Angelina And Brad's Deal With People Mag: Baby Photos For Positive Coverage

New York Times:

LOS ANGELES - 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.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[brooklyncitizen]

They are pretty gross...Angelina is clearly a Republican what an egomaniac.

[osusana]

Do they get 30 minutes because they're the pretty people, whereas the rest of us only rate 15 minutes?

OK, I get it. They have money, and clout, and money, and more money, and publicity, and kids...lots of kids. Lovely for them, lovely for their kids.

BUT......they SELL their kids' pictures in return for mega-bucks and favorable publicity???

What about Joe and Jane Smith who adopted a couple of babies and then had another the old fashioned way, and have no idea how to deal with the expenses of that third surprise baby?

[Revolt916]

I don't how much she tried to sugarcoat herself. Angelina Jolie will always be know has a husband stealer. What goes around comes around.

[lunchlady]

Oink oink oink! I am now boycotting the newstands and refuse to look at any of these celebrity spawn. They will be the next generation of pointless celebs, and will mate with each other to produce the third generation of celebutards. On and on into this century. Nicole Ritchie's grandbaby photos. Jamie Lynn Spears posing with her new grandbaby before she's 35, posing with her greatgrandbaby before she's 50.
PR manipulation and celebrity greed make print media more and more ridiculous. These bidding wars for celebrity baby photos is unbelievable. What's next? Video clips of Angelina in labor on PayPerView? Why not? She's cynical enough and proud enough of her babymaking.
Positive coverage as part of a deal? No surprise here. This has been going on for years, and not just with Brad and Angelina.

[JADE2002]

LOL

[happycat]

You are fabulous.

[claptrapa]

On to a new Brangelina headline. It's time H u f f. This one is filled. We can explore the possibilities of the twins chowing down on solid foods, that sort of fun stuff.

[missjabez]

Brangelina spend a lot of time cooing over their children's antics, like they are the first couple in the world to produce a family. Why don't they just get their own reality show? I also wonder if Brangelina will be cooing over their kiddies when they are teenagers. Since they were idiotic enough to either have a kid or adopt a kid every 6 months to a year, their kids are going to reach adolescence at the same time. Oh, the joys of having a houseful of rebellious and hell-raising teenagers!

[shedances]

Good point!

On this interesting Oprah Winfrey show, Brad Pitt was joking about how their children are currently involved in "Peter Pan" fairy tale adventures (i.e., being the Lost Boys, etc.), which he obviously thought was completely adorable ... but, Pitt appeared to me to have no clue whatsoever, as to why they pick up on fantasy & fairy tales at this particular stage of human develpment. He really should take a moment & buy a copy of Bruno Bettleheim's classic on "The Uses of Enchantment" to understand why their children's behaviors differ from his ~ & Angelina Jolie's ~ own theatrical-type desires.

I think, this particular Hollywood couple would also benefit from reading excellent books for all parents (rich & not) such as "Touchpoints" & "To Listen to a Child" (Dr. T. Berry Brazelton), as well as "The Absorbent Mind" by Dr. Maria Montessori.

Maybe then, Pitt wouldn't so casually make jokes (on air) about how their kids are "tryin' to kill us" with their middle of the night bed routine changes, or their attention-seeking by scooping up dog wastes. Charitable contributions or not ... Brad Pitt's highly naive comments just make me wince!

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Great post!

[trinity29]

Given that the media can write anything they want whether or not its true, it is wise for public figures to want to have some control about what is said about them. Many public figures do this and try to develop some kind of relationship with the media in order to control their image. Tom Cruise had a publicist who carefully crafted his image before he fired her which is when he became a couch jumping, postpartum depression dismissing, scientology is the cure for all things on earth selling lunatic. I am pretty sure he was like that before he fired his publicist but just that it was kept under wrap.

The piece says that AJ restricts some access and arranges some photo ops. I am not sure why that is a surprise since many celebrities do that. Whether the public buys that image or not is a reflection on the public. For me, I don't care whether AJ s playing with her clan or not. I don't care about where she was seen with Brad or where she is giving birth to her next child. But once in a while when I see her use her public status to discuss ways to end poverty, education for kids in impoverished conditions, and help rebuild New Orleans, I appreciate her at least creating a space for these issues. At least she is using her image to discuss some critical human rights issues and not catfights with other hollyweird people.

[shedances]

No one is disputing the fact that such Cause Marketing by high profile celebrities can be enormously helpful, trinity. However, the little non-rich people (like ME) count, too! I was as proud ~ or prouder ~ than Angelina's & Brad's accountants could ever imagine being after just quickly & effortlessly ripping off a big check to a specific cause of their choosing ... when my own 9-year-old helped bring in more than $700 after Halloween '08 to donate to UNICEF as part of a school wide program! It ALL matters ... & everyone is aware that celebrities alone would never be able to meet all of these important needs/program. Moreover, trinity ... there are many good, essential programs that stars completely ignore (in the case of Ms. Jolie & Mr. Pitt ~ the one that comes to mind immediately is on gun-violence prevention, post-Virginia Tech. massacre. Many Americans have taken an interest in this particular cause, including our president-elect Barack Obama. But not Angelina Jolie, who dons a gun necklace in order to promote her violent film "Wanted").

[trinity29]

you seem to be making a strawperson argument here. nowhere in my comment does it say that the work done by high profile celebrities are the only ones that matter, does it? of course we all do what we feel inspired to do in whatever ways we can.that does not negate anyone else's work.

people make choices as to where they want to invest their energies. i am sure you cannot support all the social justice movements that exist in the US or in the world today even though you might agree in concept. the issue here was that being a high profile celebrity whose life seems to be of tremendous interest to the public, AJ has used that interest to create awareness of some of the issues that she cares about. I for one applaud her for trying to use the media to create awareness instead of just hollywood gossip.

[anghiari]

Bravo to the Jolie Pitts for hopefully manipulating the mainstream­/celebrity media to do the JoliePitts' bidding. Anybody feel sorry for the mainstream media? I think Angelina is absolutely brilliant in how she and Brad Pitt has turned this industry back on itself by making them pay for access and then defining what that access includes.

This is another story by the media who are pissed that somebody is finally making them pay. The Jolie Pitts know these idiots would have chased them on a daily basis for those pictures of their children and made their lives hell....poor media...they could have walked away if this deal was sooo terrible.

These stories by the media remind me of the three GM CEOs' who came to the US Senate in their three private jets to ask for money to bail them out...These magazines and newspapers hounded Angelina when her mother was dying. One idiot host at one of the major awards events, said very nasty things about how if Jolie wasn't going to smile and communicate on the red carpet she shouldn't attend. Her mother was dying and she took a night to attend a event that Mr. Pitt was up for an award....she didn't come to deal in inane stupid questions and yet she got slammed. Beat them up, steal their money and laugh in their faces Angelina...remember the old saying, "Got a sucker, bump his head"? Make those suckers pay to the hilt!

[shedances]

I don't like the papparazzi, either ... but in reality, they're just the 'other side of the same coin' as far as celebrities promoting both themselves & their work goes.

A recent example: Star Cate Blanchett recently appeared on Oprah, alongside Brad Pitt, & she may have agreed to this interview; because of criticisms that the exorbitant amount of money she asks for ~ & is paid, BTW ~ for her (latest) roles in certain U.S. films aren't generating enough viewership & necessary revenue to justify her high costs. (There were other stars listed in the report too).

[SlippingInTheDip]

this "NEWS" is three days old...

[andj]

Hechizera

No - it doesn't bother us that the Aniston/Pitt marriage ended. Most marriages end. Maybe they were not compatible. BUT YOU JUST DONT GET IT. Aniston has go nothing to do with it.

What bothers most is jolies affair, the lies the obvious manipulation of the media and her attempt to insult to our intelligence. We just dont buy into her act.

However it must tear you apart that youve been had by jolie - that you have been taken for a fool, manipulated by her, and lied too. You even tried to discredit the NYT and the writer to keep the faith in bradgeloonidom. Do you really think that justjarred /people have more substance then NYT.

You are a joke Hechizera - but why dont you go ahead and insult Aniston to make you feel better about jolie.

[happycat]

Thank you!!!!!

[hrhkat]

it takes 2 people for a marriage to fall apart. If brad was happy he wouldnt have left jen, its that simply, trust me i know.

[andj]

hrhkat - We are not talking about Jen or the marriage.

Its just that some bradgeloonies who insist on bringing it up.

[lioness39]

As a newly appointed JenFender (see marymansour's post), methinks the Brangeloonies protest to much on that particular angle. A practiced and sultry stalker of men (as in AJ) can turn the head of a rather dumb guy (read: BP). Any way you slice it, AJ and BP sc3wed over Jennifer A.

[missjabez]

Very well said, andj.

[Hechizera]

People Magazine has just issued a statement through the senior editor that the NY Times story is completely false. You can read it on justjared.­buzznet.co­m. Going to be fun to watch how this plays out. Wonder how the Times likes their crow -- roasted, fried or fricasseed?

[andj]

Off course they would say that bradgeloonie. They will deny and so will jolie.

Hechizera - your not just naive - your also stupid

[missjabez]

Somehow I think the NYT is more credible than a gossip mag. Besides, if People made this deal with Brangelina, it would be idiotic to confirm NYT's report.

[lioness39]

When it comes to veracity, I will put my money on the Times.

[ligaya]

Contrary to the Times’ reporter’s (I hesitate to use the term journalist) belief, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees does not schedule field missions to Pakistan, Afghanistan or anywhere else to accommodate a celebrity’s publicity needs. Did Ms./Mr. Barnes even try to confirm with the UNHCR whether Ms. Angelina Jolie in fact initiated either trip?

There are a lot of assertions made and very little to back them up, reliance on only a single source or unnamed sources not independently verified, in a shoddily reported but carefully crafted hit piece against Ms. Jolie. Since when has the New York Times considered a former editor-in-chief of tabloid rags Star and Us Weekly a reliable source? It didn’t even identify the magazines as tabloids well known for inventing stories out of thin air, and it certainly didn’t reveal the conflict of interest between Ms. Fuller in her former capacity as EIC of these rags and tabloid target/subject Jolie.

And certainly, as the article even said, “[w]hile all celebrities seek to manipulate their public images to one degree or another [otherwise known as spin – engaged in by all public figures includimg politicians, CEOs, and even Big Media],” why single out Ms. Jolie – other than that she’s a cash cow for circulation and internet traffic? Why not name some names and give some examples? The least the Times could do is one other article examining the rest of this phenomena, a separate article for each isn’t necessary .

[nogimmicks]

Enough of this crap. Please, please write about anyone else.

[Hechizera]

So Angie proved she can beat the publicists at their own game, save herself a shítload of loot she would otherwise have had to pay to a publicist, and generally showed she can do their job better than they can.

GO ANGIE!!

[happycat]

Go Brangeloonie!!!

[Hechizera]

Poor Jenloonies... it must tear you apart seeing Brad so happy with Angelina and their children and all poor Jennifer has is Norman and Dolly and Mayer the Urinator. LOL ROTFLMBAO!!!

[andj]

No she cant. Those with more intelligence (then you have -ie: your average bradgeloonie ) saw right through her very obvious PR act.

[cmar]

Its very simple, really. Successful people, especially successful women living their own satisfying lives, have this uncanny effect on losers (especially lazy, underachieving females) ......the losers become filled with the proverbial deadly sins (jealousy, anger, envy, hatred, etc) on coming face to face with the successful life of the object of their envy. Ergo, the hate-filled responses to anything Angelina Jolie.

So while the mentally-healthy, well-adjusted human beings amongst us, on seeing this attempt at another hit job on the Jolie-Pitts, merely read it (or not) and move on, recognizing the heavy anti-jolie bias in the article (even if you didnt know that the so-called 'writer' of said article is the same failed writer who did such a piss-poor job on the writers strike last year, fabricating 'sources' and failing to get anyone to go on record (conveniently) again, while being ever such close 'friends' with a well-known PR fairy from CAA who just happens to be jennifer aniston's 15-percenter) the bottomfeeders simply lap it all up. Because it reinforces their warped ideas about the life and times of the Jolie-Pitts (who are obviously cash-cows for even the NY Times) (et tu NYT?)

What a disgraceful period for journalism in America. There's now absolutely no line of demarcation between news reports/en­tertainmen­t reports/yellow journalis/tabloid journalism/and failed, so-called writers hiding in the mix.

[missjabez]

You are one of the wordier Brangiebots. You could have made your points in one short paragraph, instead of rambling on like a professorial windbag.

[happycat]

I agree. It was too windy to read!

[andj]

off course - anybody who criticizes jolie is filled with jealousy, anger, envy, hatred - and is a looser and a failure. But the well adjusted (like yourself) criticize aniston).

I admire a lot of successful attractive woman - jolie is just not one of them. I like people with integrity and morals.

I find her behaviour and integrity distasteful - she stuck her tongue down her brothers throat, she lied about an affair and I could go on.

The writer of the article whos reputation you critisized but whose name you dont even know is Brooke Barnes.

[hrhkat]

she never frenched her brother, ive seen the footage, you just believe anything you read...poor you

[marymansour]

You do go on, blowhard.

[AngryAmish]

Your/scree­ds/would/b­e/much/mor­e/effectiv­e/if/you/u­sed/fewer/­slash/mark­s.

And. . ."hit job"? How much does Anj charge for one of those?

[shedances]

Mentally-healthy, well-adjusted ...?

Now when did you have your last CAT scan?