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
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
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 … 39 » Show All
Comment and Share!
E-mail to a Friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and more!