According to the deal offered by 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.
The winner was People. The resulting package in its Aug. 18 issue — the magazine's best-selling in seven years — was a publicity coup for Jolie, the Oscar winner and former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.
In the People interview, there were questions about her and Pitt's charity work and no use of the word "Brangelina," the tabloid amalgamation of their names, which irks the couple.
Through a spokeswoman, People magazine, which is owned by Time Inc., released a statement denying that any conditions were placed on coverage. "These claims are categorically false. Like any news organization, People does purchase photos, but the magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties," the statement said.
-
-
- sinlung
- added this
- added November 22, 2008
- flag
-
I could really care less about Angelina Jolie or all those other idiots.
-
-
- FallenMorgan
- 8 months ago
-
-
But this is practically censorship, you shouldn't be able to buy the opinion of a magazine to ensure they write about you in a positive light, that isn't journalism.
-
Nice that they can dictate "news" about themselves, before you know it, they will try to tell you what to think.
-
-
- arcticspirit
- 8 months ago
-






