OlderPeople 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.”
Share This Post:
961 Comments
hahaha!!!
SHE’S SO PRETTY “! :D
Who cares either way.
Oh… *waits for gazillion posts claiming otherwise*
I’m glad People decided to answer the NYT.
who gives a crap?
yeah because i would totally believe people magazine of the NY times
Ny Times has been sinking for a while now.
They gave the 14 mil$ to CHARITY. duh.
Angie has been a UNCHR ambassador for 8 yrs.
NY Times is desperado & liars.
She should of given the 16 million dollars to the Africian relief and built
them some home to go back to instead she sits in a filthy tent in her
black hooded wrap and talks about how they need help… What charity
the Jolie-Pitt foundation aka for the kids.. and their lavish lifestyle?
Duh tell us what charity is was.. so what if she was an ambassador
for the UNCHR.. she has done squat for them..Just her videos…
put her money to good use…
Two words:
Judith. Miller. NYT
A reporter most singlehandedly responsible for spreading the neo-con LIES in the Iraq War, killing 1.6 milloon, wounding half million, and killing 5000 U.S. military.
This is proven FACT.
Between her, and Jason Blair - this paper has been sh*t for a looooong time.
Finally ! I always knew she used her status to bring awarness to her charities, but I never believed she used it to put herself in a “positive” light. She can careless about what people think about her,she is too busy with her family and just living life.
nothing new, the media keeping repeating the samething and it is getting boring, let her live her life.
The NY Times need to get a grip! Do they just need to pick on somebody? Why don’t they write about more relevant things and news worthy topics? The fact that Ms. Jolie have done more good that most if not all hollywood stars is worth mentioning. I am tired of the media almost printing lies and bad news. The way the economy and the world is heading to these days, bad publicity and dire news only fans the fire and achieves nothing but build more hostility, anger, mistrust and sadness among humankind.
..and NO, this is still NOT a new thread. Keep posting in Brad/Oprah.
That is all.
Angelina is a talented Actress, devoted Mom and Humanitarian. The media is obsessed with her and is making her an iconic legend of our generation. Whether you like her or not, the main thing is that people(mainly hens) cannot ignore her. She has been lied on, smeared on and her past brought up in many articles. Yet AJ continues to live her life and love her family. She seems to have it all and this bothers many. I admire her intelligence, talent, strength and conviction to her causes. All the tabloid BS, PR manufactured triangle and ranting from crazed nutjobs are just a minor inconvenience in reading about a woman who walks the talk. Keep on Keeping on Angelina Jolie. It is always good to leave the haters in the dust.
HAAAAAA……HA! (As bart simpson would say).
Kudos to PEOPLE for putting this hack in his place and in doing so, throw light on the trashloid-little secret that the NYT harbors within its ‘hallowed’ pages.
Journallism is no longer about strict lines of demarcation between ‘news’ and the opinions and commentary of the so-called writers who are no longer content just to report the facts. Everybody wants their 15 minutes. Everybody wants to give his or her spin on things and in the process, foul up the facts, as this so-called ‘writer’ of the piss poor hatchet job on Angie tried to do. (A page one article???!! i know media is feeling the economic downturn pretty hard but……man! i guess its worse than i thought LOL.
Anyhoo……seems to me the next step is to point the spotlight on this so-called ‘writer’. When writers insert themselves and their biases so blatantly into stories, its time to find out who they are, who ‘pays’ them and what their real agenda is!!!!
NYTimes has a lot of contributing writers. This one, Brooks Barns, again, probably is one of the women whose partner left her, or had an experience of a failed relationship which she never accounted herself for. Angelina’s critics are often themselves very insecure women who are extremely threatened by Angelina’s self-assured, honest life style. They can’t take it.
Everyone wants a piece of Angie.
I was waiting for this site to make a post in her defense…
I’m just kidding Angelina Jolie is the MOST ADMIRED PHILANTHROPIST ON THE PLANET, SECOND sandwiched between Bono & Oprah.
I mean, here we are arguing about how and in which way she can donate her millions to the poor, and actually discussing what she’s wearing when she’s sitting in war-torn dangerous area bringing attention to suffering refugees…I was just kidding talking about her black outerwear - those are clothes she had to wear to respect customs.
I mean, you guys know I’m kidding right??
Why would I be so critical of a woman doing so much for others?
It’s not like she’s Jennifer Aniston getting mani-pedis, and living with her colorist and hair stylist, or getting brazillians for her weekly beach shots. Now THAT is something to be critical of. She could spend her 100 million on someone other than her fake asss’d self, but she doesn’t - she chases obnoxious boytoys around the world and snaps photos offstage. Wow, what a role model. If the NYT says Angelina is ’scary smart,’ she must ‘horrifingly DUMB.’ Hahaha.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7739707.stm
Emotional Jolie takes no prisoners
By Liam Allen
Entertainment reporter, BBC News
Angelina Jolie in Changeling - clip courtesy of Universal Pictures.
The excitement in the room is palpable.
The buzz, which manifests itself as lively chatter, is not one usually associated with experienced and sometimes cynical journalists.
And with the star of the show apparently running late, all eyes turn to the door each time it opens - only to be disappointed by the sight of late colleagues rather than a late Angelina Jolie.
The 33-year-old is in London to promote new film Changeling - the harrowing true story of Christine Collins whose son, Walter, went missing in Los Angeles in 1928.
When the press conference - at the swanky Claridge’s hotel - eventually begins, Jolie explains that “the hardest thing” about playing Collins was that the character is relatively passive.
As a mum, it was horrible and I had my kids with me as much as possible at work and, after doing the day at work, I would just run home and I just wanted to be silly
Angelina Jolie on Changeling
Jolie’s tears for her late mother
“I couldn’t relate to it,” says Jolie, suggesting her reputation as a tough cookie is not too wide of the mark.
But within seconds, Jolie - looking stunning in a plain dark olive green jumper - is fighting back tears.
And the journalists have their story.
She pauses to compose herself as she explains how she based her performance on her “really, really sweet” actress mother, Marcheline Bertrand - who died last year.
It is this softer, emotional side of Jolie that pervades the rest of the press conference as she talks affectionately about her family.
‘Very goofy’
Jolie says Changeling, directed by Clint Eastwood, was “a very hard film for all of us to make”.
Angelina Jolie as Christine Collins
Jolie is being tipped for a best actress Oscar for Changeling
The movie, which is being tipped for best picture and best actress Oscars, tells the story of Collins’s fight for the truth after police officers return a different child to her, claiming it is her son.
When she tries to force them to admit they have the wrong boy and to resume the search, she is thrown into a psychiatric ward.
“As a mum, it was horrible and I had my kids with me as much as possible at work and, after doing the day at work, I would just run home and I just wanted to be silly.
“It was so emotional that I found myself just being very, very goofy.”
She says her four-month old twins, Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon, are “upstairs - hopefully sleeping”.
‘Wrapping presents’
Asked if she and the other half of Hollywood’s most famous couple, Brad Pitt, plan to expand their family - which already numbers six children - Jolie replies: “Sure you can.”
Jolie and Pitt with children Zahara and Maddox
Jolie says she and Pitt are looking forward to “doing the stockings”
A big family Christmas is planned in the “Brangelina” household, she says.
“We’re usually exhausted by Christmas Eve.
“We love it - it’s that fun of sitting up in the middle of the night and wrapping the presents together and doing the stockings and all that kind of stuff.
“It’s kind of the best thing about being a mom and dad.”
Such is the graceful emotion exuded by Jolie that, when a journalist asks how she is feeling in herself after the recent “extremes” of losing her mother and giving birth to twins, she actually thanks him for asking.
But anyone who thinks she has lost her edge should think again.
Jolie with her best actress Oscar in 2000
Jolie won the best supporting actress Oscar for Girl, Interrupted in 2000
The same press man’s follow-up question is met with an icy stare.
“There was a lot of focus on how thin you looked during the shooting of the film and in the film. I just wondered if you’re healthier now?” he asks.
“I think that’s an odd question,” she replies simply.
As the press conference goes on, it can only be a matter of time before someone asks Jolie the killer question - how does she respond to Jennifer Aniston’s claims that she romanced Pitt while he was still married to the Friends actress?
Whoever asks it may well get the cold shoulder from an actress who clearly takes no prisoners.
But the chance of taking the prize of a headline-grabbing retort back to editors is surely too good to miss. Isn’t it?
No-one dares ask.
Glad that this was finally said. The NY Times is struggling to keep their paper afloat. They have create drama to get readership. Sad but so true. Brooks Barnes is an idiot but the worst culprits are the editors that let her piece of garbage article run on the first page.
Brooks Barnes is a guy who looks frighteningly like Clay Aiken, only a LOT less macho. lmao
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/gbye-laura-holson-hello-brooks-barnes-meet-nyts-new-movie-biz-reporter/
well if the “good coverage” exsist .. shouldnt it be part of the deal that pepople HAS TO response to such stories Just saying
Thank you Jared.
God Bless the Jolie-Pitt’s always and forever .
How dare Angelina try to bring the focus to her charity? Seriously, the NYT is upset because she cares about her image as if that is different from any other celeb. She has been uncharacteristically honest in her interviews and still some in the media try to negate every good thing that she has done. The fact that article talked about her humanitarian efforts as a way to smooth over her relationship with Brad is beyond ridiculous because she was involved in those causes before meeting Brad. So, one has to wonder if the author had something to gain by his misleading article and it would be interesting to know who his sources are and WHO they are connected to…
(((((((CLAPING))))))))))
should read “clapping”
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/3867230.Tough_love/
Angelina Jolie almost turned down her latest film role because the subject – the kidnapping of a child and a woman’s betrayal – was too painful for her as a mother. But, as she tells Steve Pratt, she became fascinated by the story.
BEING a mother, Angelina Jolie found her latest screen role – playing a woman whose nine-year-old son goes missing – one of the toughest of her career.
Shooting the scene when she reports the child’s absence was the most difficult in the movie. “It’s such a serious fear, especially for any parent, that you just don’t want to physically do it,” she explains. “You don’t want to go up to a phone, pick it up and report a missing child. It’s horrible. So that was hard to do.”
The latest addition to Jolie’s own ever-growing family, twins Knox and Vivienne, are upstairs – “hopefully asleep” – while their mother talks about the Clint Eastwood-directed movie, Changeling, downstairs at London’s Claridges hotel.
She doesn’t say if her other half, actor Brad Pitt, is babysitting but, unlike other Hollywood A-listers, hasn’t sent advance word that personal questions will not be tolerated. If she thinks someone is overstepping the mark, she’s quite capable of dealing with it. How’s your health, someone asks, mentioning comments about how thin she looks in the movie.
“I don’t think that’s a question,” she says calmly, putting the lid on further inquiries of that nature. But she’s happy to talk about the family that she and Pitt have. In addition to the twins, there are two-yearold Shiloh and three adoptive children, Maddox, Pax and Zahara.
That’s unlikely to be the end of it. Can we expect to see her family expanding further? “I’m sure you can,”
she smiles.
******Jolie has never been one to hide behind a publicist, perhaps being too honest for her own good. Interviews don’t only mention her work as a UN ambassador, but dredge up old quotes about her sex, drugs and rock’n’roll past. ***********
She’s dressed in grey top and trousers with black boots. Her make-up is restrained and subtle, as befits the serious film about which she’s talking. Changeling is based on the true story of Christine Collins whose son went missing in 1928. Five months later the police returned a boy to her – that she knew wasn’t her son. The corrupt police department was hoping for good publicity by reuniting mother and son.
I knew the NYT article was distorted to cast a bad light on Angie but all the same, I appreciate Larry Hackett for addressing the obvious slander.
I think most actors try to use their influence to get positive publicity. Angelina Jolie is just more manipulative than most.
Angie should sue NYT and get some more millions to the charity.
Thanks for all articles bdj.
LOL! Good for Larry Hackett. This is shaping up into a People vs. New York Times pissing contest!
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4093#comment-32684
The New York Times has a cleverly timed piece up today by Brook Barnes which accuses Angelina Jolie of brokering a deal with People Magazine that would control how they cover her, Pitt and their family now and in the future:
According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an “editorial plan” providing a road map of the layout, these people say.
People denies it:
Through a spokeswoman, People magazine, which is owned by Time Inc., released a statement denying that any conditions were placed on coverage. “These claims are categorically false,” the statement said. “Like any news organization, People does purchase photos, but the magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties.”
The article continues to show Jolie manipulates the press in order to draw more attention to her charity work, which is admirable.
The thing the NY Times neglects to mention, and what will probably never be talked about in the future when they talk about the stuff around A Mighty Heart is that the press at large, for the most part, focuses almost entirely on the silly and ongoing story of the love triangle. It never ends. Not only that but take a look at all of the tabloids on any given day — what kind of nonsense do they put on their covers day in and day out. But it isn’t just the tabs. The mainstream press are all over the story too. I finally figured out why: any news about Angelina but especially the private stuff draws big numbers across the board. When I do any post about Angelina the traffic spikes. Even on my level I notice it; I can’t imagine what the big magazines make off of her. They make money off of mostly fictional stories, sometimes complete lies, on a continual basis. That leads me to conclude that Jolie treats the press the way they deserve to be treated. This is not a woman who doesn’t respect the institution of journalism; this is a woman who is smart enough to see how it has devolved into a corporate-owned mess.
She pissed off a lot of journalists during A Mighty Heart by attempting to filter how they interview her. She routinely, as do other celebrities, requests that no personal questions be asked and that if the questions are asked she won’t answer them. This frustrates her fans because all they want to know about is the personal stuff. Jolie wants people to see what she wants them to see. She has transformed herself from exhibitionist wild child to humanitarian and mother. She’s done a good job and it hasn’t been all press manipulation. Her past drags behind her like a piece of toilet paper and there isn’t much she can do about it. She is an icon, for better or worse, and to many she will always be the girl who stole Brad Pitt away from Jennifer Aniston or Billy Bob Thornton from Laura Dern.
How does a negative article in the NY Times impact Jolie’s image, especially in terms of earning a “You Like Me” Oscar nomination? Maybe that depends on how the public views the victimized press. If people feel as I do that the mainstream has mostly let the readers down in its continual coverage of stuff that doesn’t really matter, well, maybe they won’t care that much that Jolie has no regard for journalism. But if there is a whiff of a “diva” in the air it may linger for a while.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4093#comment-32684
1. Ryan Adams November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am 1
“But it isn’t just the tabs. The mainstream press are all over the story too. I finally figured out why: any news about Angelina but especially the private stuff draws big numbers across the board.”
So true, Sasha. The New York Times puts this piece in their Business section, and with all the economic turmoil and financial meltdown in the news, it’s the 2nd most emailed “Business” story at the NYTimes today. They feature it above the virtual fold on the main page if the Times website. They open it to comments (73 responses, so far) — the only business article I can find on the site that’s given the open forum feedback treatment.
That’s why the Times piece seems a little self-serving and disingenuous to me. “oh look! Press manipulator! Please read our story revealing how Angelina is all about the publicity!”
It makes me respect her even more. The main stream media are vultures when it comes to certain people and sensationalist subjects. Anyone who can figure out how to effectively prevent themselves from being repeatedly victimized by the press earns my respect.
In tangentially related news: Jennifer Aniston attempts to control her publicity too today, albeit on what seems to me a much more petty level:
Jennifer Aniston Begs Fans Not To Sell Their Photos Of Her
So Angelina tries to manage her image when even the NYTimes is gossiping about her on its business page. And she does it in a way to bring attention to charitable causes. While Jennifer Aniston bristles at somebody selling a cell-phone photo so “they can dine out on me.”
Not that different on a basic privacy level, but who’s attempting to finesse the press with the most class? And who has the most noble motivation?
So where’s the NYTimes Business article about Jeniffer Aniston whining about fan snapshots?
She is one of the biggest manipulative media whores ever in this industry.
All Editors’ Selections » EDITORS’ SELECTIONS (what’s this?)
November 21, 2008 9:10 am
Link
As a PR professional, I find Ms. Jolie more adept at messaging and consistent use of talking points than many who have been in our industry for years. Should she decide to leave the motion picture industry, she’d surely be in high demand as the head of her own agency. Other public figures would do well to study the way she has developed her philanthropy and image - she is a total professional.
Marsha Keeffer
— Marsha, Santa Cruz, CA
It’s interesting that the NYT chose to trash Angelina on its front page just a few days before featuring her rival Jennifer Aniston on the cover of their Sunday magazine. Smells funny to me.
The sad thing is, The kids were born in July of ‘08, all theother incidents referenced (July of ‘06 Shi’s birth), (Angie’s Divorce and Adoption of Maddox (2002), a spread about Cambodian refugees (also 7 years ago?) — so what made the new nyt showbiz guy (based in LA, the clay Aiken lookalike) write this story NOW? At this juncture?
The great news that Angelina has delivered - be it a critically acclaimed performance, 2 million to Iraqi children and US military children, the establishment of KIND (a nationwide network of lawyers set up to aid fleeing refugee minor children in dire circumstances), I could go on and on and on…about great things this guy could have written about - yet he decides to reach back as long as 8 years ago, and pull this out of his asss, making Angelina seem smarter than 99.999% of the rest of Hollywood in the process, while at the same time getting in his digs.
The piece was all over the place. I couldn’t figure out if it was a slam, or if he’s telling the rest of HW to drop their high powered agents, or if he’s telling the rest of HW to keep their high powered agents because they’ll never be AS SMART as Angelina. LOLOL
Whatever, he’s a wuss and a tool. Glad he’s getting smacked.
Only hens would find someone that takes control of her life and image in Hollywierd a bad thing. Meanwhile, Whiny(X) is a pawn and big purse to her Super PR guy, CAA Agent, hair stylist, Plastic Surgeon, Doggy Therapist, boy toy, Echo as in no deals ProductionCompany, goddess Circle and spray on tan. Those the breaks.
Angelina looks beautiful.
http://media.www.thesandspur.org/media/storage/paper623/news/2008/11/21/ArtsEntertainment/Mistress.Of.Melancholy.Jolie.Delivers.Captivating.Performance.In.Changeling-3555680.shtml
Changeling
This movie is by far one of the best movies of the year, and it would not surprise me to see this movie nominated for several Academy Awards. However, while this movie is very well done, it is also very disturbing, and leaves the audience with an uneasy feeling about the lives of Christine and Walter. What makes this movie even more disturbing is that it is based on a true story: exposing a side of our police force and people that society hoped never to see. I found myself becoming angry and upset with the circumstances of the movie, and while I do recommend this movie, I warn viewers that it is a very intense film that calls for the proper mindset.
The acting in the movie was impeccable from major actors such as Angelina Jolie, Michael Kelly, John Malkovich and Jeffrey Donovan. The costumes, setting and props were very appropriate for the period and stylized for the 1920’s. I think everyone should see this movie. It opens eyes to ideas of corruption, redemption and the human character in general. It explores every type of human, from the normal and competent to the crazed and wild. It is probably the best movie in theatres now and one of the best we will see all year. Jolie gives the performance of a lifetime and is reminiscent at moments of her performance in Girl, Interrupted. If there is any movie to see right now, Changeling is it. I do not recommend this movie for younger audiences or for those who can not handle mature and disturbing events. However, for those who are looking for a thought-provoking and captivating film, Changeling fulfills every aspect.
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?
They gave the 14 mil$ to CHARITY. duh.
Angie has been a UNCHR ambassador for 8 yrs.
NY Times is desperado & liars.
AGREE
Seriously though EVERY celeb out there has some element of media manipulation (or at least attempts it). It’s part of the PR game & just like politicians, celebs want a certain image projected & go about doing certain things with the media in order to get that portrayed, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I’ve no idea if the specifics of what the NY Times said are true but I’ve no doubt that elements of it are true, but then I suspect EVERY celeb does it so it’s no big deal.
Just goes to show that you should never believe everything you read is 100% true regardless of which publication has written/said it or even if it has come straight out of the celeb’s mouth. It’s all a PR game.
People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes? You have a woman who is a homewrecker (Pitt was married when they starting dating). She admitted it. There are a lot of actors/actresses out there that don’t mention their charities and all they do for them. You have someone that is willing to put her kids in every magazine imaginable (even a breastfeeding picture) but YOU CAN NEVER ASK HER PERSONAL QUESTIONS!!!!!!. She is a media ***** and it’s always on her terms. She always complains of privacy and she sells personal photos. If she didn’t want Jennifer to respond to her saying things, then she should SHUT HER MOUTH. She is an actress and you all are falling for her lines.
Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm
_____________________________________
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Poor thing… Stop wasting you’re time obsessing and making up stories about Angelina and get HELP. You’re MENTALLY ILL.
Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm
She is waiting on you to do your part instead of whining about someone who has done more to help than a lot of self-absorbed, narcissistic Actors in Hollywood. Go tell Bono, Orpah, Whiny and a host of others to give all away. Angelina Jolie does what she can to bring awareness. It is not her fault, that she is making others look like slackers.
#46, you have completely summed up the trainwreck, homewrecking, media attention Wh-o-r-e that is Angelina. She is so phony and she needs stop playing to the cameras already. She is playing the role of philanthropist mommy of the year and that is an act. She is an actress….WAKE UP PEOPLE and please take off the gullibility hats already!!
I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?
——————-
Tell that to Oprah, Bono, or even Princess Diana when she was still alive. HYPOCRITE!
whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm
Geez hens, pull out Whiny and the homewrecker card. Poor Pathetic eternal victim Jen is always good for a case against AJ or two. Let’s hope the girl stays single and whiny, so that you guys can have something to whine about.
#3 I’m with you on that one! But you know the Bradgeloonies are going to come outta the woodworks. She is trying soooo hard to refine that image. Sorry sweetie but we know your game and we know how you are. No kind of money will change it.
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.
# 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.
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!
I think Brad’s dropping this crap.He and jolie are OVER!!!
I don’t care if it is true or not
The media lies and so do celebrities, and the world keeps turning :)
http://www.buzzword101.com
anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:25 pm
===========
jenhen, keep dreaming. :lol:
and angie is known to do A LOT of charity quietly. but since the media insists on stalking her and her family, she tries her best to shift the focus instead on humanitarian issues. this is not an attempt to glorify herself, it is in the hopes that people will be more aware of the issues that are more often than not ignored.
Funny stuff!! Perez and Lainey are actually proud of Jolie for manipulating the press. Lainey said she’s been saying that for years now.about Brad and Angelina….so People’s mad..big whup…they got caught..they might as well own up to it!!! Actually they don’t need to own up to it..Readers have known this for years about them.Isn’t it odd that Brad’s name isn’t in this much.Is he leaking these stories???Is it break up time…
jennifer aniston goes to the ivy for attention and her fans are whining about angelina jolie! thats the sad part of anistons life,she will be forever connected to angelina.poor thing,nobody is talking about her dog movie,only ‘poor poor jen’.
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
Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:20 pm
Then why are you telling us about it ?
All those wrong she told us herself ,so what,s new
I Love her!
Thanks, Larry Hackett for clearyfing that. NY Times have gone to the dumps.
whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm
Geez hens, pull out Whiny and the homewrecker card. Poor Pathetic eternal victim Jen is always good for a case against AJ or two. Let’s hope the girl stays single and whiny, so that you guys can have something to whine about.
————————————————————————————-
Really, bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 6:18 pm
Why not comment on the other things I said too. You are so right!! That comment was all about Jennifer. I’m so glad to here you are such a fan of someone who has the moral class of an alley cat. Classy!!
Thank you!
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew this was b.s. though. Such a ridiculous waste of space.
Would these maniston bit ches go get a life and watch reruns of friends,lol
MS. JOLIE POSTS HERE N JUST JARED ARE USUALLY CROWDED WITH PEOPLE GIVIND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS.
SO SURPRISINGLY, TODAY WE HAVE ONLY 63 COMMENTS UNTIL NOW. WHAT IS GOING ON ??
I MEAN IS THERE ANYTHING HAPPENING WITH TEAM JOLIE ?
OH, WAIT.
NOW YOU ALL DON’T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT HOW THIS ***** MANIPULATES THE MEDIA.
WELL, NEXT TIME PEREZHILTON OR ANY OTHER SHITEOUS BLOGGER SLAMS JENNIFER ANISTON WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL THEM..
JOLIE FAME WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE !!
whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm
_________________________________________
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Look it’s another stupid, crazy, hateful, envy, jealous, narrow-minded… women showing her hate and posting lies about Angelina.
Poor thing, let me give you a hand.
1) Brad had already split when they started dating.
2) Man you people are stupid :lol: She is a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, her “job” is to bring awareness to the cause of refugees. How does she do that with the media and the public knowing about it?
Angelina has been with the UN for almost 8 years , she started in Fev of 2001. she has given not just her time and dedication, but her money.
3) Like i’ve said, you really are stupid :lol: Actors, celebrities, royalty have been making photoshoots of their family and kids for years. They do it for several reasons one of them being that it eases the hunt from the paparazzi.
The paparazzi entered the clinic in France and try to make a hold from the room above Angelina’s so they cold take pics, they invaded their propriety… Brad and Angelina just try, and rightful so, to have some controle over it and making sure that the money doesn’t ends up on their pockets but in the pockets of people that need it.
4) On the contrary, Angelina NEVER complains about privacy. The only thing she complains is when the paps get to close to the kids.
5) Do you think Agelina gives a **** to Aniston or to what she thinks? :lol: :lol:
Do yopurself a favor,stop wasting you’re time obsessing and making up stories and lies about Angelina and get HELP. You’re MENTALLY ILL.
whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:31 pm
Too funny. At last AJ is a fighter. I commented on the homewreck card because it is the hen’s ace in the hole. When all else fails, whine about poor pathetic eternal victim Jen. AJ is living her life on her own terms. You do not have to like her and she probably could care less. As a fan, I admire her for her talent and humanitarian work. Marriages fall apart on a daily basis in Hollyweird and the real world. BP and AJ stand by their truth and Jen has gone on record wishing them the best. Since I was not a party to the triangle as the hens, I will refrain from judging. It is all good.
i know lots of people from third world countries (mostly from sudan,ethiopia) who are VERY PROUD OF ANGELINA JOLIE DRAWING ATTENTION TO THEIR CAUSES!
YOU HATERS CAN TALK **** ABOUT HER BUT IN THE END OF THE DAY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOVE HER!
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…
JM @ 11/21/2008 at 6:34 pm
Would these maniston bit ches go get a life and watch reruns of friends,lol
-__________________________________________________
Nice!!! Same morals as Angie I see….
and melissa, just stick with one name already. u have so much hatred i truly believe it’s time for you to seek therapy. did ur daddy run off with with a younger, hotter babe than ur mom? just deal with those issues first before u start bashing people u dont even know. jennifer is not grateful for ur eternal need to regard her as a pitiful victim. she’s a big girl, she can do that all on her own.
Bravo people magazine for standing up to this article full of caca.
For your consideration: President Obama, please if you ever need a new press secratary, Angelina Jolie got my vote!!!!! thank you sir.
SINCE YOU ANISTON FANS CALL ANGELINA NAMES HERE IS SOMETHING TO REMIND YOU THE REAL FAME******
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=dFCLhCihqpw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=am8Y9Uzkbv4
oh honey you don’t want me to start on your name changing as s-your idol maniston is a coke snorting, piss upon whiny dog, stick with one name and then your pathetic as s can talk-getalife maniston,lol
ALL HAIL THE POWER OF THE JOLIE!!!
Rotflmao! I looooooooooooooooves it!!!!!
So People is the epitome of journalistic integrity? Cry me a river!
They only print what the publicists or the talent want them to print., never touching anything controversial. They don’t do their own research, they wait to hear from the reps, they always write fluffy feel-good pieces that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Pot, meet kettle!
i love how the troll keeps talking about class,aint nothing classy about a 40yr old woman showing her dried out cooch and saggy tits in a too small bikini while getting drunk on margaritas and puffing marlboros like a drunk sailor on leave,lol, maniston is thy name,lol
secretary …spelling suck!. LOL.
Imagin if a man can do all this, he would be praise as a true leader, smart, savy and a genius, but since it’s a woman and also it’s Angelina Jolie, she has to be conniving, manipulative and controlling….NYT, why are you still living in 1928?
From Ted on E!
Angelina Jolie: Deceitful, Wannabe Publicist, Part II
Today 11:58 AM PST by Ted Casablanca
J Redden/UNHCR via Getty Images
Thank heavens somebody’s listening. The supposedly still venerable New York Times finally echoed what we’ve been bitching about for eons: Angelina Jolie knows her way around press manipulation about as well as she does married men. We said it. Now the Times is saying it: Jolie is the woman aspiring Hollywood publicists should be studying with everything they’ve got.
Oh, and Angie’s reaction to the NYT calling her out like this? “She pretends to be irked,” relayed a Brangelina mutual friend, “but secretly, I know she loves it.” As do we, of course, as do we.
Every celeb out there has at least one publicist to help them shape their image in a positive way, someone who sells the public an image that is so far from reality, it could be an alternate world.
Angelina Jolie does not have anyone and the only image she sells is her true self and this is a bad thing??!!! Is it that the public enjoys being lied to or why is this a big deal??!!
Gah! I’ll never understand showbusiness and the Fanistons!!!
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???!!
Trevor is her publicist..Look it up !
How did you guys get off topic.Why is Jennifer in here?
FOCUS!!!
anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm
________________________________
Ted C?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Man, you really are desperate aren’t you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm
She pretends to be irked,” relayed “Huvane”. Too funny. As if, AJ cares What Ted C or source thinks. Chances are, AJ does not even know about this. It is funny how all these articles appear when they are out of the country. However, if being called smart and master of your career, image, and bringing awareness to your causes are bad things, then sign me up.
Angie is busted and People is trying to save ties with their cash cow. Only the delusional would believe a rag mag over the NY Times. What’s that sound….It’s Angie’s credibility sinking even lower. The Angie loons are going to have the dumbest excuses for this… too funny!! What a bunch of idiots. Now they’re gonna be up all night posting in the Addicts defense while the rest of us go out and have a life tonight!! Thanks JJ!
anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 7:02 pm
___________________________
Trevor Nielson her publicist? :lol: :lol: Do yourself a favor do a little research before posting.
a troll telling me too focus,lol,go tell maniston to have mayer aim straighter,lol
complete bullshit
we all no angelina is trying to get the most out of magazines like u
ur lying people
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!!
Most people don’t know that they themselves are been controlled and manipulated by the media everyday when they turn on that Tv, radio or reading the tabloids and newspapers. This remind me of the movie V for Vendetta…LOL. The media so used to be the puppet master that it so hard for it to have some one from the mass puppet to turn around and said, no more, you have to do what I want……..sweet!
Geez I guess the hens are in denial about all the lies, fiction and malice the NYT have published. NYT has been caught in more lies with their stories and writers inventing sources than the National Enquirer and that is saying something. At least the National Enquirer have broken some real stories. Read up hens, before spouting off.
natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 7:04 pm
______________________________________
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Busted for what? For not needing a publicist and all the other people that all the actors need to take care of her image and business? For using the spotlight to help others?
:lol: :lol:
You’re the idiot. An idiot consumed by hate. Poor thing…
GET A LIFE JENHO ANUSTON
get a life jenho anuston instead of whining for 4 long years even though you had been humped and dumped by several guys.
So uncool for jenho anuston to be bitter about a 4 year divorce when she had been dumped and now being peed on by john mayer
i see the name changes are coming fast and furious,lol
#98
Now that you got that off your chest, go hug your boyfriend doll. Have a nice night.
These two are just attention seekers, of course they give millions to charities, if they did not they would pay it in taxes, it ’s called a tax shelter and then they use the publicity from their charities to further themselvs.
Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what Brad Pitt ever saw in her.
Natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 7:09 pm
_________________________________
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Losers? :lol: :lol: You’re in a blog, using different names, posting about crap about someone you hate for no reason and you’re calling other losers? You really have some issues don’t you? :lol: :lol: :lol:
And, between Ted C and People , the choice is obvious.
kim @ 11/21/2008 at 7:16 pm
This is the real attention seeker. Enjoy
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gjvSA7n0l3c&fmt=18
Bursted for what exactly??!
The same thing Jennifer Lopez has 8 people doing for her?
The same thing Jennifer aniston has Havuna doing for her?
The same thing Gwnyth Paltrow, Jennifer Connelly, Madonna, Reese Witherspoon, even Paris freaking Hilton all have people doing for them?
Are some people just too stupid to think?
kim @ 11/21/2008 at 7:16 pm
_______________________________
This is what Brad saw in Angelina:
This and her beauty, her intelligence, strength…
natascha—or whatever names you use— be careful, if the NYT wants to open this bag of worms they better be aware that all the bones may come tumbling out— trust, your girl jen has more to lose in this debate about media manipulation that angie does— EVERYBODY KNOWS AND HAVE KNOWN FOR YEARS THAT SHE AND HER PR ***** HAVE MADE DEALS WITH BOTH TABS AND SO CALLED LEGITMATE MEDIA FOR POSITIVE STORIES ABOUT HER,
You and the other jenhens may want to rewrite history but there is plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.
By-the way you think this non-story will hurt angie? are you that stupid? this will only make her more popular, she is after all the underdog with the big bad NYT making money off her for something that every celeb and their agents do, only difference is that angie does it better.
Name calling has as much effective as whining, spamming and changing names over and over on a blog, NONE. It might make the person feel better, but does not change Angelina Jolie’s life. She still has the 6 adorable children, sexy and mighty fine partner and the striving career. Whiny X still has her hens, or not really a hen but really feel bad for ole pathetic one.
Just looked on E and saw pictures of A.Eckhart and fraudison and they have matching chins.
Yes, we’re all idiots, #106, and you’re a socially maladjusted teenage girl, sitting at home again on a Friday night, and stewing in your hormonal angst-ridden envy of someone who’s got SO much more going than you.
Here’s a suggestion: do your English homework. Maybe this time you’ll finally get the hang of all that tricky punctuation.
That Ted is so stupid. And he considers himself a journalist?.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/news/2008/11/21/angelina-jolie-dedicates-role-to-mum-91466-22306965/
Entire article at link
Angelina Jolie dedicates role to mum
Nov 21 2008 by Rob Driscoll, Western Mail
Angelina Jolie is tipped for another Oscar for her new movie, in which she plays the mother of a missing child. She tells Rob Driscoll that it was one of her toughest challenges yet and reveals that she’s dedicating it to her own mother
THE tears are welling up in Angelina Jolie’s eyes. That’s because Hollywood’s most talked-about star is discussing her mother, who died last year – and who surprisingly became the model for her latest big-screen role, in the Clint Eastwood-directed drama Changeling.
“Her name was Marcheline, but we called her Marshmallow as a joke, because she was just the softest, most gentle woman in the world,” recalls Jolie, who at this point battles to stop herself from crying outright.
“She was really, really sweet and she would never get angry. She couldn’t swear to save her life. But when it came to her kids, she was really fierce and so this (film) is very much her, and her story, in that she was the woman I related to, who had that elegance and strength through just knowing what was right.”
A heart-tugging period drama based on real events, Changeling sees Jolie take on the role of Christine Collins, a California telephone-company supervisor and single mother whose nine-year-old son went missing in 1928. When the police announce that the boy has been found, and present Collins with a child she doesn’t recognise, the stage is set for a startling confrontation between a bewildered yet determined woman and a corrupt Los Angeles police department that has its own sinister reasons for wanting to silence Collins and close the kidnapping case.
Jolie’s extraordinary performance in the film is already being rightly tipped for a Best Actress Oscar nomination, yet as a mother herself – she and partner Brad Pitt have six children, three of them adopted – the 33-year-old actress must have found making the movie an incredibly harrowing and emotionally demanding experience.
“It was very hard,” says Jolie, who became pregnant with her twins during the shooting of the film. “When I first read the script I couldn’t put it down, but then I said ‘No’ immediately. I didn’t want to go into this project because it was too upsetting, and I didn’t want to do a film about a child being kidnapped. But then afterwards I couldn’t stop talking about this person, Christine Collins.
the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:07 pm
Since you called yourself a ***** that is exactly what you are. Now you insignificant ***** with HIV why don’t you run along to the biggest ***** in Hw and kiss that chin chin face of hers.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996322.html?categoryId=1278&cs=1
‘Burn After Reading’ on fire overseas
Comedy grossed $2.5 mil from 1,367 playdates
By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK, ARCHIE THOMASMore Articles:
While James Bond continues to dominate the international box office, the Coen brothers are also reaping some solace from the solid overseas perf of “Burn After Reading.”
Pic is showing long legs with $67.5 million to date in foreign territories.
Dark comedy is now nearing the international performance for the Coens’ previous outing, “No Country for Old Men.” Over the Nov. 14-16 weekend, “Burn” grossed $2.5 million from 1,367 playdates in its ninth week in release.
Toplining Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Tilda Swinton, pic has seen its biggest biz in the U.K. with $11.9 million.
The U.K. is one of a handful of hotspots for Coen fare; the others are Spain, Germany, France and Australia.
Moody Western “No Country” cumed $86.7 million at the international box office and $74.3 million domestically for a worldwide total of $161 million.
“Burn After Reading’s” worldwide total to date is $127.4 million. Pic has yet to open in France.
Italian auds and critics agreed over Clint Eastwood’s Angelina Jolie starrer “Changeling,” which grossed $1.6 million from 299 runs for a respectable $5,402 per-location average.
“Changeling” got off to a slow start in France — where Eastwood is something of a national hero — but made up for it. In its first five days, pic earned $2.8 million from 417.
the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:19 pm
_________________________
All actors have a group of sicks that hate them for no reason or people that turn their frustrations and problems to them.
The group of people that hates Angelina for no reason is constitued mainly of a bunch of crazy, envy, jealous, hateful, narrow-minded women that are fans of Jennifer Aniston. Like YOU.
That’s why i keep telling you that instead of wasting you’re time with someone you don’t like, you should use that time to find a good therapist to work through you’re issues.
New York Times prints crap just to sell.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996322.html?categoryId=1278&cs=1
Pic is showing long legs with $67.5 million to date in foreign territories.
‘Burn After Reading’ on fire overseas
While James Bond continues to dominate the international box office, the Coen brothers are also reaping some solace from the solid overseas perf of “Burn After Reading.”
Dark comedy is now nearing the international performance for the Coens’ previous outing, “No Country for Old Men.” Over the Nov. 14-16 weekend, “Burn” grossed $2.5 million from 1,367 playdates in its ninth week in release.
Toplining Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Tilda Swinton, pic has seen its biggest biz in the U.K. with $11.9 million.
The U.K. is one of a handful of hotspots for Coen fare; the others are Spain, Germany, France and Australia.
Moody Western “No Country” cumed $86.7 million at the international box office and $74.3 million domestically for a worldwide total of $161 million.
“Burn After Reading’s” worldwide total to date is $127.4 million. Pic has yet to open in France.
Italian auds and critics agreed over Clint Eastwood’s Angelina Jolie starrer “Changeling,” which grossed $1.6 million from 299 runs for a respectable $5,402 per-location average.
“Changeling” got off to a slow start in France — where Eastwood is something of a national hero — but made up for it. In its first five days, pic earned $2.8 million from 417.
you mean the golden shower couple,lol
Angelina is not getting as many favorable comments as usual. Is it possible that all the 12 year olds who are fanatically devoted to her are now posting on Jared Jr?
All these jealous hags who say they hate Angelina spends a lot of time reading about her. They are so green with envy and hate, it’s consuming them. Trolls, admit it you are so obsessed with the Jolie-Pitts.
The real Brange
Am about to have a very smug moment. If you can’t stand it, click away quickly.
Wasn’t intending on writing about the New York Times piece titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” because, well, why is this news? But I keep getting the emails so…
Go through the archives of this blog and you will find that message repeated repeatedly: when it comes to the Pitts, they are the masters of the game. Always in control. Always strategising. Always maneuvering. Always selling. And a lot of people are always buying.
The publication says Jolie has no publicist, cites specific instances where the Brange dictated editorial terms to People Magazine and Hello and also refers to a time way back just after her split with BBT when she orchestrated a photo shoot with Maddox that began her transformation from oversexed wild crazy girl to humanitarian Earth Mother. Yes, she’s militant about her public image. Yes, HE is militant about his public image. Yes they are running the show. Yes they throw their weight around and many members of the press wither at their demands. Yes People Magazine is half way up their asses.
Again…why is this news?
As I’ve said time and again, the Pitts are never photographed unless they WANT to be photographed.
Getting it validated by the New York Times though is pretty amazing. And the New York Times giving the Brange a backhanded compliment is pretty amazing too. Brangelunatics don’t like the New York Times anymore.
Having said that, the article describes the Brange machinations almost as if they are rogue moves, as if they operate by a completely different set of standards from everyone else.
Please.
It’s the same playbook. They just execute it better than the rest.
Shelf Ass Jessica Biel executes it pretty well too. And last week Jennifer Aniston did a kick ass job as well, redeeming herself from Huvane’s previous blunders.
As such, an even BETTER article would have been to call out all the media manipulators and rank them according to proficiency supported by Q scores, graphs and pie charts, magazine mentions, message board activity, and paparazzi interest with the Brange sitting way at the top and, say, someone like Mischa Barton ranking closer to the bottom.
Let’s call it The Famewhore Games.
Then would the MiniVan Majority believe that all celebrities are full of sh-t?
the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:25 pm
________________________________
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes, Angelina beats the crap out of Brad every night and he obvious love it.
the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:33 pm
__________________________________
Sorry, poor thing, but i don’t have idols.
But i do like and admire Angelina.
i love when the troll agrees with it self-so entertaining,lol
Poor troll— are you mad because all the work you, jen and her hens and PR have done over the last two weeks have been in vein? your efforts did’nt work? Angie still #1 Brad still love her, she is loved by her kids and the Pitt family and most important and what seem to drive you crazy is that she still has millions of fans who will continue to defend her ALWAYS
Oh well whatever the Q score is says she’s liked by many so you don’t matter… OBVIOUSLY.
the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:37 pm
_____________________________________
Anyone what to try to gess what’s her next name will be? :lol: :lol:
I believe in Angelina and I’m glad that People did the right thing by defending their values and therefore defending her. I agree with other fans’ suggestion to “put the spotlight” on this Barns person and see what’s his/her agenda. Sounds like a phony name to me. I don’t read the NYT but sounds like it’s desperate for some attention.
WHO THE F.U.C.K CARES!!! Also, Angelina’s teeth bug the S.H.I.T. out of me. They bend downward in the front and are not all that straight and is a weird gumline. Before you ask, my teeth are perfect!
ZacChace hens/teens can go to Just Jared Jr and get all the love they want. Vanessa is the new American Sweetheart and those Disney chicks make Whiny love life look like “As the world Turns”. In fact, poor pathetic Jen has her eye on one of the Jonas Bro. Just a rumor.
AG- #107 answer for your last questions is YES! * I got it right…nanananaaaana na*
If you think Brad finds sexiness in Angelina’s physical beauty…..man, you can only imagine how that is fueled by her sexy, kick ass mind!!
How many men get that combination plate??? It’s usually one or the other….or a ‘bit’ of both. Brad is one lucky dude and he bloody well knows it. HIs animated persona on Oprah was such evidence of his joy in life these days.
And why not?? The list goeson……….
Great mother, sexy mate, kick ass empowered woman, A list Oscar winning actress, one of the most beautiful and powerful women on the planet, pilot, humanitarian with a big heart and an inexhaustible spirit.
My lord, he must wake up each morning and roll over and go, “Oh, my god, it is real.”
He felt like the ‘iceman’ in his first marriage, I think the tatoo is saying, “that’s over, thank god, and here’s a reminder of how lucky you are now.” Just my take.
Anyone what = Anyone wants
OMG—-this is hilarrious…Soooo the X hens are going nuts as usual after 4 years …
OK…..X and her hens…I have a serious question for you all pathetic, weak things..You do know that the DIVORCE rate in US is OVER 50%…soooo why does this talentless, ugly b!tch still act like she was the ONLY one that got a fcuking divorce…ROTFLMAO…ohhh “I don’t go there..it’s been 100 years ago”…what??? my a@@..yep the b!tch says 100 years ago but decides to use her divorce to promote her doggy movie by using ANGIE..yooo… hooo.. you said it was 100 years ago..so what gives ..well oce you are a lying ho you always are a lying ho. I hope she’s happy spooning with Norman and Dolly… :lol: :lol:
Charity means doing something nice for someone and not expecting anything in return. Can anyone actually say Angelina hasn’t gotten anything in return for her charity work? Global fame, millions of dollars, glowing news coverage, getting out of that sticky little adultery situation. Ms. Jolie’s fans must be really damaged if they think exploiting helpless people for personal gain is even considered an act of charity. I know Angie’s fans will all defend this practice saying all stars use the media to promote themselves, including Jennifer Aniston. True, but how many exploit refugees and orphans to do damage control when they get involved with a married man? Giving an interview to a magazine to promote a film is one thing. Exploiting desperate people in need of food/shelter and using your own children as leverage to make sure you only get positive news coverage is one of the most awful celebrity stories I have ever heard. Angelina Jolie is one of the most shameful, soulless people to ever work in Hollywood. And that’s saying a lot.
Brad & Angelina
http://i37.tinypic.com/f3szg8.jpg
Another shot of Brad & Angelina:
http://i38.tinypic.com/258chsj.jpg
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.
bakla=gay in my country
Re: The NYT article…
While the article was a bit on the myopic side i.e. ignoring the fact that every celebrity tries to control their image, the fact that Angelina is in a very unusual circumstance which merits her handling her image with an iron fist, it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. I think ‘manipulator’ is a bad choice of words. It’s called EXERCISING ONE’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Why people have a beef against Angelina exercising hers is beyond me.
Quite frankly, if Angelina didn’t take measures, these journalists/paps would climb through the JPs windows. And quite frankly, both Brad and Angelina have the right to decide who they talk to, when and where the interviews will occur, and why they are talking to the press.
And I agree with those who resent that the ‘journalist’ ignored the fact that Brad does this too. H*ll… he went to that small French newspaper with the twins’ birth announcement; he banned L & S, In Touch and their ilk from the Global Green news conferences in ‘06; and he continually kept entertainment shows like E! News and ET at bay after their continual disregard for reporting inaccurate stories, trespassing, and inability or unwillingness to issue retractions and dozens of other actions pertaining to the press.
I suggest hens go to unhcr.org and read up on the duties a UN Ambassador j. As usual, self righteous hens who have not lifted a finger(oh they do it quietly, right!!!) to help anyone is on a blog spouting nonsense. I am sure that the Refugees and orphans appreiciate anyone who can shed a light on their plight not too mention donating millions, lobbying congress and setting up foundations. They might want to tell, Charliz Theron(s), Ashley Judd, Michael Douglas and others to halt all work on behalf of the UN. Just to be on the safe side, tell Oprah, Bono, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck(who left his pregnant wife) to halt spotlighting conflicts in the Sudan and humanatrain crisis in Haiti and throughout the world. Let’s just mourn and wear sack cloth and ashes for poor pathetic Jen and the demise of the Golden Couple.
See how low the NY Times has gone, Ted C thinks his work is equal to what they write.
I am glad to read that people with brains are asking why the NY Times wrote this article. Sad to say the paper of record has become just another tabloid.
bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 7:24 pm
Name calling has as much effective as whining, spamming and changing names over and over on a blog, NONE. It might make the person feel better, but does not change Angelina Jolie’s life. She still has the 6 adorable children, sexy and mighty fine partner and the striving career. Whiny X still has her hens, or not really a hen but really feel bad for ole pathetic one.
___________________________________________________
WOW!!! Pot calling the kettle black.. In mostly all your posts that is all you have been doing is name calling. You are so funny!!
ew @ 11/21/2008 at 7:43 pm
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
So if it bugs you why are you torturing yourself and come and look at Angelina’s picture. Admit it you are just another jealous hag who is obsessed with Angelina.
whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 8:04 pm
yep but that W H O R E word is really name calling. Whiny is just an affectionate term for the Whiny one or poor pathetic eternal victim Jen(PPEV).
http://cdn.fotocommunity.com/photos/5009172.jpg = Jennifer Aniston
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/angelina-jolie-supports-r_n_135918.html?show_comment_id=16979972
Angelina Jolie is furthering her work on behalf as refugees beyond her role as Goodwill Ambassador for the UN Refugee Agency. She has teamed up to help refugee children:
Actress Angelina Jolie and a team of 25 powerful law firms are joining forces against the government’s attempt to deport thousands of unaccompanied and illegal immigrant children - including hundreds from New York City.
Backed by Microsoft Corp., Kids in Need of Defense will provide free legal representation to children separated from their parents. The group will open offices in New York and other several other cities…
“These children often have nothing - no money, no support and no family,” Jolie said in a statement. “Many end up becoming lost, traumatized, and ultimately forgotten.”
Jolie also spoke Friday at the Council on Foreign Relations, introducing a panel on the International Criminal Court and the prosecution of perpetrators in Darfus, sponsored by the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.
“Over the past seven years, I’ve worked with UNHCR and I’ve traveled around the world trying to bring attention to refugees,” she said. “It’s been a remarkable education.”
Jolie, who has visited dozens of war-torn countries around the world, spoke passionately on behalf of the victims she’s met. “I’ve seen refugees return to live among the same people who attacked them,” she said. “They are returning to the same lawlessness that sent them running in the first place. I’ve seen aid workers tear up as they put ladies on a bus and say, ‘I don’t know what we’re sending them back to…
“I don’t know if the ICC is the answer. And I don’t know what type of court is, or what it would need to be to make all of us agree and make it strong enough,” Jolie admitted. “But I do know this: No mother who had her children killed in front of her, no young girl sold into slavery, no boy kidnapped and forced to be a child soldier and no young girl like the 3-year-old I met in Sierra Leone, who had her limbs cut off, should be expected to simply forget. No one should have to choose between peace and justice.”
#69 uol ( ugly obsessive lowlife )
OMG.. uol .. you sound SOOOOOOOOOOO ……………DUUUUUUUUUUMB… LOL LOL !
Keep an Eye out for Deceivers @
________________________________________
Yes, she got a lot from her humanitarian work, but it had nothing to do with “Global fame” or all the crap that you wrote. Angelina didn’t need to risk her life, to waste her time and money to have “Global fame” and all the crap the in make on your sick mind, she already had that.
Since Fev of 2001 Angelina has visited more than 25 countries, has risked her life and has given her time and money, millions of them, that heve saved and helped a lot of people.
While you poor excuse of a human beign spend you’re time in the internet hating on people that you don’t know and throught you’re frustantions and issues into to somenone that has done you no harm, Angelina sepends her time helping others and making the life of other human beign better.
Heroes & Pioneers 21 of 100
Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie
By George Clooney
It is one thing to talk about the problems of the world and quite another to actually try to change things.
As a team, actors Brad Pitt, 44, and Angelina Jolie, 32, have served as our goodwill ambassadors worldwide. They brought help to Pakistan in 2005, after a catastrophic earthquake killed tens of thousands of people and left millions homeless. They have tended to the poor and sick in Africa. And they’ve raised global awareness—and contributed $1 million of their own money—for the victims of atrocities in Darfur. Brad co-founded Not on Our Watch, an organization set up to focus global attention on Darfur and other hot spots.
In the U.S., Brad and Angelina didn’t just talk about, or even just throw money at, the tragic fallout from Hurricane Katrina. They actually moved to New Orleans and have set about trying to make right what so many have made wrong. Brad established a project to finance and build 150 new homes in the Ninth Ward.
Angelina has worked tirelessly through the United Nations on behalf of refugees around the world, touring border camps in Africa, Asia and Latin America and lobbying on Capitol Hill. The couple cares for three adopted children, from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Vietnam, in addition to their biological daughter.
There are hundreds of people who could be honored for their good works, but I’ve seen Brad and Angelina firsthand, and their commitment together is truly impressive.
Clooney is actively engaged in trying to resolve the Darfur crisis
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1735278,00.html
http://cdn.fotocommunity.com/photos/5009172.jpg = New Jennifer Aniston Photo
Just one last thing before I go out with friends (sorry Angie Addicts I know that’s foreign to you). Just because Angie can’t lay off the pipe doesn’t mean you should follow. Night Night. Sweet Dreams.
# 133 Keep an Eye out for Deceivers @ 11/21/2008 at 7:53 pm
OK–you choose to be a complete MORON and and IDIOT with you post…Heck that is your choise to mahe an a@@ of yourself…
Honey bunch!!! Angie and Brad were both major actors and had made MILLIONS of dollars before they decided to go into humanitarian work!!!! Sooo you decided to lie as a usual pathetic X fan to make a point…but honey you fcuked up sooo bad…so now what will your come back possibly be???? Hey..go check the timeline when and how much they donated so that you don’t look like a complete IDIOT!!!
sepends = spends
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!!!!!!!!!!
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
oh yeah she’s controlling the media and creating the perfect image while she’s on drugs? LMAO She is better than I thought.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
I feel sorry for you Jared! :)
Just Jared is crying all the way to the bank(Just Jared Jr and Sr.)
#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.
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.
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!
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..
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..
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.
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.
People should mind their business and leave Angelina alone.
# 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 :)
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.”
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.
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
DECENCY @ 11/21/2008 at 8:54 pm
Tilda thanked her PR Manager for getting her the Oscar in her acceptance speech.
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!
Angelina Jolie the most intelligent Human being on the planet !
Angelina Jolie……. RULES !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Angie claims the only paper she take seriously is the New York Times!!
bwhahahahaah the delicious irony!
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.
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.
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!
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.
Has the NYT writer of the article met Angelina?
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
cc #191
Not likely, but I’m sure he’s met Huvane.
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!
# 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.
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!”
what = what’s
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.
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.
# 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…
you’re = your
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 ******** 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:
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.
# 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!
under the bus
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
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
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.
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.
# 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.
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
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!
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.
The New York Times isn’t fit to wipe anyone’s a**.
Come to think of it, that would be redundant.
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.
# 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.
# 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….
Whoa the hen is having a meltdown. Too funny.
#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?
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.
new york tyms!ppprrrtttttt!
# 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…
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
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
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.
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.
Ooops… that should read right after her mother died.
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.
Goodnight JP fans…many thanks for the links and great posts… Chat with you all tomorrow :-)
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!
# 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?
# 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”!
# 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…
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.
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.
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.
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
It’s the simple mistakes troll that show that you are ranting just to rant. Facts help in making an case.
a case.
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.
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 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.
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.
# 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.
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.
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.
yeah miss dina…truth always comes out!
# 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…
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.
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)
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 !
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 About.com, 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 NYTimes.com 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!
# 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…
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:
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 :)
# 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.
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.
# 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…
always punished the good looking………ugly bit.ch! nah! nothing lift.
# 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
Oops, I meant “talked,” “DAUGHTER,” and “Clifford.” Can’t blame these mistakes on anyone but myself. :-(
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.
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?
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.
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….
http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2008/11/jennifer-aniston-nintendo-wii.jpg
Brad must give thanks every day.
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.
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!
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!
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.
needs to be rejected! heheehe…along with the cover.
# 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.
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.
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
NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS!
Well this explains part of the reason the NYT wrote that article. It’s all about the Benjamins.
I guess the New York Times should seek Angelina’s advise on how to rebuild their tarnished image.
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.
A few of their charity
MJP Foundation
http://www.mjpasia.org/mission.htm
Maddox Chivan Children’s Center (MCCC)
http://www.cambodianhealthcommittee.orgprojects_mccc.html
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
MIR
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!
Hola! Bonjour! Hi haterz!…the champ is here…
…and, it’s still cold as a witch’s *** 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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cw4xv_14VM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx0vlRGT_5U
part 2
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.
#156–# 156 awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm
_____________
Loved your post!
“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.
263 Sammy @ 11/21/2008 at 11:38 pm
…she is supposed to give 1/3 of her wages.
——-
Who says?
http://www.cambodianhealthcommittee.org/projects_mccc.html
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)
…and I am telling you I’m not going…
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7725075.stm
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.
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.
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.
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!!
opps sorry their are = there are ..
Crazy ass comic relief trolls………. Pathetic! :lol:
Angelina Jolie~ Super Star!
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.
I love Angie!
:) @ 11/22/2008 at 12:04 am 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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cw4xv_14VM
__________________________________________
Thanks a bunch, you rock. :-)
Angelina’s fans are the ones that keep bringing Brad’s ex
wife into the picture. I hardly think she has anything to do
with this. I know you all think that Angelina is wonderful,
People must know that everyone that worships her go
to Just Jared’s sight. Otherwise they would have denied
this in their own magazine. I think it is rather sad that
it doesn’t bother anyone that she doesn’t tell the truth,
change her stories every other day, worships her kids
but isn,t above pimping them out for money, says she
is going to stay home one week and the next says
she isn’t. One of the charties that she has worked with
is being investigated and the person owes back taxes.
Charities are great but they should be held accountable
for what they are doing with their money. I can’t believe
that the New York Times doesn’t have their story right
or they wouldn’t have printed it. Are you all so star stuck
that you donate to a cause and don’t even want to know
if it is being used for what you are told. I for one want
to see what they gave in 2007. Anybody can put their
money in a foundation to save money on their taxes
and pledge money but when and how is it going to
given out. I had read a article about charties that
were going to investigated last week in another
article. With all the charties in America that are
so desperate it really shouldn’t be hard to find
one to help.
oh look, first she’s sandy, then mary now she’s marica — look you f**king moron, give it up, you’re gonna keep getting flipped because whatever 1996 pc you are pounding your silly asss diatribes out on, all read the same way - f*cked up with abbreviated sentences.
Face it, you’re obsessed with Jolie like everybody else - if anything you should identify with how Brad felt when he met her. Because like him, you can’t climb off her for a second.
Go show maniston and her i’m an illiterate monkey menopausal greek lady Aniston who wants to be the new katherin heigl but have none of the talent. She needs love. The golden showers from perez hilton’s lover aren’t doing her self-esteem any good.
Guys, Jared posted a link on the X thread to the NY Times article. It’s a riot. They asked the the dumbest-ass questions I ever heard. Just a sampling:
Q: What was the first television show you remember watching?
A: Oh, God — “The New Zoo Revue”? Or maybe “Land of the Lost?” No — it was that guy . . . Captain Kangaroo. He was on the porch with Mr. Green Jeans. Have I just dated myself?
Q: When did you first appear on a screen?
A: My dad became a soap opera actor, and I was an extra in a skating rink scene on the soap. I didn’t audition. It was nepotism all the way.
Q: If “Friends” comes on when you’re home, will you watch?
A: I have. There are times I don’t even remember that particular show. This is horrible to say, but there are times when I laugh my rear end off. And I get in debates with people who are over and say, “ ‘Friends’ is not my thing.” Excuse you!
Q: You’re lucky that the show that was successful — “Friends” — was the one that should have been. You could have been Jeanie Bueller forever.
A: That would have been the worst… That’s why “Friends” was so great. During the first week of shooting, I thought, I’ll be heartbroken if this doesn’t continue. It was the first time I felt like part of the cool kids.
Research is your friend Marcia/Sandy/Mary/jane/Sue/Jen. Look up charitable foundations and read about the Jolie-Pitt various charitable organizations. To start with makeitrightnola.org and unhcr.org and the others that were listed on this thread. You can repeat the same thing under different names all night long but critics with greater resources than your mindless rant have investigated the Jolie-Pitts and come to the conclusion that they are the real deal.
If anyone else is up EST. zone.
showbiz tonight is doing something on Angie right now!
Omg jill, she sounds 14, except I won’t even insult 14 yr olds like that - they are deeper and more profound than this 40 yr old bish….how scary. …yeah sure, they did ask dumb questions, but she gave the worst answers…I think they thought she might be able to be funny, ala comedy improv people, they should know what we all do - that she ain’t that kind of comic actress, she’s the lucky actress that gets to share screentime with others who are somewhat funny…and uh, yeah bish, you just dated yourself, my grandma used to watch Captain Kangaroo. LMAO Dear God, new zoo revue (hunh?) cool kids, ‘friends is not my thing - Excuse you!’ Seriously, Dakota Fanning’s interviews are 1000 times more grown up and interesting - and nyt is throwing Angie to the wolves and lauding this bish?? Help us all.
Worth repeating, and thank you for posting.
# 156 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.
Report
# 300 Marica @ 11/22/2008 at 2:03 am
+++++++++++++++++++++
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia
(I couldn’t help myself)
I know I said the other night that I was not going to watch Showbiz Tonight again after their jumping on the whole uncool incident. Well tonight I turned on the tv in the kitchen and it just happened to be on the channel where Showbiz comes on.
Before my finger could press the button to surf on they mentioned they were going to do this segment on The Transfomation of Angelina Jolie. My first inclination was to move on because they have suckered me to watch them in the past only to regret it afterwards.
I decided to watch it. And i must say I am happy I did. It was one of the most positive tellings about Angie done by an entertainment. Naturally the started with the triad. I love that name for the kiss, the blood, and sex. But was brief and not salacious.
I immediately went into her adopting of Maddox, divorce from BBT. It traced how she traveled around the world to some of the most dangerous hot spots in the world. And how she had been doing this without practically no one knowing about it and by herself. The showed the places she had traveled to.
This was all done with admiration and respect. They talked about her meeting Brad during the fliming of MMS. No mention of x. How once they came together she adopted Z and how Brad in turn gave both Z and Maddox his name.
They talked about Shiloh. And how the two of them were redefining themselves through their humanitarian work. Brad with makeitright, and Angie with her involvement in the UN and other causes.
I don’t remember the lady that narrating the piece but she said it was easy to see how Angie could go from wild child to humanitarian. She redirected her energy from something negative to something positive.
It was really good.
What was also interested is that they have these nightly questions. The question to night was should x and Angie end their feuding or something like that, should x move on? Any rate 63% said x should move on. 63% said move on x. 37% said she shouldn’t.
They also had people who called in. One lady said that Angie hadn’t started the feud and it wasn’t on her. I am paraphrasing here. Another lady called in and said that she respecected Angie for her humanitarian work, but she was a some stupid name.
Except for that one person the segment was totally positive. And 63% said they are tired of x and her whinning and she should move on. If you can catch it it’s worth a watching. People have real problems to deal with. To listen to some less than talented, homely millionaire cry about a four year marriage she frucked up has gotten more than old. It is now putrid. Peace
lmao ebmo.
ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 2:15 am
I am at EST, i watched it at 11pm, now 2pm it is the 2nd time, I think it is old. But they have a poll about it’s time for X and Angie to burry the hatch (something like that- I forgot)
60+% say yes
30+% say no
I think the public begin to get tired of the triangle.
Good for AJ if she can really do what NYT is saying. Many celebrities employed PR co and pay millions to them to generate positive press. If AJ without PR rep can do it, she is one astute and great businesswoman. PR agency could do with personnel like her. She know how to use her assets without paying obscene amt for the publicity. All the others shd learn from her.
She can be a subject/ topic of discussion/dissertation in University Mktg & advertising course esp in marketing of celebritities. ” How to manipulate the press for positive press and still generate millions?
WOW. If I ever do my MBA maybe I will do this for my thesis and then start a PR company, employed AJ as one of the advisor.
In the world of show biz, it is the best manipulator of the press who is the winner. So whatever is said, AJ is the winner if what NYT said is true.
I want to share the following quotes (of various personalities) to the people who are cynical about Angie’s motive in doing her share in helping others:
“What she has done transcends her physical beauty and really reminds us that it’s what is in the heart, and I really want to commend her for what she’s done in such a serious and thoughtful way.” (Hillary Clinton)
“I don’t know Angelina Jolie, but I admire her work.” (Barack Obama)
“Celebrities are doing the work that journalists are not. We can’t afford to be cynical about that….Can you really strike out against Angie and Bono?…Sure, there’s an opinion backlash. People think they are doing it for some sort of ego trip. But the people who are expressing that opinion? What are they doing?” (Marianne Pearl)
“Angie roughs it. She lives with us in the forest and eats the crickets and the cockroaches the locals eat without thinking twice about it. Whenever I read in magazines about her ‘glorious house in Cambodia,’ I think, What? It’s a shack. I don’t think people believe she has the ability to abandon everything in the West and transpose herself to a situation with malaria and dengue fever and the most extreme poverty. I read about her ‘Hollywood life.’ Well, you can’t live a Hollywood life in this part of Cambodia.” (Stephen Bognar)
“Their participation has been absolutely essential to the mainstreaming of these global issues into American life, which is why I find so ridiculous the cynicism, the pundits who disdain this. They misunderstand how our society works, and they misjudge these people, their leadership. No good deed goes unpunished, and it’s certainly true of this activity. Angelina goes at it with utter honesty, hard work and a deep feeling for the common faith of humanity. There’s no doubt about that or about her love for her children. And yet the amount of chattering that goes on about it is endless and preposterous, in my view” (Jeffrey Sachs)
“OK.Now, your daughter, Angelina Jolie. You know, we checked her out. I don’t know whether you know this or not. Big investigation on her. And we found out she walks the walk, that she gives all the money, millions of dollars and this and that. (Bill O’Reilly talking to Jon Voight)
“What I don’t understand is the media’s criticism (of Jolie’s) involvement in humanitarian aide and why they question her motives and sincerity..It’s like, Who cares? She’s doing a good job and putting so much of her time and money in the causes.” (Tea Leoni)
“These people don’t need additional focus or respect. I’m not that cynical at all. Angelina has given not only her time, but her money to assist people who need it most….In the past, entertainers have usually led selfish and egotistical lives so I like it when I see people like Angelina trying so hard. I think she has raised some awareness and that she has an extremely good heart.” (Mia Farrow)
“Her going to Haiti really helped my foundation. It was in a time where she was still pregnant. Haiti being the most dangerous place in the world, for Angelina Jolie to land there—while pregnant—that’s gangster. We respect that to the T.“ (Wyclef Jean)
“I like them (Angelina & Brad) very much…They’re bright, interested in what’s going on, open to everything, ready to grab everything they can out of life. They’re not wasting a lot of time being movie stars. They’re taking advantage of it to see, listen and learn. “(Leslie Caron)
“I want to congratulate Angelina because it’s been a very long time since I’ve been in this business and I’ve never met a person who has such a good balance between family life, humanitarian efforts, ..and all the extraordinary work that she does in addition to this.” (Dustin Hoffman)
“I think her humanitarian position has just changed the way actresses and people in the industry think about what they can actually do … to help the world,” (Marc Bauer)
“Angelina Jolie…just seeing an actress who has been through it all and who doesn’t care what other people say about her