Mel Gibson isn’t the only person interested in Britney Spears‘ love life as of late: TMZ has been keeping tabs on the pop star and her secret rendezvous with a mystery man. Sadly, that mystery man is all too recognizable — it’s Adnan Ghalib, former paparazzo and Spears hanger-on.
TMZ’s “sources” have reported that over the last few months Adnan has been entering the gated community where Brit and father Jamie live, but no one can say exactly what’s going on. But we can! Adnan missed the spotlight, Britney missed her enabler, and it was time for a special reunion. And yes, there are text messages involved.
The endless back and forth speculation about YouTube crack smoking star and amateur fighter Amy Winehouse, back when she was expected to perform at the Grammys – but, uh, wasn’t exactly “healthy” enough to do so — accomplished at least one thing: Incredible interest from the American public (and British tabloids) in the broadcast.
In the end, of course, Winehouse couldn’t make it to the stage, phoning in her performance via satellite; and while the blogs and trades were abuzz with rumormongering, three million fewer viewers bothered tuning in to February’s show.
Just imagine what those audience numbers could’ve looked like without the Winehouse gossip. So it makes sense that producers of the show, while of course concerned about the health of the celebrity music acts they invite to perform, are at least equally as interested in the buzzworthiness of their headliners.
Which explains why MTV Networks Music president Van Toffler is already speculating on a certain blonde pop tart who may, or may not, be ready for a repeat appearance at this year’s VMAs. CONTINUED »
These photos of Britney Spears at the Ritz-Carlton gym show that she’s not dead-set on her Bally’s membership. [Celebutopia]
With Britney by their side, Jamie Lynn Spears and fiancé Casey Aldridge welcomed a baby girl Maddie Briann this morning. This is bad news for brother Bryan, who was enjoying his first 3 minutes of fame. [People]
That photographer whose foot was supposedly run over by Britney Spears in the middle of a paparazzi scrum? Yeah … so he purposefully had his foot crushed by her car as she tried backing away from the camera madness, it’s been decided. Why would a photog do such a thing? Because lawsuits are easy to follow, and fame is easy to come by. But the district attorneys office wasn’t buying it: After reviewing footage of the incident, they concluded, “There was much commotion and noise at the time and there is no proof that the suspect was aware of what had happened.” So Britney is off the hook, and, for once, she has the paparazzi’s footage to thank for it. Or blame for it. Or both!
That harshly criticized issue of The Atlantic, featuring Britney Spears on the cover and a paparazzi expose inside, that had the magazine’s loyalists aghast at how owner David Bradley could bring his well-respected title to such a low, was a newsstand disaster. It moved just 24,000 copies at the newsstand, or less than half what it moved in previous months. Lesson learned? Leave the celebrity shlock to the tabloids. Thankfully editor Justin Smith denied that the story had anything to do with an attempt to boost circulation, make the magazine profitable, and increase newsstand sales, because that defense is going to come in handy right about now.
When staffers at UCLA’s Medical Center were fired in March for snooping on Britney Spears’ medical records, and then selling tidbits about the pop star, like details of her giving birth so Sean Preston in 2005, one teensy weensy other revelation floated to the surface: The practice was nothing new.
Plenty of other celebs had their privacy violated, including Maria Shriver, George Clooney, and Farah Fawcett.
Now, tapes of conversations between tabloid The Globe and a score of hospital employees, from 1992-93, show how editors there regularly paid off sources inside various hospitals’ walls for dirt on Tom Cruise, Liz Taylor, Billy Crystal, Kelsey Grammer, Magic Johnson, Roseanne Barr, Al Pacino, Paula Abdul, Frank Zappa, and Vanna White. From plastic surgery procedures to eating disorder treatment, every tidbit was available for the right price. CONTINUED »
Well isn’t this the feel good story you were looking for to take your mind off last week’s tragic crane collapse?
Tatum O’Neal – who won an Academy Award at age 10 for Paper Moon, though the Oscars would probably like you to not include its trademark while mentioning this story – was arrested yesterday after being spotted buying crack on the Lower East Side, nearby her apartment.
When police nabbed her, she insisted she was just researching an acting role. Then they found a baggie of crack, a baggie of coke, and a crack pipe on her. And so she tried this line: “I’ve been clean for a long time. Today was the first time I was relapsing, but you guys saved me! Can you let me go?” [NYDN]
They did not. She was booked on charges of seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance.
And yes, it was just eight months ago that she told Britney Spears to seek “recovery and get her disease of addiction together.”
There have been those rumors about Michael Jackson taking up residency in Las Vegas, clearing tens of millions of dollars with a high-profile show a la Cher or Prince. But whether the gossip was simply made up or based in truth, the murmurs of a deal would always fizzle, owing in part to Jackson’s inability to be a reliable performer, thus shortchanging any possibility his act could be insured.
And now, Britney Spears. She’s been seen, very publicly, dining with George Maloof, the billionaire owner of, among other things, the Palms Resort & Casino in Las Vegas. All of which is helping fuel rumors that she is in talks for a Vegas house show, with sums of $10 million being floated around. [SBS]
Maloof, meanwhile, is also behind the insidious production of E!’s Living Lohan, a project that is less about celebrating a manager mama and her celebrity offspring than it is about promoting his corporate interests while ruining a Long Island family. His exploitation of Ms. Spears, then, shouldn’t be anything less.
[Photo: WENN]
Returning from her Costa Rican jaunt with Mel Gibson, Britney Spears touches down via private plane, exits the hatch, and has exactly 0.000039841 seconds before the paparazzi is screaming at her. [ET]
Who’s going to be the first paparazzi agency to score pictures of Britney Spears and Mel Gibson on holiday together in Costa Rica? Entertainment Tonight has video of them boarding a plane, but nobody has tape of them since they arrived in CR.
You know that Chris Rock routine, where he goes after black men who “always want credit for some shit they’re supposed to do”?
“They’ll brag about stuff a normal man just does. They’ll say something like, ‘Yeah, well I take care of my kids.’ You’re supposed to, you dumb motherfucker. ‘I ain’t never been to jail.’ Whaddya want? A cookie? You’re not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!”
So congratulations, Britney Spears, for scoring three days of supervised visits with your own children.
Life & Style says Britney Spears spent $60 million. But fellow Bauer tabloid In Touch says she spent $61 million. Besides learning there’s no in-house rounding policy over there in Jerzeeee, it’s startling to learn that despite those crazy expenses (like $30k/month to rent a home she never stays in), the pop star’s coffers are still stuffed to the brim in normal person terms, and the $750,000 that’s deposited into her checking account each month is enough to afford her Bally’s membership.
Candace Trunzo put this week’s Star on newsstands with “Exclusive All-New Photos” of Britney Spears and her “New Bikini Body.” Nevermind that Britney’s bod wasn’t isn’t the skinny thing we’re used to seeing — but the “all-new” pics of Britney that made Star’s case in this week’s issue were actually snapped at the end of March.
So if, as the cover claims, Britney lost 20 pounds in 30 days, that means those 30 days ended, um, 30 days ago, making this entire cover story a month old.
At left, Star magazine’s new issue that showcases an aerial shot of Britney Spears’ “new bikini body.” At right, what an actual bikini body on Britney looks like.
(Click image for larger version)
It’s that time of year again: Time magazine is holding its annual publicity stunt known as the Time 100, where they’ll anoint a centum’s worth of notable folks at a ceremony that combines celebrities with excellent hor d’oeuvres. And because we’re all Internet savvy these days, you were asked to vote on 200 finalists to narrow the list down to 100 of the most influential folks. Your clicks have persevered! Now we’ve 10X10 candidates in the running for the title of “Most Influential.” Currently, Britney Spears is ranked an embarassing No. 2, topped only by Korean pop sensation Rain — “last year’s landslide winner of this poll.” [Time]
Keeping with its roots, Us Weekly is revving up the denial train. You know, where they take those erroneous reports from less trustworthy weeklies and get sources to deny the reports?
And it’s always a good time to take a crap on the reports in other tabloid magazines — Us, after all, used to devote an entire two-page spread to the matter. So what to do when the competition gets its credibility put through the gossip mill shredder? Fiesta!
OK! magazine has been catching flack for its 2003 photo of Britney Spears that supposedly showed the star had lost 15 pounds in four weeks. Thus, Us Weekly’s item “See What Britney Spears’ Body Really Looks Like.”
And what about Star’s report that Britney and Kevin Federline reconciled over Easter weekend and were planning a Hawaii trip together? Not true, Us gets a Britney camp member to report, but not before pointing out that the cover photo is from their 2004 honeymoon. In Fiji.
Don’t you often wonder how celebrity magazines score exclusive sightings and insider starlet news? You might be led to believe their roving reporter corps are snagging tips from sauced publicists who are too drunk to know they’re spilling, or their checkbook does the reporting.
Or, most likely, a publicist is planting an item.
Yesterday, Marissa McMillion, a marketing staffer at designer Christian Audigier/Ed Hardy, blasted the press with news that Britney Spears stopped by the corporate offices to meet with Audigier himself, and that “she came to check out his new spring collection but mainly to discuss business… she wants to work on a line with Chrisitian… was in good spirits… Christian and her were laughing… she also left with tons of gear… She really loved the new Ed Hardy bathing suits… thought they were “gorgeous… put on the Ed Hardy sunglasses instantly… got presents for Jamie Lynn (her birthday is tomorrow)… got her Christian Audigier handbags, scarves, Ed Hardy bathing suit, Ed Hardy cologne and belts.”
And look how well it moved down the gossip line:
There’s People magazine’s “Britney Spears’s Birthday Shopping for Jamie Lynn” item, which reports “Christian and she were laughing as she tried on Ed Hardy sunglasses and checked out the bathing suits”; and there’s Star magazine’s “Britney Gets Presents For Jamie Lynn’s Birthday!” item.
And, of course, because this was a super secret meeting, the paparazzi were nowhere to be found!
OK! took plenty of flack this week for publishing a five-year-old photo of Britney Spears to back up a cover line claiming she lost 15 pounds in four weeks. But let’s not kid ourselves: All the tabloids do it!
Let’s see … there’s Star’s cover about “Brit and Kevin’s secret weekend,” which features a photo not from their possibly-never-happened weekend, but from their 2004 honeymoon. And Us Weekly, though it doesn’t claim its cover photo is recent, used a November 2003 photo of a much younger looking Britney, from an Entertainment Weekly photo shoot, as its cover.
First we have to deal with covers that are missing a baby’s legs, and now OLD CELEBRITY PHOTOS? Somebody should lose their Photoshop license.
Bonnie Fuller’s latest “Star magazine plug disguised as a Huffington Post item” rants, very typically, on the pater- and materfamilias of the Spears clan.
To Fuller, dad Jamie and mom Lynne are simply taking advantage of daughter Britney and Jamie Lynn’s lifestyles, living in their homes, collecting their fees, and cashing in on any opportunity their offspring’s fame affords them, even though neither of them are in very healthy states right now.
So what’s Bonnie’s advice?
So I say to Jamie and Lynne Spears, if you really want to prove your love to your daughters, how about trying to nix the reported deal to sell Jamie Lynn’s upcoming baby pics for $1 million?
Interesting advice, coming from someone who is also said to have bid on those photos — and lost out to OK! magazine.
Editorial Director
