NY Times on how Angelina Jolie manipulates her image in the press


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.

On the People deal for twin photos: positive coverage from now on
When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input — a promise that the winning magazine’s coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into 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.

The winner was People. The resulting package in its Aug. 18 issue — the magazine’s best-selling in seven years — was a publicity coup for Ms. Jolie, the Oscar winner and former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.

In the People interview, there were questions about her and Mr. Pitt’s charity work and no use of the word “Brangelina,” the tabloid amalgamation of their names, which irks the couple.

Another instance of Angelina dictating terms for photos
Ms. Jolie showed her skill at handling the news media in other negotiations. People magazine bid successfully for photos and an exclusive interview after she gave birth to her first child in 2006. Those pictures sold for an estimated $4.1 million, a sum that she and Mr. Pitt said they donated to charity.

In a separate 2006 negotiation with People, Ms. Jolie invited magazine editors — through her philanthropic adviser, Trevor Neilson — to bid on exclusive photos of her and her adopted Cambodian son, Maddox. But she made coverage of her charity work part of the deal.

“While Angelina and Brad understand the interest in their family, they also expect that the publications who purchase these photos will use them in a way that also draws attention to the needs of the Cambodian people,” Mr. Neilson wrote in a December 2006 memo to editors.

He went on to promise that Ms. Jolie would provide “exclusive quotes” to the publication that purchased the photos. “Publications are invited to comment on their editorial plans when submitting their bids,” Mr. Neilson wrote.

How Angelina cultivated her image as a devoted mother
But she cut a very different, wilder figure in Hollywood during her marriage to the actor Billy Bob Thornton. After their divorce in 2003, Us magazine asked Ms. Jolie if she would agree to an interview and be photographed. According to two people involved, she declined — but then offered the magazine another photo opportunity. Ms. Jolie informed it what time and place she would be publicly playing with Maddox, essentially creating a paparazzi shot.

The resulting photo, the origin of which was not made public to Us readers, presented Ms. Jolie in a new light — a young mother unsuccessfully trying to have a private moment with her son.

Shifting the focus is one of Ms. Jolie’s best maneuvers, magazine editors and publicity executives say. When she became romantically involved with Mr. Pitt, for instance, she faced a public relations crisis — being portrayed in the tabloid press as a predator who stole Mr. Pitt from his wife, Jennifer Aniston.

How Angelina shifted the attention away from the infidelity scandal
Shifting the focus is one of Ms. Jolie’s best maneuvers, magazine editors and publicity executives say. When she became romantically involved with Mr. Pitt, for instance, she faced a public relations crisis — being portrayed in the tabloid press as a predator who stole Mr. Pitt from his wife, Jennifer Aniston.

This time, it was Ms. Jolie’s charity work that helped turn the story. Long interested in international humanitarian work, Ms. Jolie appeared in Pakistan, where she visited camps housing Afghan refugees, and even met with President Pervez Musharraf. Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt made a subsequent trip to Kashmir to bring attention to earthquake victims.

“Presto, they come out looking like serious people who have transformed a silly press obsession into a sincere attempt to help the needy,” said Michael Levine, a celebrity publicist and author.

That is cynical nonsense, counters Mr. Neilson.

“People don’t realize the complexity of what Angie is doing,” he said. “A lot of her charity work is done quietly and not in front of the media.”

[From The NY Times via We Smirch]

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.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

98 Responses to “NY Times on how Angelina Jolie manipulates her image in the press”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Perla says:

    Cue Brangelina shit storm in 3…2…

  2. devilgirl says:

    WHAT?????????? Angelina manipulating the press? Oh that cannot be true? The Times is LYING! Shame n them!

  3. Granger says:

    In my opinion, there isn’t anything Machiavellian in her desire to control her own press. I’m guessing a lot more celebs than we realize do the exact same thing. What’s wrong with saying, you can have a pic of my new baby BUT in turn you have to feature my trip to a war-torn country AND talk up the plight of children in need? Sounds like a good deal to me.

  4. Susan says:

    Duh.

    Interesting timing how she “cried” about her mom recently too. Just when she got called out by JA for being “uncool”. Sympathy ploy?

  5. Bodhi says:

    Aw, look how little Mad was!!

    Edit: right on Granger! Her mom is dead Susan. I think she is allowed to cry about it

  6. Mairead says:

    Oh. God. Batten down the hatches. The snarling saliva storm is going to be intense.

  7. daisy424 says:

    *plugging in my blender* Margies anyone?

    Which one of us has not changed/grown up since we were in our twenties? I no longer think like I did ten years ago when I was 39, FFS. To continue to stereotype her for some of her earlier behavior because she did not conform to what you think, is narrow minded, IMO.

    The way most of the media skews interviews and take comments out of context with their editing, I don’t blame her for trying to control her image, wouldn’t you??

    Susan, I think she is allowed to cry for her Mom. My Mom has missed some family milestones since she died almost 2 years ago. The wedding of my daughter, (her eldest grandchild) the birth of another great-grandson, graduations, etc. Those events just make you miss your loved ones more. I sure her Mom is on her mind alot, especially after the birth of the twins.

  8. geronimo says:

    LOL! So, essentially, in conclusion, Jolie is an extremely shrewd and smooth operator who calls the shots, has dictated how she’ll be perceived in the media and has managed her career and her personal life better than 20 PR agencies could. High five, Angie!

    But from the tone of this story, that’s a negative thing, right?

  9. elisha says:

    :lol: LOL :roll:

    Something else to chew on:
    http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?t=28085

    I am forced to question whether the “you must show my charity work” stipulation is really an effort to drum up awareness… it seems to me more of an effort to portray herself as a charity-driven doting mommy, as aopposed to a self-absorbed actress who’ll stop at nothing to get what she wants.

  10. MSat says:

    All the big celebs do this. I remember reading that when Jennifer Lopez negotiated the photo spread of her babies for People, it included the stipulation that they never refer to her as “J-Lo” again.

    Probably the most recent example of this type of media manipulation was Lynne Spears and her deal with OK! They got to break the story on Jamie-Lynn’s pregnancy (which the Enquirer had already reported, but the Spears’ camp denied) and in exchange, Jamie Lynne and her baby daddy get all kinds of glowing coverage.

  11. Cheyenne says:

    You know what? There are people who get paid for doing what she does. They’re called publicists. Their job is to control the media stories about their clients in return for 15% of their clients’ earnings.

    The article, while it sounded negative in tone, was actually quite admiring of Angelina, who acts as her own publicist and her own agent. It showed her as an extremely smart, savvy lady who has beaten the publicists at their own game, saving herself a pile of money in the process, and enhancing her own Q rating all the while. According to the Times article, a Q rating is the level of public approval for celebrities. The average Q rating for female celebrities, according to the Times, is 18%. Angelina’s Q rating is 24%, or 33% higher than the average, and she’s managed to score this high without a publicist.

    So far the Times has received over 120 comments on the article, most of them quite positive and praising Angelina as a smart businesswoman and as a humanitarian.

    Aniston has a publicist. His name is Stephen Huvane, and if she thinks he’s worth what she’s paying him she’s out of her mind. For the last four years the media has been portraying her as a bitter, lonely dumpee who is unable to let go of her ex and move on. She ought to fire his ass and hire someone else. Maybe she should hire Angelina. She could probably do a helluva lot better job than Huvane. :lol:

  12. Kristen says:

    @ Daisy 424

    I’m with you on this. You points are right one.

    I think that she has the right to control her image and if people think she is only celebrity doing it, they are idiots.

    I applaud her humanatarian efforts and hope that she continues to help others and have more babies. She obviously has grown and changed.

    Love her and Brad – gorgeous couple, beautiful family.

    All you Jolie haters out there – when was the last time you did something for charity? At least she and Brad are making a difference in peoples lives.

  13. xiaoecho says:

    This is only what the so called “haters” have been saying all along. Are the NY Times ‘haters’ too?

    Wonder if the “St Angelina” tide is beginning to turn in the press

  14. jessiee says:

    not saying I’m for her or against her, but I will say, this woman is a MASTER manipulater.

  15. Lore says:

    We’re all her accomplices. One day though, sooner rather than later we’ll be so sick of her that she’ll be forced into private life because the mere mention of her name will cause the majority of people to yawn, stretch and change the channel or log off. To avoid that she would have to go into immediate secclusion for at least 2 years, be rumored to be deathly ill, separate from Brad, be seen with BBT, have Brad go father more children elswhere, maybe then will AJ become interesting again. Manipulation=Overload

  16. KateNonymous says:

    Sounds like that “personal branding” that the Millennials are always going on about. What’s the problem, she’s too effective at it?

    I really doubt that the backlash would exist if the person in question were a man.

  17. Mairead says:

    Nice susan, very nice – if that sort of attitude is what yourself and Kim consider to be morally superior to us degenerate defenders, then I’m delighted that I’m an evil c**t.

    Xia – I can’t speak for everyone, but I doubt that it’s much of a surprise to anyone that AJ and BP keep such a tight reign on their image. It’s par for the course with these celebs, and it’s remarkably naive of anyone to think otherwise.

    As for the mention of the “charidee” – it can work both ways; it’s a quid pro quo as far as i’m concerned. But I still think that there are easier ways of getting good press than going hither and yon and giving yourself nightmare after listening to all those refugee horror stories.

  18. Kaiser says:

    What’s interesting is that this “report” is coming out in the NYT the same week as Pity Party’s cover story in the NYT Mag.

    NYT’s factual errors/misrepresentations:

    AJ & BBT split in 2002, their divorce became final in 2003.

    AJ was more than “…long interested in international humanitarian work” in 2005. She had been the special goodwill ambassador to the UNHCR since 2001, and had already travelled officially to more than a dozen refugee camps.

    Any “report” that uses Bonnie Fuller as a source is bullshit.

    Time Inc/People spokesperson has denied being dictated editorially by AJ.

  19. monica says:

    ok. cry for your mom but to bring her up out of no where. i watched that interview and she could have just as well talked about her self and her rasing mad as a single mother. marchie didn’t lose the ange or james. please….i’m the devil for saying it but whatever.
    and yes, other celebs do do what angelina is doing but especially on this site, you cannot for one second say that angelina does anything other than good and not for publicity.
    love the nyt, awesome article.

  20. PJ says:

    Angelina and other celebs are free to ask for anything they want. What bothers me is that People and other media outlets are giving in to these demands. They are willingly giving up editorial control over their own products in order to get interviews and photos.

    The Times in not picking on Angelina, they are using her as an example to point out that the content of many celebrity publications is being dictated by the celebs.

    Whatever happened to the “free press?” Seems like the NY Times is one of the few papers left with any integrity.

  21. what is ever. says:

    I agree 100% jessiee. Love her or hate her, you can’t help but be impressed by her ability to step in shit and come out smellin’ like roses.

  22. Syko says:

    Right on, Daisy. Although I find the article here in Celebitchy to be quite negative, I didn’t find the NYT article to be that at all. In fact, it was somewhat complimentary.

    I’ll have one of those margies, please, no salt.

  23. Mairead says:

    You reckon the NY Times is just stirring it to drum up more interest in the magazine, Kaiser? I doubt it.

    The only issue that I have with the article is that Brad’s role in any negotiation is completely obliterated, even though many of the direct quotes mention both. Even though he doesn’t tend to come across as a towering intellect, I seriously doubt that the only negotiation he does is with his beard-trimmer. :roll:

  24. Hillary says:

    What a shock…NOT! Lemme clue you in: Brangelina aren’t the only ones who do this. Tom Cruise calls the paps every time he steps out with Suri and his robot wife, to ensure pro-family propaganda to convince people he isn’t really GAY.

  25. monica says:

    i think this is a great article on celebs pimping out there kids, even for a “good” cause. i agree completely with this ethics lawyer.
    http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/2008/02/celebs-pimping-out-their-kids.html

  26. Cheyenne says:

    @ Susan: I’m very proud to belong to Team Uncool. Beats being a fan of a whining, no-talent, played out has-been any day of the week.

  27. doodahs says:

    In this day and age of anything goes in the media, I’d like to think that I could be half as brilliant as AJ in manipulating the coverage in my favor if I were famous – of course, I’m not but if I were, she’d be my role model…

    :idea:

    I’m beginning to realize just how big a game it all is and I say, if you are going to play the game, play it well.. and if you can play it without cutting a PR company a giant check every week for their efforts, then check mate!

  28. Oh, please. How many celebs do this sort of thing… they stage photocalls and “candid moments” but, at the same time, bitch about their lack of privacy. At least Ang doesn’t complain about it.

  29. Kaiser says:

    I dunno, Mairead. I just find the timing fishy. If the NYT wanted to do a simple analysis of media “manipulation” by a celebrity, why not Aniston? Or Tom Cruise, or Nicole Kidman or Madonna? It seems weird, taken with Aniston’s cover story – which, btw, is for a movie that comes out in more than a *month*.

    Also, the NYT did a horrible gossip piece bashing AJ in 2007 – I remember because it happened right before her mother died and the NYT had to eat sh-t for it. Maybe they’re still pissed?

    BTW, this story was the number one most read/e-mailed when I read it this morning. War, famine, genocide, recession – all take a backseat when the NYT analyzes AJ’s media strategy. 8O

  30. doodahs says:

    @mairead: Even though he doesn’t tend to come across as a towering intellect, I seriously doubt that the only negotiation he does is with his beard-trimmer. :roll:

    LOL!
    Hopefully he’ll give it a stern talking to and shave that thing off his upper lip soon. (I know he has it for a movie yada yada.. but seriously!)

  31. Syko says:

    Doodahs, for some reason some very x-rated scenes of Brad and his beard trimmer flashed through my mind.

    Or maybe it was a hot flash. I don’t know.

  32. xiaoecho says:

    Mairead……….that is exactly my point, particularly here at Celebitchy, anyone who dares suggest she manipulates her press, or is anything other than a selfless icon is immediately branded a ‘hater’ (By the more rabid Brangiloonies, I admit)

  33. lilah says:

    I’m not against any of the alleged ploys that Angelina used to help her image… except for the planned paparazzi sessions. It isn’t a huge deal in and of itself because it doesn’t necessarily bother the kids… but it seems more shady than the give-and-take negotiations with magazine interviews and photo shoots.

  34. susan says:

    Cheyenne:

    “So far the Times has received over 120 comments on the article, most of them quite positive and praising Angelina as a smart businesswoman and as a humanitarian.”

    That is you posting over and over and over again under different names!

    “Aniston has a publicist.”

    Can you ever not bring up her name in a Brad/Angie post? I assume you are a fan of Brad/Angie? what is with mentioning Aniston every single time there is a post about Brad or Angie? You really need to get some help. Obviously the Brad/Angie fans need to get some help to stop obsessing about Jen.

    I have no probelm with stars trying to control their image. Every star does it. however what I dislike about Angie and Brad is that they use their children to do this. On their own fine. But leave the children out of it. Johnny Depp and Matt Damon never use their children and they have a great image. Brad and Angie need to try the same. Fine to sell yourself but the children never asked for this and should not be used.

  35. geronimo says:

    Re why Brad is a bit player in all this – Angie’s perceived as the much more dominant half of that partnership. The NYT article is just acknowledging that. I don’t think he’s dumb or anything, just happy for her to take the lead since she’s obviously very skilled at it!

    xia – you’re right, but trust, it’s the loons that do that. The rest of us like her as much for her flaws as anything else.

  36. PJ says:

    Compare: Sienna Miller dates a married man and the public outcry is so great that somebody paints the word “Slut” on her house.

    Angelina Jolie moves in with a married man and the opposite occurs: her fans get angry when his cheated-on ex-wife finally gets up the nerve to call her “uncool.”

    Jolie’s PR is brilliant. Nobody is ever going to criticize a woman with a baby.

  37. Roma says:

    @Cheyenne. Publicists do not get 15%. That would be an agent, and at a lesser fee, a manager.

  38. MB Travis says:

    I don’t think Jolie’s manipulation of the press makes her any better or any worse than other major celebrities past or present. It’s not a big issue for me as a celeb-spectator (though I do have a soft-spot for actors like Cate Blanchett, who’s achieved her position through sheer talent and hard work, not glossy staged photo-ops).
    I think the more interesting aspect of this debate is whether or not it’s ethically sound for a celebrity to use their children as tools in a media campaign. I wonder what the saner members of these threads think about that: is it ok to “use” images of your children in public relations? Or is it a diversionary tactic intended to play on the tender sympathies of the public?

  39. Syko says:

    Another margie, please, Daisy! What the hell, go with the salt this time!

  40. Ling says:

    I appreciate that Pitt and Jolie are expert money throwers, but – and I’m asking this seriously and would like a response – aside from tossing around checks and smiling for cameras, what good have they done in the world? The question is neither malicious nor rhetorical.

    Clearly, your career is on shaky ground when you need to use your children to keep it buoyant.

    I feel (hope) that Susan’s comment was in jest.

  41. daisy424 says:

    Syko, did you like that last e-mail??? :mrgreen: (salty dog) Xtra large Margie coming up.

  42. lola lola says:

    Pitt’s as bad as she is. Both master manipulators. It was only a matter of time before they came together to manipulate the press on a global scale. Egads for the rest of us.

  43. Syko says:

    @Daisy

    Yes! More! More! And tell them not to cup their hands in front, I couldn’t see a thing!

  44. Cheyenne says:

    @ Susan: You talk about Angelina shedding “crocodile tears” over her mother’s death and then tell me I need help?! Pot, meet kettle.

    BTW, you can only post under one name on the Times — the name you’re registered with. Don’t shoot the messenger jsut because you hate the message.

  45. Ana says:

    A lot better than Heidi and Spencer.
    And if you can use your celebrity status to bring causes to the front then good for you.

  46. Cheyenne says:

    Roma, whatever publicists get, she’s saving herself a shitload of loot by not having to pay one — let alone the 15% of her earnings she’s saving by not having to pay an agent.

    She’s her own agent as well as her own publicist and doing a damn good job in both capacities, IMO.

  47. ff says:

    And what’s the alternative, one might ask.

    Which is why if she can get something good out of being followed 24/7 by people with cameras, then more power to her.

  48. texasmom says:

    She is really good at managing her image — but at least she harnesses that power for good!

  49. Cheyenne says:

    Whoever brought up Sienna Miller, consider this: 1) She was dating a married man who was still living with his wife and children, and 2) she appeared topless with him in public in front of her mother and his mother.

    The latter incident was decidedly slutty behavior, IMO.

  50. Roma says:

    I honestly don’t love or hate them.

    But for the record, she does work with a manager – Geyer Kosinski of MTG. He gets executive producer credits on almost all her movies, so clearly she doesn’t do everything on her own.

    Furthermore, she and Kosinski decided she should have an agency and she went with CAA for a few years until she let them go.

    Like I said, I don’t love or hate them, I just like having accurate information.

  51. Kaiser says:

    Wise Adviser – My recomendation is that you comment about the subject rather than attempt to bait someone who is simply giving her opinion.

  52. tat says:

    Of course, they have the right to manupulate the press, a we have rights not to believe them . Besides, do you really believe in all those pictures where Brad and Angleina carry children, strollers and car seats themselves. It look vary manupulated when they carry all the stuff from their airplane themselves and nobody helps them. ha-ha-ha. It looks as it was just for the pictures. They are both very pathetic and unnatural.

  53. louise says:

    Angelina is like Princess Diana when she was alive, the public absolutely adored her and couldn’t get enough of her yet there were those people who would do anything to bring her down. God help us if allow another tragedy like that of late Princess to ever happen again.

  54. monica says:

    but she does have publicist…i think it’s been mention more than once, even her on celebitchy in regards to her article.
    the last time i checked, they were tow or three years behind on filing their 990′s for their charities. why so much time? i bet that in not to far off in the near future, these charities (like bono’s and wyclef’s) will be and should be looked into. just because they say they are doing something charitable, doesn’t mean that they in fact do.

  55. PJ says:

    Re Susan’s comment: I think the gist of it was, can we believe *anything* we see anymore, or is it all spin and cynical manipulation? I am really beginning to wonder!

  56. vacuous says:

    This is an interesting article regarding good Jolie has done that I haven’t heard about before: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20081113-LIFE-811130324

    The article isn’t about her at all, but about something good she has done with her name/money to benefit girls in a refugee camp in Kenya. I read a lot of comments about how some doubt that she actually does anything and is only in it for the press, well here is an example to refute that.

  57. WTF?!?! says:

    Wrong, Roma. An agent gets 10% and a manager anywhere from 15-25%. A publicist is salaried or hired per project for a set fee.

  58. cara says:

    I will only say this, I saw a clip of her once in a refuge camp, and she was staring intently at a young girl as the girl spoke and scribbling on a pad….never, ever looking down at the pad. I thought it was really funny because she was scribbling the whole time and it was for at least a minute if not more. She was clearly not writing anything, and it was all a put on, a show.

  59. Yourself says:

    NYT is right on the money. Angelina is a star manipulator. Not only has she manipulated the press but her father, her children and that resident idiot Brad Pitt. However, judging from the negative energy she generates, she is not entirely succeeding. She is too vile and vampid for her own good. The press will turn on her eventually. This article is negative but it is subtle and does not call her out entirely on her manipulation of her innocent childen.

    Look at the way news leaked about how much her twins would cost. I always suspected that she conveniently put out those stories herself. The story about the twins pictures selling big in woman’s daily when in reality they tanked and fell way below the expections. Her tears about her mother after all this time. Remember her attempts to gag the press last year? And Namibia?

    She is savvy I give her that, she could have come out of this looking like shit, but she has a section of crazed fans who will think her vomit is champagne. How else do you explain the effort to put a positive spin on a story like this?

    I have never been a believer in calling the cameras every time you give a nickle. Many people give much more andyet they do not try o get PR spin out of it. Look at Hugh Jackman and Furness raising awareness for adoption. Notice the difference with the way Angelina does it. You call tell that Jackman is not trying to get PR out of it.

    Bottom line is that Angelina is fake all through. From her nose, lips to her charity. None of it is real.

  60. Rosanna says:

    So what? If I were her (or any other celebrity) you bet I would try to have deals that encompass not being talked down or else I’d refuse the deal no matter how much money I could be given. What’s wrong about it?

  61. Mairead says:

    “The story about the twins pictures selling big in woman’s daily when in reality they tanked and fell way below the expections.”

    $14million for a few photos is tanking? God, you’re a hard taskmaster.

  62. miss_kitteh says:

    She looks like Morticia Adams. Brad would make a fine Gomez, with the addition of a little bit of hair and moustache dye.

    The funniest thing about this whole story is that People magazine is soft on EVERYBODY. That’s why they call it “Kneepads” magazine (over on the Crazy Days and Nights blog, at least).

  63. Rosebudd says:

    Good for Angie for not paying all of the middle men who usually run off w/ the money most of the time. She obviously is a shrewd businesswoman. These games have been going on for decades and like everything else, w/ time just evolve like the rest of us. Remember the days of actors being under contract to studios & all phot ops were arranged by studio. Actors like Rock Hudson, Troy Donahue & more were set up on dates/marriages by studios for potential profit. Only then, actors received salary & no profit from pics., interviews etc.. If they can make $14,000,000., wow, great as long as it is going to charity. Hell, we all want to see those twins anyhoo. I truly believe Angie’s heart is in great place. She has changed since her wild days, after all, she is only 33. She is/was apparently such a troubled soul in so many ways and I think she realized that if she looked outside of herself, she could be soft and fulfill her inner self. Sometimes, it goes one way or the other for people, they either self-medicate, die or find a constructive path. More power to her.

  64. Alex says:

    I neither hate or love her (or give a damn about her or Jen) but good on her for being in control.

    Susan: as someone who has lost a much beloved parent a few years ago at a too young age (I was 27), I would love to smack you for that b*tchy, ignorant, horrible comment. I broke down crying in the middle of an event last week when a pipe band played a song from my Dad’s funeral and he died 7 years ago. So she’s emotional about her mother still – good for her for being human.

  65. Samantha says:

    I think people are completely missing the point. Who cares if she asks people to mention her humanitarian efforts? Regardless of her reasoning behind it, its still drawing attention to things that need to be seen. Its all fine and dandy for people to do things and keep quiet about it, more power to them. But really, if she is doing any bit of good, why does it matter if she wants credit for it? Charity is still charity, whether she wants a gold star from the press for it or not. People are being helped in the process, so does it all really matter?

  66. Rosebudd says:

    Angie is very similar to Princess Diana in that she does the work for herself as well as causes, troubles w/ inner issues and she is so damn beautiful, it is hypnotizing. If Diana looked by Camilla Parker-Bowles, really, we all care as much. At least Angie is using her beauty for good causes.

  67. Bodhi says:

    She was clearly not writing anything, and it was all a put on, a show.

    I can write on a pad of paper & not look at it

  68. POPO says:

    Name me one celerity that took a married man on vaccation and alerted the paps? You would defend her behavior I believe even if she was caught on tape killing someone. You would say the person had it coming. it was a calculated maneuver to ensure Pitt did not could not go back to his wife. Not saying he would have. But she made sure with those photo’s that it would not even be a possibility. All the stars do this? in your dreams . in your dreams. Conniving is more like it. Just in total awe at your blind faith. Always the excuses.

  69. monica says:

    what is she trying to hinde? she will only allow her and her family to be shown in a good light….that’s weird and a bit condescending. i just love how everybody thinks they know her so well and think that she’s all goodness and light when…hello….that’s the only thing she wants us to see.

  70. DLR says:

    hmmm, fascinating…there’s obviously more to the angelina machine than what we give credit for… 8)

  71. MB Travis says:

    Is anyone interested in the real issues raised in the NYT article? Or are the pro-Jolie-Pitt posters only going to respond to arguments put forward by the crazies?
    Oh, and three points:
    1. Jolie and Pitt are photographed when they want to be. She wasn’t “trapping” Brad with the Africa pics nor is she being intruded upon when pictures of her children appear in tabloids. She engineers these pictures. Hence the congratulations for being a savvy PR businesswoman.
    2. Jolie should be applauded for her humanitarian efforts no matter what we may think of her past or current image.
    3. Cheyenne: Topless sunbathing is a cultural norm in Europe. Not “slutty.” Period. Associating “sluttiness” with bare breasts is a fault in the viewer, not in the breasts (or the person attached to them).

  72. doodahs says:

    Quotes that deserve mention (for making me giggle during the monotony of work):

    “she has a section of rabid fans who will think her vomit is champagne”

    “christ on a tricycle”

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    And Syko, x-rated visions of Brad are not uncommon :D

  73. James says:

    What took them (New York Times) so long?

  74. t says:

    i’m so tired of hearing about her and the kids and boring old brad pitt.

    it would be nice if she just shut up for a while.

  75. Sixxkitty says:

    I like her as a businesswoman and humanitarian. I think that in todays flossy world of Paris Hiltons and Mary-Kate Olsens, that she is a better choice as a role-model. She has embraced her life, accepted her mistakes, learned from them and grown as a person, Ang shows herself as herself, even if thats a crafted image, its still her. Now while she may not be the first choice to be a role-model, i would rather my daughter emulate AJ than Britney or La Lohan. AJ is empowered even if the power has gone to her head. She shows a can-do attitude, not a can-shop one.
    That said, I cannot understand why a woman such as she, would end up with a muffin like BP. I love BP too, so im not hating! It just strikes me as odd, even for Ang, to fall for someone with the emotional depth of a puddle.
    Feel free to begin throwing your eggs and tomatos at me now, I’ve drank a few Marg’s as i read down the thread….

  76. Cheyenne says:

    From Larry Hackett, the Senior Editor of People Magazine:

    “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….

    “…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…

    …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.”

    The entire statement is available on Just Jared.

    So: it’s on now. People vs The New York Times. Going to be fun to watch the Times eat crow over this one.

  77. keltilass says:

    Angelina is one smart cookie. No wonder Brad calls her “super woman”.

  78. chick says:

    Angie’s success is calculated by the sheer volume of comments she always attracts. no wonder Maniston keeps wanting to keep riding this gravy train.

  79. rottenkitty says:

    I have no great emotional attachment regarding the whole Brad/Angelina/Jennifer brouhaha. But I find it interesting that so many people are offended by the Pitts getting paid for these photo shoots.

    If the tabloids didn’t think they would make far in excess of what they’re paying the Pitts, they wouldn’t pony up the big bucks. It’s been her shrewd management of her image has allowed Jolie to demand these fees and control over copy about her life.

    And I think it rather naive to expect the same journalistic standards from “People” as one might from “The New York Times.” (Though the Gray Lady is not without her own episodes of journalistic embarrassment.)

  80. DD says:

    ugh. not even ny times can hire journalists that can keep their facts straight. shit i think i should be a journalist. i could just make things up.

  81. DD says:

    I do agree that selling intimate photos of your children is crappy… for charity or not. They shouldn’t be used as pawns, and the JPs could easily donate 10 million dollars of their own cash. They don’t need to sell photos of their kids.

  82. Ter says:

    The use of the children, no matter the reason or reward, is the thing that ties me in a knot. I will always question the soundness of that decision.
    Other than that, I have a hard time getting worked up over this. The studios used to package their stars in an agressive manner like this. Good on her for figuring it out. But when she gets caught out, she will have only herself to blame.

  83. roller says:

    “Whoever brought up Sienna Miller, consider this: 1) She was dating a married man who was still living with his wife and children, and 2) she appeared topless with him in public in front of her mother and his mother.

    The latter incident was decidedly slutty behavior, IMO”

    and i supposes going on set and fliming a sex scene with no undies (with a married man) is not slutty?

    angie’s fans will do anything to defend her, even if its in the most ridiculous way. we all know angelina jolie manipulates her image. she’s now going for the whole “perfect mum, perfect family, perfect life” image.

  84. Cheyenne says:

    rottenkitty: (Though the Gray Lady is not without her own episodes of journalistic embarrassment.)
    ****************************************************

    LOL! Two words: Jayson Blair. He almost destroyed the credibility of the newspaper. It took The Times months to recover from that one.

  85. lulu says:

    of course, the only reason she’s doing the charity work is to put a good face and it’s for the show only, have you noticed the only thing her fans have to say in defending her is that she does charity work and they forgive her for all the negative things she has done or will do doing charity is a way to manipulate people.

  86. Yourself says:

    How can a person who manipulates the media like this and controls her own PR claim she does not read things about herself in the press? I don’t buy it. She must be a subscriber to every tabloid trash in the country and a blogger at justjared.com lol.

    Notice that they try to move without nannies as if any one can buy it that they don’t have nannies at all with such active careers.

    With all her manipulation, it is very easy to see through her. She will not last long on that path.

  87. Celebitchy says:

    @Kaiser – that’s a very good point that the NYT Magazine cover story with Aniston comes out this weekend and that didn’t even occur to me.

    A lot of you have noticed that our coverage of Angelina, well my coverage of Angelina, has been more biased lately. This is well-deserved criticism and I’m working on it. I addressed some of it in a comment on another post:

    http://www.celebitchy.com/23109/aaron_eckhart_wants_angelina_jolie_to_join_dark_knight_cast_as_catwoman/#comment-147836

    Thanks for hanging in there with us and continuing to visit and comment.

  88. monica says:

    celebitchy… i think that although your stories about angelina jolie have had a harsher slant to them recently, that in no means makes you biased against her. celebs will do things that annoy us and you have a right to not always love them.
    i have felt and i know this is true for a lot of other posters that we have stopped coming her because of the aniston bashes/biased news and the jolie love fest from both columnist and commentors.
    recently i felt that the news and people have calmed down and there have been more “accurate” coverage has brought a lot of us back to this site. the truth is the celebrities that we love are not all completely good and not all completely bad. i like that you and your site are being a bit more objective and not catering to just one type of commentor anymore. i would hate to see that change now.
    thank you

  89. mickeh says:

    Celebrities aren’t that naive with the press. It’s part and parcel of their career. Fortunately (or unfortyunately?), like AJ, some manage to outwit and outplay the press (pardon the survivor cliche), and in turn the public.

    On AJ’s defense, i believe that what she’s doing is quelling all negative press about her to keep her past from the kids. we know Maddox is growing up fast, and she says in a previous interview that she fears he’ll find her not-so-wholesome pictures in the net. who knows what other tihings Maddox might discover? And her other kids are not too far behind.

    Maybe it’s hard for her explain her colorful past to the kids. she may have acknowledged her mistakes in the past and is trying to cover now.

    If she is the strong-willed, principled woman that she says she is, maybe she should have owed up to her faults. And probably in that way, maybe her children would not make the same mistakes in the future.

  90. Yourself says:

    CB don’t apologise for not falling over yourself for Angelina. Monica is right indeed, I loved this site but stopped posting when I felt that your cpmments were always biased in favour of Angelina and against Aniston. I found that unfair because it vilified Aniston who never sought out Angelina to hurt her. Yet she was harangued by Brangelina fans condoned by the commentators especially Jaybird. For that reason, I found the site a bit boring and annoying. Also Brangelina fans would post rubbish about drinking and Zahara taking over the world in order to run people off the site. For a while there they even succeeded. But evil can only succeed for a while. I always believe that in the end, good triumphs.

    You go CB. I Love this site a lot.

  91. Mayi says:

    Wow, I think we all know that she has been doing this forever….she is a manipulator. What we know of her and all her “good” is just exactly what she wants us to know. BUT we are not stupid.

  92. Kim says:

    Angelina is polarizing character. Her involment in any thing be it a movie or charity ceases to be about anything else but her. For that reason, her manipulative attempts at charity are mostly greeted with cynism, she does not bring awareness to anything but herself.

    How many people have expressed doubts about her charity? No other celebrity has had their charity efforts ridiculed as much.

    How come we hear more about her than her charitable efforts? If she went to Congo today, we would stop hearing anything about the conflict but the latest baby – read accessory- she got out of there. It is no accident, it is deliberate.

    If she wants her children to learn only good things about her, then she should stop lying. Saying she would never run off with a married man then admitting she did it years later makes me believe that she does not care what her children think of her. All she cares about is getting her name in the tabloids. When the bad girl image had become stale, she cultivated the charity- do gooder- earth mother image which she knew dumb Brad Pitt would fall for. Believe me when this becomes stale, as it has started, she will start the single mother, wronged ex routine. Anything to keep her in the press.

  93. NotBlonde says:

    She’s 33???!! She looks bout 45, poor thing. All that hard-ass living early in life. Jesus. I’m glad I got all that “wild child” crap out of me while I was still young enough to reverse the effects later on in life…

    By the way, anyone who is surprised by this is gullible as hell.

  94. Oh my.. Many of these posts comments dont make sense?! Give the guy a break and prevent posting spam