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
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)
Pages: « 1 … 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 … 39 » Show All
Comment and Share!
E-mail to a Friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and more!