Gawker
When the celebrity weeklies come out tomorrow, nearly all of them will have some version of the story of Angelina Jolie's adoption of three-year-old Pax Thien Jolie last week. But only one magazine will certainly have it as a photo-heavy cover. Only one gets the exclusive access to Jolie and her adoptees that the other tabs can only dream about.
That magazine is People. Competitors in the industry have long been steamed at what they perceive as People's seemingly unfettered access to Jolie, her children, and Brad Pitt, and the magazine's role in turning Jolie into some sort of vainglorious, self-righteous and yet extremely hot version of Mother Theresa. And it turns out that People's campaign to earn the trust of Jolie and Pitt has deep roots that are now so firmly planted that the couple doesn't think twice about to whom they grant interviews and where they allow their photographs to run—even though the photographs are ostensibly put on the open market by Getty. It's People, People, People.
In March 2005, Jolie told an audience at the National Press Club that she and Maddox had recently visited Ethiopia, and "he has been asking for an African brother or sister," People reported. In May 2005, People magazine ran a heartwarming story about children orphaned by AIDS in Ethiopia. In addition to the children, the piece also highlighted the work of Worldwide Orphans Foundation, a New York-based organization founded by Dr. Jane Aronson.
The magazine hadn't mentioned Dr. Aronson for four years when it did the piece in 2005. Then, in June 2005, a previously unknown (to the pages of People, at least) name began appearing in the magazine—that of Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia economist and UN adviser who's known for his work in reducing poverty and fighting AIDS.
It's no coincidence that both Aronson and Sachs are close to Jolie. Aronson is Jolie's daughter Zahara's pediatrician, and after Jolie adopted "Z" from an Ethiopian orphanage, Aronson is the doctor Jolie credits with saving Z's life. Jolie has been working with Sachs since at least 2005, when their work together in Kenya was documented in a film shown on MTV in September of that year.
According to a source close to the magazine, People embarked on a deliberate campaign to ingratiate themselves with Sachs and Aronson to get on Jolie's good side. "It was all very organic-seeming," says the source, because of People's natural mix of celebrity reporting and human-interest stories. "It was really pretty brilliant—People did lovely separate pieces on them both and their work, and when an Angelina piece would come up, Aronson and Sachs could also be used as sources. Of course, there were a few charity dinners thrown in, like things benefiting [Aronson's] Worldwide Orphans organization. It was subtle and gradual, and most important, fit in with the human interest pieces that People is known for anyway."
Another industry source noted that Jolie establishes stringent requirements for her photos to be published—requirements that People is uniquely positioned to meet. "A three-page memo went out with Cambodia pictures—you can run these pictures but you have to positively talk about Cambodia. Sure enough the pictures ran, and there was this great spread about Cambodia. You will pay me and do stories about what I want to do stories about. Leading up to the baby, all of a sudden—their baby, born in Africa, all of a sudden you saw articles in People about Africa."
Jolie outperforms for People. According to Variety, the Shiloh pictures brought their website 26.5 million page views in a day.
And according to TMZ.com head Harvey Levin, it just comes down to People being a "safer venue for someone like Angelina. There's so little control left in the lives of big celebrities. When they have what they consider to be a safe haven, some of them still use it," he said.
So when it came time for the June 2006 auction for the photos of Pitt and Jolie's daughter Shiloh, the photos eventually went to People for a reported $4 million for North American rights; People reportedly won because it partnered with Hello! in the U.K. to offer one bid. But according to an industry insider, few sets of pics since then have gone on the open market—or if they have, their eventual provenance is a foregone conclusion.
"The way it used to work is that everyone would see the pictures and bid on them as a set. It carried the caveat that Angelina had publication approval. So the weeklies played the game, and bid. But it became clear to us that the only pub that would be approved was People. Basically they've cut out the bullshit, and they just sell the stories to People. So they use Getty as a broker. They're laundering it through Getty," this source said. "There was a set of them in New Orleans—which never was published, because they only approved People. People wasn't interested, so rather than take money—Angelina does say this is all for charity—and appear in another mag, they chose to not take the money, because they'll only deal with People." (Another source said, "People don't realize—New Orleans is the Namibia of the Gulf States. Their government can be persuaded to abide by a different set of rules. [Jolie and Pitt's] lives are exponentially easier in New Orleans than in LA. The cops were super tough on a lot of the photographers down there, to the point that at least one agency just threw up their hands and said forget about it.")
The most recent pics of Angelina and her brood were taken in Vietnam, when she went to pick up her latest adopted child, Pax. "She flew Zahara out for the shoot—no Shiloh," said the source. (Maddox was already there.) "There was lots of bidding, and it went to People, as everyone knew it would."
People has long prided itself on not paying sources or for stories, but some in the industry argue that People is doing just that with its arrangements with Jolie. With the eternal caveat: even if the profits go to charity.
"They're the employer, they're paying her, they pay for them. For example, these pictures, they're marked for only approved publication, but there's only one approved publication," said the industry source. "You can bang your head against the wall but the fact is she's working for them, and they pay her. Every time a life event happens, or she goes on vacation, she sets up a picture and they pay for it."
When called for comment, a People spokesperson responded via email: "Our next issue hasn't closed yet and we don't comment in advance." A Getty spokesperson did not return a call for comment.
TMZ's Levin is skeptical that the Brangelina juggernaut can last much longer. "How many shots of another kid she's adopting can you get before it all starts to feel the same?" In any case, Levin is content to let the weeklies duke it out among themselves. "If that's the war among the weeklies, it makes me happy."
Comments
"How many shots of another kid she's adopting can you get before it all starts to feel the same?"
There are at least three more People stories to come. Personally I can't wait for Skye Gandhi Jolie, Dagny Anastasia Jolie, and adorable orphan Libertad Juanito Jolie.
Sure it all gets a little complicated, but everyone ends up happy: Angelina gets $ for charities and raises "awareness"/popularity for her causes; People gets straight up cash; and all of us celebrity-hungry peons get to see the pictures and wonder why we couldn't have been adopted by a gorgeous celebrity couple.
And here I thought Sachs and the other UN economists enlisted Angelina because of those policy briefs she wrote while Raiding Tombs in Cambodia.
Zzzzzzz.....Angelina Jolie....zzzzz....People Magazine....zzzz......adoption...
Huh? Sorry, I fell asleep there, reading 16 freaking paragraphs about a topic that maybe a dozen people care about.
Sounds pretty much like Gawker got caught up a whiny rant from a publicist or some wanker at one of People magazine's competitors.
Yawn.
She could adopt a kid from every country with an orphanage for all I care, I still think Angelina sucks.
I think Jolie pisses people off because she actually does what people privately tell themselves they would do if they were famous.
Except for the orphans part.
Monica, you are better at naming those kids than she is.
@smartyr:
I've never thought that I needed to be famous to sleep with a married man.
@IBentMyWookie:
You're right; my mistake. Nailing Brad Pitt is about as far from "fulfilment of an overwhelmingly common fantasy" as you can get. I don't know what I was thinking.
(...or maybe I just misunderstood your joke.)
Alright, who told Angelina's people about the kidnapping plot last week? I thought that was supposed to be our little secret, yo!
A couple of observations: People has been looking for a Princess Di replacement since her forehead smacked the center divide in 97. Those bones are only good for one or two covers (which people still buy, natch) per year.
People covers are good for a +/- $1.5 million swing every week. Clearly, AnJo sells magazines.
Once again, the human interest difference in People pays dividends and is the reason US and all the other P wannabees will never come close. This is a magazine that rakes in close to $2 billion in revenue per year. Think about that.
And lest you think I'm cheerleading for this rag, just know that, though I do know a lot about that part of the business, I abhor it. I think the celeb addiction is like a particularly malicious strain of crack. And I also think that young, single women's obsession with this mental junk food is 75% of the reason you'll lose the right to a safe, legal abortion by the time this decade is over (fewer than 40% of eligible single women voters did so in the last presidential election).
Enjoy your reading.
Sure, it is nice that she adopts little orphan kids who have no home, but the story is way past being interesting.
Also, I realize they are all orphans and they are all fully deserving of a family, but have you noticed she only chooses the kids who are physically attractive and seem to be in good health?
When her next adoption is of an amputee with mental retardation from Sierra Leone I may be more impressed. Let's see People Magazine put that on it's cover.
@mediahohoho: This is one of best non-snarky posts I have ever read. Gold Star Motel with complimentary champagne!
Someone should buy her a puppy. How many kids can you really handle under the age of five?
@htotheomo: I second that emotion.
@mediahohoho:
@htotheomo:
I agree, good post.
Re the last paragraph, unfortunately, the women who complain about this focus get dismissed as bitter, ugly spinsters who hate men and think all females should walk around in burlap sacks with matching Birkenstocks.
And when you need a scapegoat, there's always feminism.
@mediahohoho: Insightful, but consider this: many of us bored-to-sobs consumers would buy pretty much any magazine whilst stuck in line at the supermarket, up to and including Patent Gazette, probably. Don't people buy all those fugillions of copies of Star and People largely for this reason, viz., it's there, and you're trapped? If they were suddenly to fill all those supermarket racks with the Financial Times or something ... ??? I submit to you that the national literacy quotient would skyrocket, and Al Gore would be re-elected.
@superba: Subscribe to the New Republic and the New Yorker, and you'll never want another magazine delivered to your door.
Also, since when did standing in line become an excuse for buying anything? Honestly, I don't buy candy anymore just because I see it in line.
O talking about relationships, or Real Simple doing a layout about storage for small spaces? Pure crack.
i think marcassha's comment somehow validates mediahoho's.
@htotheomo: Ha, there are stacks of unread copies of the New Yorker all over my house. I only want to read magazines when I am standing in line! Not candy, there is hardly anything to read on candy.
Is People any different than the National Enquirer? I think its strange that TMZ.com is commenting on a story by People, they are both owned by AOL-Time Warner.
The real problem is that the public is being duped that so-called reputable magazines like People and photo agencies like Getty are really shills for celebrities and huge corporations.
People like Bradgelina are really self-indulgent egomaniacs that think they are trying to save the world. The reality is they have done nothing except try to put their own images on covers of magazines.
@superba: True! That Snickers wrapper? Booring!
But seriously, the People Mag strategy has always been to get 'em while they're waiting, which is why they made a serious push from the get-go to get into every docs and dentist's office in the U.S. Old Time hands complained that it cost less than a stick of gum when it launched. But they were editorial: they didn't know that wasn't an accident.
More recently, P changed mag publishing by coming out on Thursday, on the theory that it would hit before folks did their weekly shopping. Advertisers loved it. (That last tidbit got Anne Moore a long way into the CEO job, btw.)
But again, to Seerauber Jenny's point, yep, there's a cost to not keeping up with the celebutard crap, I suppose. But it's clear to me from this board and Wonkette's that a lot of you dames are keeping hep to the march of facism and other interesting political tidbits in the good old US of A (all without sacrificing your inherent snazziness, no doubt).
And I would never say that men don't have their own celebutard distraction in the form of sports. But it's interesting to me to note, and then I'll shut the fuck up, that with the rise of celebrity journalism, there's been a corresponding erosion of basic human rights and credibility on the part of our government (just a reminder: the USA is unique among nations in that our government's perogative to torture is written into law--not nearly as sexy as AnJo's adopting compulsion, I know, but still).
So, yes, I read Gawker and play bluegrass and do a lot of other things that aren't Changing The World, but I think if we all just paid a little more attention, we might slow the slide into the abyss.
Or not.
But thanks for the nice compliments; this just happens to be a subject with which I had very codependent relationship for exactly seven years. Pretty much most other things? Eh...probably not so well versed.
"The reality is they have done nothing except try to put their own images on covers of magazines."
I'm not going to defend them, because I'm tired of celebrity pathologies, but it does seem clear that (at least in their minds) Jolie and Pitt believe themselves to be doing the opposite of this: use the promise of their faces on magazine covers as a device to "raise awareness" of stuff they want us aware of.
Refusing to sell photos unless the publication does a story about Cambodia isn't the best tactic if your goal is simply to get your face on a magazine cover.
I'm not saying she's not nuts. I'm saying she's sublimated her narcissism (or whatever) so that she sincerely believes that she's leveraging her celebrity in order to further the humanitarian initiatives that are clearly very important to her.
It seems to me that most celebrities who sell photos just, you know, keep the money and smile for the camera.
@mediahohoho: thank you for recognizing that us girls are capable of distinguishing between junk food and substantive political debate. corporate media is certainly complicit with the dumbing down of america, but there has long been tension btwn religious fundamentalism and reproductive rights. we live in an effed up country my friend. i blame the suburbs. and white people, of course.
@lovelyday: Well, look how well it turned out for Mia Farrow.
@mediahohoho: I have a gay-man-on straight-man crush (new and unusual, I know) on you for the following:
So, yes, I read Gawker and play bluegrass and do a lot of other things that aren't Changing The World, but I think if we all just paid a little more attention, we might slow the slide into the abyss.
Earnest but right...
@lalalina: Wow. I know that you're kidding; however, if you are judging white people, please explain yourself.
Also, and seperately, saying that, "us girls are capable of distinguishing between junk food and substantive political debate" would explain, exactly, what? I know you're trying to defend something; I am not sure hwat.
hwat i was saying was that i can have it both ways and keep both Star and The Nation on my reading list. not defending anything exactly, although I do have a problem with blaming women who read stupid magazines for the erosion of reproductive rights. as for white people, please take a class or something.
@lalalina: Well, again, my point was this. In the last election, with two supreme court vacancies (or more; I pray for JP Stevens's health daily) looming, fewer than 40% of single women voted. It struck me as odd considering that this was the biggest group that would be effected by a new pair of supremes, vis a vis one very famous, and contentious, decision.
At the same time, I can't help but notice all the Peoples and Us Weeklies and In Touches being poured over as if they contained the secrets of the universe. I'm more than willing to accept that all these women are studiously reading the Nation in private, but that would make their abscence at the polls in 2004 that much more mystifying.
As for the whole "white people" thing, I find racial politics boring, so I'll sit that one out.
twue, the numbers are depressing. american complacency is pretty pervasive, however, and single women are not the only group voting (or not-voting) against their interests. not that you were saying that. i just wanted to point out that the problem is many-layered and bigger than trash media. blah blah blah.
i'm boring myself now. let's be friends. i like bluegrass too.
@lalalina: Yeah, buds. I sometimes come off a lot more misogynistic than I really am about all this. Mostly, I blame me; me and my stupid-tv-watching-always-stoned-when-not-pickin-no-interest-in-voluteering-hope-they-don't-take-way-my-toys-me.
But yeah, the bluegrass is nifty.
@smartyr: Love it, so true, I place Bono, Clooney, Anjo-BPitt, and other celebutards in the same egocentric short bus.
Come onnnnn, can anyone with a brain actually believe that Anjoj-Pitt is taken seriously when they go to heads of states with their whiny rants?
"Hey, great to look at, I wish she would just stop talking"
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?