OK!

Pros: OK! publisher Richard Desmond is said to be determined to land the photos—his magazine is out to corner the baby picture market, remember. Desmond is leading negotiations for the rights himself, and he knows that he has a better shot at recouping his costs, because he controls 17 international editions that could all run the photos.

Cons: It's bad for any one magazine to corner any market, no matter how frivolous. Plus, landing these Brangelina pics would be considered a victory for objectionable soulless former flack and OK! editor Rob Shuter.

People

Pros: They landed the pics of Shiloh, Brangelina's earlier spawn. Plus, People is a more prestigious title than OK!. Their PR value is higher, at least domestically.

Cons: May not be able to bid as high as Desmond will. And they have less ability to distribute internationally. Is the solution a combo deal, perhaps—People with domestic rights and OK! with international rights? Well, whatever's best for the children.

But seriously, OK! will win, we think. All the money's going to charity, so Brangelina will go for Desmond's higher price for their baby's souls.

• How Much Is Your Baby Worth?
• Giving You Baby Max, For $1.5m
• After the jump, gratuitous video of twin baby girls, making dolphin noises at eachother

As In Touch's publisher has pointed out, publicists would have little reason to bribe a West Coast editor for cover treatment, as the original report from Complex had it. In Touch selects photos and paparazzi out of New Jersey.

But if the goal was to kill a story, instead of promote it? In that case, bribing a West Coast editor sounds perfectly plausible, especially for a publicist who has already had luck with a different editor in the same company.

The FBI, who are said to be working former In Touch staff in Los Angeles, could be looking at the New Jersey editor as well: he eventually jetted out to Los Angeles to work for a different celebrity magazine, the source said.

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."

By the day's end, In Touch had supposedly bought the photos for well over $300K ($375K was the number we'd heard tossed around). But the real question: who made the profit? Did Getty happen to have a photographer covering the Bahamian hospital beat? Or did someone from Anna Nicole's camp hand over the family Powershot for a last-minute profit to be brokered by Getty? And if so, is Anna Nicole really sick, or really smart?

Before the photos went up for sale, image previews were sent to editors. We've got the exclusive pics after the jump — if only to show you what six figures of Jersey mag money gets you. Sadly for us and you, parties with an interest in the deal finally noticed our little display. Thumbnails struck, so you'll have to wait for their sensitive, large-scale treatment in the tabloids.

Earlier: Fire Sale: Anna Nicole Smith's Last Moments With Her Son

How much might one pay for these tender, macabre moments? Getty is asking for $200K, but the email has a disclaimer of "NO NEGATIVE PRESS." For that, you've got to drop an extra hundred grand.

Update: We're hearing that Life & Style In Touch won a bidding war, shelling out $375K for the pics. Who knew the mag even had that kind of money?

The melancholia deepened when P. Diddy and his entourage rolled up around midnight. Mr. Diddy is both shorter and fatter than one would expect, and decked out in fedora and striped vest, he added several magnitudes of anomie to an already rather alienating night. He refused to pose for pictures. The press moaned.

"Diddy can do what he wants," said a reporter. "He's so rich, he has white slaves!"

Oh, sweet Jesus. Who said this? We have to know. It's someone from InTouch, right?

Is Beyonce Hillary Clinton? [NYO]

Wow. A celebrity weekly might be wrong! Stranger things have happened, like when People ran a headline proclaiming "Everything Is Fine!" in the marriage of Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson shortly before they announced their separation. So, you know. But for now, People is Aniston's safe place, and no one can touch her in her cave.

To satiate your hunger for knowledge of Aniston's every heartbeat, we'll leave you with her most revealing quote about the current state of her relationship with Vaughn:

We're just being.

Just being. You know, like, existing and stuff.

Jennifer Aniston: 'I'm Not Engaged!' [People]

Bauer Entertainment Group publisher Bob Davidowitz acknowledged a "flattening out" of the category. He attributed slower sales across the category to a dearth of "earth-shattering" celebrity news this year.

You hear that, Tom Cruise? Show us that goddamn baby already. If we don't see Suri soon, Bonnie Fuller's going to be living in the back of a car, and it'll all be your fault.

Sneak Peek at Celeb Circ: Newsstand Sales Leveling Off [Mediaweek]

To be slightly fair, it's always fun to read rambling editor interviews, but rather than ask that you delve into all four pages of rehashed celebrity worship analyses, we'll summarize the article's main points:

• We have no real friends, only celebrities.
• People don't truly love any magazines except for Us Weekly.
• Celebrity weeklies render birth control useless.
• Jann Wenner says Us Weekly takes its cues from the bible.
• You take whatever job you are offered, even if it's at a celebrity rag.
• Brangelina only pretend to want privacy and capture interest by continually cockteasing us.
• By exploiting their personal lives, no-talents like Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey continue to exist.
• By exploiting her vagina, Kristin Cavallari existed for about "32 seconds."
• Us Weekly will slowly trick us into caring about Jennifer Lopez again.
• Nicole Kidman is too old for the cover.
• Tori Spelling, however, is not too ugly for the cover.

'Us' Editor Janice Min Dictates: In Raw Times, Jessica, Jen, Jolie [NYO]

Paparazzi Firm Target of FBI Search [LAT]

The Times also reports that Fuller fractured her ankle last week while stumbling in an obstacle course at the gym. Such a shame — all that renewed editorial glory, already marred by metaphor.

Bonnie Fuller, Editor at Star, Signs Contract [NYT]
Earlier: Gawker's Coverage of AMI Mania

In the meantime, while the legal bickering works itself out, why not fight off these nasty rumors by slamming a brew and smoking some Reds in public? Worked for Sarah Jessica Parker.

Earlier: Reese Witherspoon Sues AMI and 'Star' Mag's Nonexistent Writers

It's always a yellow ring at Life&Style, isn't it? Is that some sort of ass-covering technique in case their blind claims of impending nuptials don't pan out? ("Well, we never said it was a real engagement ring in the classic sense...")

We'd suggest something about yellow journalism, but we'd hate to insult journalism like that.

Life&Style Weekly

"I can't believe she'd stay for that," countered an associate of Fuller's. Even assuming other portions of her package were restructured to make up for the salary reduction, he added, "At the end of the day, it's a slap in the face."

A slap like, say, canning your former assistant and current events editor who'd been with you since you came to AMI? Would it sting kind of like that?

Memo Pad [WWD]
Earlier: Five Sacked as 'Star' Goes West, Young Man

Though sifting through Jessica Simpson photos is challenging, it hardly merits two executive editors, nor do we suppose Bargman was looking for a co-executive editor to help him concoct new twists in the TomKat plot. Unfortunately, this may be Bauer's way of giving the axe, ensuring as slow and painful a process as possible. Think of it as "assisted canning."

The work of a true Maxim man.

Nice re-organization on the home page. Good to see that despite any past professional experiences, Keith Blanchard can still work pink.

UPDATE: Blanchard writes: "AdAge's report that I'm going to launch Us' new website is true, but I haven't actually started yet; whatever's up there now is none of my doing. I start tomorrow, and it'll be a few weeks before you start seeing changes. I'm still boning up on my Brangelina."

Us Weekly
Tabloid-Struggle Shock: Insiders Tell 'Ad Age' All! [AdAge]

Isn't there something slightly absurd in the bitching about who "broke" relatively unconfirmed news first? It reminds us of when Brangelina first announced their pregnancy: In Touch or something (we honestly can't remember, they all blur as soon as we put them down) gloated that they had announced it "first," months ago. Right, because they knew for a fact, even back then.

There's this definite, cracky pattern to how many of the celebrity weeklies define their scoops: blindly throw some information out there, likely with no corroboration, and hope that maybe, someday, the speculation becomes truth. If they're wrong, no one actually cares, and if they're right 8 months later, yee-fucking-haw.

And when they're not giddily printing rumors and praying for something to be right, the celeb mags keep themselves busy by competing to see who can first reprint a press release. People has been credited with breaking the news that TomKat had given birth; to our knowledge, they were first to have the story on their website (and only by a matter of minutes). But really, their "story" was the same press release everyone ran within the same hour, with no new information or reporting. Good job with that!

Celebrity journalism certainly hasn't played by the rules of traditional journalism, and we know we're dealing with magazines that are the equivalent of a junior high lunchroom, but we're still struggling with the bitchy semantics here. Should we define "breaking" by web-publishing skill? And are scoops determined by what shit sticks to the wall?

Star's All Over Britney [Star]

Full image after the jump.

Instead of guerilla baby pics, New York suggests that the couple may just sell a photo to a celebrity weekly. Pitt's publicist Cindy Guagenti says there have been offers, which are undoubtedly lucrative:

"If you sell an extra 300,000 or 400,000 copies at $3.50, there's a million dollars right there," says an editor at one weekly. Beyond newsstand sales, there's the ineffable quality of having the thing that everyone wants. "There's really no price on that," says the editor. "Just having it is good for the brand to show readers that your magazine is the one that gets these sorts of photos." Which is why editors, photographers, and publicists all say that the Brangelina-baby photo could fetch at least $1 million.

And when slaves at that celebrity rag get their benefits reduced or see their holiday party pared down to a karaoke machine and a cash bar, they'll remember that $1 million "get." And then that baby is as good as dead.

Not Since Jesus [NYM]

Earlier:
New Breaking Rumor: Death Knell for 'Celebrity Living'?
Media Questions Answered: 'Celeb Living,' 'Atlantic' Editor Has a Phone
Related: Breaking: AMI's Celebrity Living No Longer Living

At right, Us Weekly reporter Alyssa Shelasky, whose last login was just yesterday. As a woman willing to go the distance for the latest news on Nicolas Cage, Alyssa divulges that she makes a bit more than you would expect for a celebrity-stained wretch, but the hard work is worth it — she lives a life that's "one juicy issue of Us Weekly — literally."

While Alyssa is happy to share with us her weekly television viewing schedule, what we really want to know is how she keeps those locks so shiny! "Try using a heat-activated shampoo, like Thermasilk," says Miami stylist Papi Jones. "Finish with a shine-enhancing spray, and comb through with your fingers — a brush will make you frizz!" Alyssa loves Bumble & Bumble Gloss, a super-fine spray that leaves hair looking soft and silky.

Alyssa [MySpace]

I work at a celebrity weekly and we've been getting calls this morning from Comag, our distributor, asking if we'd like to buy Celebrity Living Weekly's pockets. [Pockets = slots at checkouts, on newststands, etc.] Apparently, the staff members know nothing as of my sending this e-mail, but this has to be the death knell for this struggling wannabe tab.

So is Celebrity Living dying? Tips and speculation eagerly accepted.

Celebrity Living Weekly

andrea ross Says:
March 17th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I ordered and paid for this magazine and have only recieved 2 issues that last one being feb 27th issue. my check that was mailed to you all has cleared. just wondering where my magazines are.

NORMA LOPEZ Says:
March 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
I SECOND ANDREA ROSS S COMMENT. I SIGNED UP GOT TWO ISSUES (LATE) AND I CALLED TO CANCEL THEY SAID IT WOULD BE OK AND NO THEY KEEP SENDING ME MY BILLL THAT I SHOULD PAY IN FULL-OR ELSE!!

Larissa McGee Says:
March 17th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
the last issue i got was also the feb. 27th issue whats going on????

Bernice Steisel Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I do not want this magazine- never signed up PLEASE CANCEL. Whayt is upo with your unwarranted promotions?

The Daily Clooney [Us Weekly]