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

[ninetwelve]

People that read people magazine are the most shallow, scum of the earth.

[ESerafina42]

Well, scum of the earth is a bit harsh, but shallow I'll buy. I have a coworker whose station I walk by every day at break time and lunch, and all I've ever seen on her browser is People, stlyle.com, TMZ and Perez Hilton. Sad.

[jaslyn]

Maybe. But they're pretty good when you're sitting under the hair dryer at the salon. Who wants to read the Economist there? Lighten up.

[ninetwelve]

yeah, she's shallow and brainless. she's an example of someone that is either too stupid or too self absorbed to ever help anything.

the same goes for ETV. if you watch E consistently then you are either stupid or complacent. or both.

[hrhkat]

Why would she want to read about other people and clothes, when she could be reading the news about the crappy economy, or the crappy government, or the crappy world affairs, or the crappy news ever other publication puts out that if read constantly would have you hanging in your closet by a rope before the night was up. Its called escaping reality and without it, humanity wouldnt survive.

[shedances]

You mean people who read things like pornography, etc. are the 'scum of the earth,' 9/12.

"People Magazine" is just another popular entertainment publication, along with scores of others ~ & yes, there's not much depth in People articles; but it's not exactly trashy, either.

[marymansour]

sure has more going for it than like publications, OK and US. At least People spruce up their photos with some script.

[harriettubman]

Who believes this crap? I don't.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

When the HECK am I going to be able to get on ANY news source without seeing these two people? It's getting sickening and difficult NOT to hate them. GAG!!!!

[Chanel]

She cried recently when being interviewed during which she spoke about her mother who passed recently. I can't help but notice that Angelina's interview (where she cried genuine looking tears..) was right after Jennifer Aniston's interview where she said that it was "uncool" for Angelina to say that she was "excited" to go to work everyday on "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" with Jennifer's then husband Brad Pitt.

Given the particulars of the NYT article and how Angelina only wants fabulously positive press and her knack for shifting news stories... wow. I really hope that she wouldn't stoop that low.

[JADE2002]

chanel, I honestly thought the same thing, and I like angelina-- almost too contrived? :)

[hrhkat]

she is so smart its mind numbing

[ninetwelve]

you care way too much about this.

[expanse]

This is wrong on every level. Every level. Selling baby pics for good publicity. Wow. Shameful.

[expanse]

Disgusting. Really disgusting. Selling baby pics for publicity. Let's see if the usual suspects defend this.

[elgrabo]

I wonder what Obama had to give in exchange for the media's exclusively positive coverage of him.

[toocoldout]

Rev Wright was positive? That was the biggest media story of the campaign cycle.

[iPolitics]

Ayers too!

[ninetwelve]

i wonder if you ever watch anything else than hannity and colmes

[toocoldout]

As an Angelina Jolie fan, I find this article quite insulting. It implies that her kids are little more than PR props & that they've only given a few million to charity since 2006. I think the NY Times might be jealous of all the good publicity Jolie gets & is trying to bring her down a notch.

[claptrapa]

"I think the NY Times might be jealous of all the good publicity Jolie gets & is trying to bring her down a notch."

Just like all we posters that think Miss Jolie is a media contrived fake? At least we are in good company.

[ninetwelve]

yeah, and you're the tool that reads all of it. congrads.

[ESerafina42]

Well, if the story is true, then her kids ARE little more than PR props.

[lioness39]

Since when is the powerful New York Times jealous of the media attention an actor and actress garner? They are part of that media and merely reporting on AJ's too clever manipulation of such.

[indy girl]

What a controller. Brad and Angelina are b-o-r-i-n-­g.......I fell sorry for that passel of kids they keep adding to. They look more like narcissistic attention-seekers than mature adults who truly want to raise children right.

[Mabo]

That must be the same deal that PE Obama made with the rest of the media months ago...

[toocoldout]

Yes, because Rev Wright on TV 24/7 was such great PR.

[Mabo]

I could care less about Rev. Wright...w­hat do we really know about him except for the fluff? Nothing.

[claptrapa]

'She also has an amazing knack, perhaps more than any other star, for knowing how to shape a public image.”'

That is most noticable, Miss Jolie. Your manipulation of the media is patently obvious. Thanks to NYT's we have some interesting particulars.

[missjabez]

I am not surprised at all that she manipulates her publicity. If she didn't, the coverage she received might not be too her liking. Yes, she donates a lot of money to charity and that's commendable, but it seems she ramped up the humanitarianism to counteract the homewrecker label after she got involved with Brad Pitt while he was still married. The media might also focus on her bizarre obsession with adopting and producing children. Anyway, she's a PR genius, and I suppose she deserves credit for that.

[Downeast]

Can we put Brangelina on the same melting ice floe as Sarah Palin and let them float out to sea, no doubt squabbling over who gets the best photo angle?
All three top my personal list of "Self-obsessed Narcissists I Never Want to See/Hear Again" for 2008. And probably 2009.

[jpmdevildog]

Angelina is constantly managing her image.

Just recently she tried to expand her rainbow family by adopting Bat Boy!

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/mutants/bat-boy-jolie/

[woodrowwest]

sounds like she got the same deal obama got from the press

[ChaiKat]

The constant talk about Rev. Write
The never ending talk about his association with Ayers
The bottomless video with JTP and the accusations of Socialism

Yeah, he got a great deal on all that positive press. *rolls eyes*

[claptrapa]

Obama should not be mentioned in the same thread with Jolie and Pitt. There is no comparison between the amazing man that just became our PE and the conniving team of Pitts and Joles.

[shedances]

I couldn't agree more, claptrapa. Well said!

[lioness39]

I have noticed a troubling trend of AJ/BP admirers lumping them in with Obama and Aniston. Obama never had a thing to do with Brangelina and Aniston has nothing to do with the couple's current existence.

[ninetwelve]

no... mccain LOST IT FOR HIMSELF.

"THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ECONOMY ARE STRONG"

"A NATION OF WHINERS"

ETC.

[andj]

give it a rest and get some therapy to deal with it.
it will be a long 4 - hopefully 8 years for you