Thanks to a tip-off from Gawker alum Richard Lawson, we know that Page 134 of the December 21 issue (the one with Tiger's wife on the cover) shows the above picture with the winner hugging Tom Colicchio and Padma's bad idea bangs. The copy refers to the person in the picture as the "reigning Top Chef champ" and the photo caption says "[the winner]...beat out [the losers]." There is also a recipe for Bell Pepper Couscous with Tomato-Harissa Broth. Don't make it. If you eat it, you will be able to tell the future, but all your friends will hate you for revealing events before they occur.

We're not going to tell you the results of the show, because that would kill the fun of tonight's live blog here on Gawker, but if you are really dying to know, get down to your local magazine dealer and look for yourself.

The picture that they ran is courtesy of Bravo, and it is not yet on Bravo's press website, so that means someone at the network had to release it to People. Didn't they realize the December 21 issue would come out well before December 21? Or maybe they didn't care because it would only be on the stands for a day before we find out who won. We wish People was a blog so a million commenters could leave "thanks for the spoiler alert assholes" under the article. Just so they knew what it's like.

I guess People offered the gang more money than they could get out of Late Night, but the magazine reportedly does briefly mention Fallon's reunion quest while still basically pretending the entire thing was its editors' own idea. But there is hope for Jimmy Fallon: the absence of Screech in People does bode well for an actual real full-on reunion on his show. And he has Mr. Belding, too!

And I'm not exactly sure why this exists, other than because of a desire on Tiffani's part to have her own viral video like her former co-star Mark Paul Gosselaar did when he appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show in character as Zack Morris from Saved By The Bell - but I'm a sucker for any Indigo Girls joke. And despite a little too much self-congratulation masked as self-parody (Funny Or Die's bread and butter these days), this does have its funny moments. Cat videos!:

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Conde Nast is clearing out of 54,000 square feet of space in an office building on Lexington Avenue, currently occupied by Golf Digest. The once-fancy publisher is subletting the space to another company. It's not clear where Golf Digest will move, but, considering Conde's current financial state, it probably won't be "to a glittering golden throne atop a huge pile of money."

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Look, the New York Times has gained insider access to record the delicate process of People magazine choosing a cover story! How does editor Larry Hackett balance consumer sensibilities, stars' egos, and pressing financial concerns to select successful stories that uplift—and sell? "We're also on Farrah watch," he said. "At this point Farrah has to die. It's the only cover left for her." Thank you, Larry Hackett.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Bill McHugh is a newspaper pressman. He runs printing presses. For the Boston Globe. In an interview, he basically tells a Globe reporter, "You think you're screwed?"

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.The LA Times has suspended publication of its new, atrociously-named weekly magazine LAetcetera, "Featuring pop culture, shopping, fashion, and home features," before the first issue even comes out. Somewhere in the Tribune company sits an executive who was sure that LAetcetera would be a big winner.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Do you know what, of all things, is not getting good ratings on the television these days? The American pastime! (Baseball). The last World Series had its worst ratings ever, and now Game of the Week ratings are down nearly 10% this season. Communism?

1. False; Fabricated by some totally unreliable source; People runs anyhow, because, hey, crazy story!
2. False; planted with People by Chris Brown's camp, because Rihanna forgiving him makes him look somewhat less monstrous.
3. True, because Rihanna is maybe traumatized and has battered-woman syndrome or brain damage or something?

People's "source" is almost certainly a Brown-friendly flack, given the source's quote: "While Chris is reflective and saddened about what happened, he is really happy to be with the woman he loves." So either #2 or #3 could be accurate. Or #1, for that matter, you never know with these things. Wasn't Jay-Z supposed to step in and beat some ass here? What happened to that?

The true test of this story will come if and when Rihanna and Gum boy appear in public together again at some event. At which time somebody is bound to kick Chris Brown's ass, because, come on. [People; Pic via]

It's a fuzzy, unimportant story that serves only to boost the public perception of the First Family as the most adorable and loving and perfect little family in the nation, so it does certainly belong in People. It's just... slightly disconcerting that Michelle Obama handed the exclusive to them as if the Obamas were J-Lo and Marc. Right?

Here's a sample of a typical family conversation on the matter: "So Sasha says, 'April 1st.' I said, 'April.' She says, 'April 1st.' It's, like, April!," Mrs. Obama recalls. "Got to do it after spring break. You can't get a new dog and then go away for a week."

And what kind of dog will soon be frolicking on the South Lawn? Mrs. Obama says the family is looking for a rescue Portuguese Water dog who is "old enough" and a "match" for the family dynamic.

Well, it's certainly effective image management, to keep the fluffy stories on the fronts of the celebrity glossies every week (George, you came too soon, and were too self-consciously "smart"!). But isn't there a more effective use of Michelle's time and intelligence? Whatever keeps those approval ratings up! Maybe Bobby Jindal should get a dog. Maybe Michael Steele should start calling everyone "dawg."

It is just a more sophisticated version of the image management every president since the dawn of mass media, of course, and the Obamas are obviously better off talking to People than Politico.

Oh, Sasha and Malia keep picking out really dumb names for the dog, like "Frank" and "Moose" (named for Barney Frank and Sarah Palin, respectively). Michelle does not elaborate on her dog-name preferences, but we imagine she's leaning toward "Puppy Seale."

The newspaper hasn't retracted the story. But public editor Clark Hoyt, the paper's in-house media critic, delivered a scathing review, saying that reporter Brooks Barnes got the most basic fact wrong. Hoyt, after interviewing People editor Larry Hackett and various Jolie intermediaries, concludes that Jolie never even asked for an "editorial plan" promising favorable coverage when negotiating for photo rights — the key allegation in the Times piece. The only condition in the magazine's written contract to license the photos was that the interview be conducted by email. (Barnes told Hoyt that his anonymous sources stand by their version of the story.)

We always thought the Times piece oversold the editorial-plan angle. Why would any of the players involved put something like that in writing, when it's implicit? People editors never needed to promise favorable coverage; its cuddly Brangelina archive did the work for them. True, it's not as sexy as a backroom deal — but a more nuanced take on the workings of the celebrity-industrial complex might have spared Barnes the public ink-lashing.

The breakdown works like this:

• Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt twins: $14 million
• Jennifer Lopez twins: $6 million
• Clay Aiken baby: $1 million
• Christina Aguilera baby: $2 million
• Tori Spelling secrets: $500,000
• Mariah Carey wedding: $1 million
• Ashlee Simpson wedding: $500,000
• Jodie Sweetin (which carried the amazing cover line "From Meth Addict to Mom"): $500,000

We're guessing Hackett will be similarly concise and unrepentantly chipper in addressing the inevitable uproar that will greet his next big bribe to a celebrity, for an EXCLUSIVE baby cover or whatnot, amid economic and media-industry panic. It's what he gets paid to do, and we regret ever expecting better of him. That was clearly foolish.

—-—Original Message—-—
From: [redacted]
Sent: Thu 12/4/2008 6:02 PM
Subject: Staff update

To the staff:

I wanted to let you all know that People editorial has completed the staff reductions spelled out in my Nov. 11 memo. I want to thank everyone for their cooperation.

Please join me in wishing our friends and colleagues the best, and celebrating their contributions to the People brand.

###

His magazine, big national popular Time Inc. owned thing that it is, can't handle its press as well as lil' old Angelina Jolie. The Times piece was basically an unveiling of celebrity glossy coverage policy that everyone knew already. People is always nice to everyone. Booooring. But all they gave was one little comment denying the thrust of the article. Jolie should teach a class at the Learning Annex. "How to Leverage Your Coverage" or something. Hackett could learn a thing or two.

The whole RS segment is embedded below and is kind of silly except for two things: First, fun archival footage of a CNN Angelina Jolie interview where she raps an interviewer on the knuckles for asking about her rumored pregnancy. And second, Kurtz calling Jolie "the wild, slutty wife of Billy Bob Thornton."

Wild and slutty, baby. Wild and slutty.

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Subject: Today's New York Times
Importance: High

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. In the lede, the story strongly suggests
that People, while negotiating for the twins pictures, had explicit
conversations about our "editorial plan" and made "a promise" that
coverage would be positive.

These sorts of stories have appeared in media gossip columns before.
I have ignored them in the past as the unfortunate fallout of competition
and sour grapes. But today's story, in a much different venue, takes these
rumors to a new level, so 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. That I or anyone else would promise,
on paper or verbally, to purposely slant coverage as condition for acquiring
pictures, is insulting to all of us.

Here's what is true: Celebrities—-and senators and business executives and
athletes—are always trying to bend stories their way. We deal with that pressure
every single day and engage in many conversations regarding all elements of
coverage. Angelina Jolie is very candid about wanting attention for her charitable
efforts, and we have covered many of them because we believe they are interesting
stories. But in doing so, we have never relinquished editorial control. There have been
occasions when her goals and our needs could not be reconciled, and we have walked away,
as we have with countless other story subjects.

In our coverage of both celebrities and everyday people, People certainly often celebrates
their accomplishments and milestones. 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.

Larry

" The magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties," People told the Times in a statement. So much wiggle room: The denial does not preclude making promises to sources like Jolie or outlining plans for them in advance.

Here's how Jolie gets what she wants from magazine editors while allowing the editors to pretend they have not sold their souls, judging from the template of People's 2006 coverage of Jolie's first child:

• A third party circulates a memo to editors outlining what Jolie wants to see in coverage, then asking about coverage plans. (In 2006, Jolie's "philanthropic adviser" said in a memo to editors the celebrity wanted coverage of her Cambodia charity work and "invited" information on their plans.)
• Magazines come back with an outline of their "plans," along with the all-important monetary photo bid.
• The "plans" (especially the successful ones) just happen to correspond closely to what the the celebrity wants.
  
• The magazines can claim their "plans" are based on their own prerogatives instead of Jolie's requirements. Happy coincidence, you see.
• The magazines can also claim they never promised anything, only outlined the plans as they stood at that moment.
• And yet Jolie's people can claim to have extracted editorial concessions: "Part of why we wrote that memo is that we wanted to use the interest in her personal life to influence people to pay attention to important issues," her 2006 philanthropic adviser told the Times.

People's coverage in 2006 was scandalously conformant to Jolie's wishes:

“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...

Time Inc. won the photos, paying an estimated $750,000. In the Jan. 8 issue of People came an article headlined “Angelina Jolie: Mission to Cambodia.”

In its coverage of Jolie's latest birth, to twins, People never once used the term "Brangelina," a word the couple hates. It's not clear if the magazine acceded to Jolie's other demand that she get positive coverage "not merely in that instance but into the future," as the Times put it.

Celebrities like Jolie get admiration for such effective flacking, which in this case worked not only on People but Us Weekly and others. The publications, though, (especially People) look more and more like publicity brochures crafted by the celebrities they cover, and increasingly undifferentiated from the morass of celebrity coverage online.

Chris Meloni, "a day at the beach"
What It's Probably Supposed to Say: Meloni is really a fun lovin' guy! He's not that brooding, getting-too-close-to-the-case-all-the-damn-time Eliot Stabler he plays on SVU. He really is just like that funny man we've seen in Wet Hot American Summer and Gym Teacher.
What It Really Says: Aside from the obvious, you know, seafood jokes, that he's quietly sad and wishes he could have fun and stare at the ever-rolling waves rather than talk about rape and murder all day.

Michael Phelps, L'Homme YSL
What It's Probably Supposed To Say: That he's suave and classy.
What It Really Says: While People apparently denies this is product placement, we kinda doubt it isn't. So this means that lil' Neptune has become a total corporate shill since winning 1.5 million gold medals at the Chinalympics. I mean, we've known this for some time, and who can blame the kid for cashing in on his new-found fame. But you'd think that a young man as passionate about swimming as he seems to be would chose, like, "the smell of chlorine" or something. But he probably doesn't find that sexy anymore. No, that's work. The money is sexy. Giant swimming pools full of cologne-smelling money.

Taye Diggs, “vanilla, chocolate, sandalwood and musk essential oils"
What It's Probably Supposed To Say: These are pretty cliche! And sorta like sexy sexy. I guess this means that he's a just a smooth, sensual, lover brother who will give you the passionate time of your life when you're on vacation in Jamaica, escaping the grind with your friend, happy to be briefly away from your busy life being a single mom to your son back in San Francisco. Oh. Wait. That was just a movie. Um, I guess it just means that his wife, Broadway star Idina Menzel, is just a very, very happy woman.
What It Really Says: Actually, that's probably it.

Chace Crawford, "fresh cut grass"
What It's Probably Supposed To Say: Well apparently Miss Crawford says of the smell: "[I] grew up playing a lot of football and golf ... When I smell freshly cut grass I get this air of competition. It wakes me up, gets me going." So, he's a good clean all-American boy!
What It Really Says: That thinking of football and sweat and sports makes him feel sexy! That is totally normal! Lots of men feel like that. Big, strong manly men like Rock Hudson and Richard Chamberlain and Tab Hunter. Either that or he's just a young man who gets a bit peckish when thinking of balmy, breezy summer and, well, um, the neighbor boy who used to mow the lawn across the street in nothing but gym shorts.

• Dupre had no idea her client Spitzer was the governor, on account of his clever alias "George Fox," Dupre's professionalism ("I was there for a purpose, not to wonder who [he] could be") and Dupre being "not really a TV person... I was wrapped up in my family, my music. I knew the name, but [not] the face."
• Spitzer wasn't chatty like some clients: "It was more of a transaction. Strictly business."
• Dupre has been in "intense" psychotherapy since March.
• She ran away from home at 17 and was soon in Florida "drinking a bottle of Grey Goose vodka at a time and partaking in a "'lot' of marijuana, ecstasy and cocaine." During this period, she was raped.

Despite the seemingly coordinated burst of publicity, Dupre does not indicate she has a book or any other such project to promote, telling People (for publication in Friday's issue) she wants merely to "get on with my life." Maybe the new publicity will finally temper public interest in Dupre — or maybe it will spike and shape that interest in a way more appealing to book publishers and other media dealmakers. It's entirely possibly Dupre will have some options in how she "gets on" with life.

(Image from ABC)

As part of a broad Time Inc. work force reduction, I regret to announce that
People magazine will be making cuts in its editorial staff. We are looking
for the volunteers to accept severance packages in the following
Guild-covered job classifications:

—up to 6 reporter-researchers
—up to 4 Los Angeles-based staff members from among staff correspondents
and writer-editors
—up to 4 New York-based staff members from among staff correspondents,
writer-editors and writer-reporters
—up to 3 copy editors
—1 research librarian

We are also looking for a up to two Guild-covered volunteers each in the Art
Department and photo department, and one in the News Bureau.

In addition to this call for Guild volunteers, non-Guild employees may
inquire about the possibility of volunteering for a severance package.

I urge all those interested to contact People's human resources
representatives [redacted] for details regarding their particular
package.

In addition to the above cuts, we are looking for savings from full-time
staffers interested in working a four-day week (Tuesdays off) for
commensurate salary. This call in voluntary, and final decisions will be
made based on business needs and management discretion.

The call for volunteers expires on Dec 1. If necessary, after that we will
follow the Guild contract procedure for conducting involuntary layoffs in
Guild categories.

If you have any questions, please see me or your department heads

[UPDATE: All Things D has a similar memo from SI seeking 40 staff buyouts. They say offers are also coming down at Time, Money, and Fortune.]

Forbes did an actual pseudoscientific study of a year's worth of celebrity mags and found that Angelina and Jennifer are the two most successful coverpersons. Britney Spears: nobody cares any more.

These conclusions could have also been obtained simply by sitting quietly with your thoughts.

In any case, the real question is: Is People in the tank? Feel free to email us if you're an employee who thinks so. Though we would remind you of this:

Michelle Obama Reveals How Barack Won Her Over

By Rennie Dyball...

Cuteness Factor
He did, however, "melt" her with a special treat on one of their first dates – chocolate ice cream – and ultimately won her over with "his overall personality," she said. "And he’s cute!"