Is Angelina Jolie an expert at media manipulation?
So says the New York Times in THIS rather revealing article where they detail how the actress carefully orchestrates her public image.
A few highlights:
- When Angie agreed to sell photos of her new twins to People magazine for a cool $14 million, “the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family.”
- In the People interview, there were questions about Angelina and beau Brad Pitt’s charity work and no use of the word “Brangelina,†the tabloid amalgamation of their names, which irks the couple.
- Says former tabloid editor Bonnie Fuller: “She’s scary smart. But smart only takes you so far. She also has an amazing knack, perhaps more than any other star, for knowing how to shape a public image.”
- Angelina’s transformative public image — from self-cutting wild child with an obsession for knives to philanthropic mother-of-six — was apparently carefully crafted. After she divorced second husband Billy Bob Thorton in 2003, Us Weekly asked Angelina if she would agree to an interview and be photographed. She initially declined — but then offered the magazine another photo opportunity. She informed it what time and place she would be publicly playing with Maddox, essentially creating a paparazzi shot. The result? A complete public image overhaul.
- As for that whole stealing Brad right out from under Jennifer Aniston’s nose? Angie could and should have faced a media and public backlash (let’s face it — no one likes a thief), but Miss Jolie quickly through herself into international humanitarian work (remember all those trips to Pakistan?) and instantly all was forgotten about her questionable courting methods.
- And finally, during the premiere of A Mighty Heart, Angelina used her star power to restrict access of the media. She made journalists sign a contract where journalists had to agree to that “the interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”
Despite (or perhaps because of) all this, Angie’s star continues to rise.
29 Comments
wow a publication that dared to call angelina out on her manipulation. they forgot to mention that angelina ALSO stole billy bob thorton from lauren dern. she found out about her break up when she saw billy bob making out with Angelina on TV. no matter how you look at it, angelina is a whore in more than one way.
And Aniston isn’t a manipulator? PUH-LEEZE!
“According to federal filings, the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, the entity through which Mr. Neilson says the couple distributes photo money, has given grants of about $2 million since its creation in 2006.”
i knew they pocketed the money from the baby pics
This is not news. And the media obliges only to those they wish to use as instrments that push their political
agendas and trash those who don’t toe the ultra liberal line.
Why do you think most of the celebs are tripping all over themselves wearing buttons t shirts with political messages and their little trophies errrrr I mean kids too.
Told ya all that fucking years ago.
about time you all see whom she is
Media Elites drink their own koolaid.
Their BIAS is old news.
good for her for having this much control.
here we go again..now, it’s Angie bashing time.
These “reporters” LMAO so pathetic.
btw..you can’t steal a man who doesn’t want
to be stolen. For anyone naiive enough to
just blame the woman.
WOW, her favourite publication NYT called her out. FINALLY.
she uses false humanitarianism for herself not others, truly this borders on Satanic
So basically Angelina does the job that other celebs pay their PR flacks for and this is a problem why? The assertion that Angelina did humanitarian work to deflect attention away from her relationship with Pitt ignores a crucial fact that she was involved with the UN for a few years before she hooked up with Brad. Other than that this article does nothing but rehash the old stories about her being a wild child and her love of tattoos. It’s amazing that other people who have done the same thing escape the scrutiny that Angelina seems to have to endure every few months. Drew Barrymore was as wild as Angelina and involved in some of the things yet she is golden; and many hook ups in Hollywood began when one or both parties were involved with other people see Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, Kate Hudson, and to commenter #1, I don’t think many people feel sorry for Laura Dern considering Billy Bob was married when she met him as was her current husband, Ben (whose wife was also pregnant). And good for Angelina that she is as good at manipulating the media as anyone else in Hollywood. She doesn’t need to stage photos at the Ivy to get attention.
post #2 please explain how Aniston manipulates the public more than Angelina does?
hmm i agreed with you. Nothing new, the media keep writing the samething. Getting boring
The NY Times would not write this if they did not have facts to back up these claims. What crap! I knew she was always a weird bird but this is just too much. More babies means more media coverage!
I read this and it really said nothing. I’m surprised the NY Times even printed it. I guess the post-election world is making the media a little desperate to stir up controversy.
Larry Hackett, Defender of People’s Celebrity Shilling Integrity
This morning the New York Times “attacked” Angelina Jolie for basically existing as her person. Getting paid enormous sums of money for human trafficking in baby photos? And how she’s conspired with People
Larry Hackett, managing editor for People magazine, just sent this email to staffers to address the recent NYTimes piece titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Imageâ€:
“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.â€
really? like who cares? resentment is pathetic when it comes from nameless people? Who are they to say?
Angelina is a fake bitch? Duh????????.is this new news to anyone?.
Isn’t this called ‘living your life’ ?
You grow and you change and you learn as you go?
albeit in the public eye
I don’t understand why this is of any grave importance. If I was a celebrity, yeah I’m getting on a plane to Malawi or some 3rd world country and lending a hand. ‘Cuz I can. I’m a publicist and I kinda think it’s cool (and probably a smart professional choice) to not have one.
i dun get why they are complaining. she just want to protect herself and her family.
and ny times are liars most of the time. so it dun matter
Skank is a fakeass.
you brangeloonies always when somebody points out the truth you call them liars, since when ny times doesnot matter? angie herself in one of her interviews said if anybody or any magazine says anything ngeative about me i don’t care as long as it’s not new york times and now that new york times finally is stating the fact you are calling them liars that’s so typical of brangeloonies any magazine that show brangelina for what they are you call them lairs , you are the liars..
The article proves what a manipulative whore she is. He image of motherly goodness was invented to deflect from the fact that she is a wretched human being. She didn’t just evolve into this good person. She created a persona and now she is living it. Most people knew that, this article just validates what the Brangeloonies won’t accept.
^ exactly!.
I like Devin
Yes, she is a manufactured Saint.
As I have said on this blog many times before—-she is still crazy…a smart manipulator but never the less—crazy.
Anyone with common sense can see through her fakeness. She always has that sly smug look on her face like ” yeah I fooled you suckers!”