Jennifer Aniston must feel so vindicated today. The Times, which only recently published a lengthy, loving story about how Angelina Jolie, humanitarian and actress, manages to rise above her tabloid image, threw itself into an investigation of how the man-stealing actress controls her publicity, and in a Page One story concluded that she is basically a self-obsessed manipulative freak. And it. is. awesome. We learn that:
• “The actress does not employ a publicist or an agent. The keys to her public image belong to her alone.” Sinister.
• People is totally a slave to her: When she sold the photos of her and Brad Pitt with their daughter, Shiloh, to the magazine, she dictated the terms of not only the story that went with it but insisted on an “editorial plan” for further coverage of her, including a stipulation that they not ever use the term “Brangelina,” which she hates. We hate it too, but this just makes us want to say it all the time. Brangelina. Brangelina. Brangelina. Okay, we’ll stop now. People denies this, but who are they kidding?
• Us is a slave to her, too: After her divorce from Billy Bob Thornton, “Us magazine asked Ms. Jolie if she would agree to an interview and be photographed. According to two people involved, she declined — but then offered the magazine another photo opportunity. Ms. Jolie informed it what time and place she would be publicly playing with Maddox, essentially creating a paparazzi shot. The resulting photo, the origin of which was not made public to Us readers, presented Ms. Jolie in a new light — a young mother unsuccessfully trying to have a private moment with her son.”
• Even Namibia does her bidding: “In 2006, when she sought the privacy of Namibia to give birth to Shiloh, the government refused to grant visas to journalists unless they had written permission from the couple.”
• The bombshell: Despite the fact that Brangelina (heh) has claimed to donate the $4.1 million they got from the People shoot to charity, the Jolie-Pitt foundation, according to federal filings, has only given grants of about $2 million since its creation in 2006. Her lawyer tells the Times that donations often run more than a year behind. But what about the children? Can they wait that long?
• The last line twists the knife: “Today, about 24 percent of respondents [to marketing surveys] view Ms. Jolie positively.”
This is so fantastic. We’d now like to request that the Times launch an investigation into why Kim Kardashian continues to be famous.