<![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom? - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom? - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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"

the-cubicle-dweller

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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-no....

But yeah, the bluegrass is nifty.

mediahohoho

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

mediahohoho

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

htotheomo

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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...


htotheomo

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @lovelyday: Well, look how well it turned out for Mia Farrow.

Fishnets and Cigarettes

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

lalalina

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> "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.

smartyr

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

mediahohoho

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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.

unsharpmask

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

superba

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> i think marcassha's comment somehow validates mediahoho's.

O.D.B. McDowell

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

htotheomo

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

Seeräuber Jenny

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @htotheomo: I second that emotion.

Aatom

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> Someone should buy her a puppy. How many kids can you really handle under the age of five?

lovelyday

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @mediahohoho: This is one of best non-snarky posts I have ever read. Gold Star Motel with complimentary champagne!

htotheomo

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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.

Looker

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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.

mediahohoho

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> Alright, who told Angelina's people about the kidnapping plot last week? I thought that was supposed to be our little secret, yo!

pbica

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> (...or maybe I just misunderstood your joke.)

smartyr

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @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.

smartyr

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> @smartyr:
I've never thought that I needed to be famous to sleep with a married man.

IBentMyWookie

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> Monica, you are better at naming those kids than she is.

BK_KT

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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.

smartyr

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> She could adopt a kid from every country with an orphanage for all I care, I still think Angelina sucks.

izzodee544

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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.

marcassha

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> And here I thought Sachs and the other UN economists enlisted Angelina because of those policy briefs she wrote while Raiding Tombs in Cambodia.

the-judy-blume-legacy

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> 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.

tete rouge

]]> <![CDATA[Angelina Jolie And 'People': Who Adopted Whom?]]> "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.

monicathemusical

]]>