just ‘happened,’ to be there.

But THAT isn’t media manipulation eh? Explain to me how that’s somehow different than what Angelina did with Mad, 6-7 years ago??

Ms.JOLIE4ever! @ 11/21/2008 at 4:24 pm

Larry Hackett, Defender of People’s Celebrity Shilling Integrity

This morning the New York Times “attacked” Angelina Jolie for basically existing as her person. Getting paid enormous sums of money for human trafficking in baby photos? And how she’s conspired with People magazine to ruuuuuin celebrity “journalism”? Well People editor Larry Hackett isn’t going to take it! Which explains this email he just sent off to the staff — in a “this is obviously going to leak” manner — defending the People brand against charges of pay-for-play journalism and cooperating with its subjects.

Which is heresy! And widely suspected.

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Subject: Today’s New York Times
Importance: High

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.
http://www.jossip.com/larry-hackett-defender-of-peoples-celebrity-shilling-integrity-20081121/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Good for people mag, I’m glad they didn’t take this hit piece lying down. The NYT has really become everything at one time it hated about other mags.

Except for a few regurgitating comments, re BBT and blood vial, the article was pretty good, and is, somewhat grudingly, giving Angie her due. Its a pity Michael K at dlisted missed that in his haste to write his usual snark.

However, they still come off as a tabloid, because when you start quoting US, you know you have lost all semblance of respectability.

http://www.themonitor.com/entertainment/new_20109___article.html/york_mcallen.html

Geez I hope this dancer does not torture Whiny(X) with recalling the time she danced with Brad Pitt.

McAllen dancer has tangoed with Brad Pitt

‘The day I danced with Brad Pitt’

She had been called in to help with the tango scene for a movie called Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which was no odd occurrence. Choreographers frequently need bodies to play out scenes as they create steps, so she headed to the Universal Studios lot none the wiser that just a few hours later she would be body-against-body with one of the sexiest men alive. “Unbeknownst to me, I ended up having to partner dance with Brad (Pitt),” she said. “I died and went to heaven.” Step by glorious step, Ramos taught the tango to the jeans- and boots-wearing Pitt, whom Ramos calls “a wonderful creation.” “Needless to say I was at a loss for words. I probably sounded like an idiot talking to him.” she said. “But it was great.”

maybe it’s me - but didn’t the trashbloid US weekly did an twisted double life article on Angelina last year (@ this time too) and then the NYT followed with a similar article - also quoting US - so is it deja vu this time around - again US is printing a torture story (supposedly) and then the NYT follows with a half assed article worthy of a trashbloid?

Yum..am watching Ocean’s 13 right now…Brad is so damned hot..and those white pants and his er…crochetal area…lawsy….THUD. No wonder Angie was all up on him at the Cannes premiere of this film…I don’t know how she took it…anyone have the Cannes ‘wood’ picture handy?? LMAO

Brad’s children @ 11/21/2008 at 5:11 pm

Dear readers,

~ :- P <– Vivi Jolie Pitt tells all who do not like it, to go ’suck her pacifier!’
_____________________

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

# 999 an oldie @ 11/21/2008 at 3:53 pm

# 997 Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 3:39 pm
=============

PT, I’ve heard that some celeb MySpace pages are actually not by them, but by their fans posing as them.

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

Somebody faked a Brad page about 2 years ago…but the X page was legit. She’d posted on it enough times that people knew it was her. Now granted it’s something that Brad or his brother could have helped her with, but she definitely had one. I remember that we made fun of that because she’s always claiming to be so damned private…and she had fricking a MySpace page!