When one door closes, another door opens. And after Mark Coleman's champagne-fueled departure from the revolving doors at Life & Style, former Senior News & Entertainment Editor Jared Shapiro [Disclosure: We know him!] was tapped as the Bauer pub's newest Executive Editor.
So how would the J-man (perhaps best known for his omnipresence at networky, open bar events and propensity for wearing black regardless of the season) react?
“I am thrilled to work with such a stellar team and look forward to the continued success of Life & Style," Jared tells us. "Also I'm really excited that I beat the Ed2010.com deadline by just over 2 years.”
Zing! But seriously, we couldn't be happier for the guy. There's nothing more heartwarming than seeing the boy from the wrong side of the tracks GW Bridge finally make something of himself. And who knows, perhaps L&S will become so rife with team spirit, office camaraderie and celebrity news goodness that, one day, staffers won't even mind the annoying reverse commute!
Although we can’t always shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.
Scarlett Johansson, the actress best known for her throaty voice, enormous breasts and inability to save The Nanny Diaries has preemptively threatened Us Weekly with a lawsuit over this week's cover story suggesting that the buxom starlet went under the knife.
A boring, legalese statement issued by Johansson claims the article's "clear implication that she has had plastic or cosmetic surgery on her nose is an outrageous and defamatory fabrication lacking any conceivable basis or proof."
Well, obvs! We are, after all, talking about celebrity weeklies, here. Meanwhile, unwilling to leave well enough alone, OK! goes from exalting in Us' impending legal woes to slamming its more successful rival with demoralizing accusations of shoddy journalism.
Incredibly, "British publishing mogul" Richard Desmond has already sunk upwards of $85 million into the American launch of celebrity weekly OK! magazine.
While the gossip rag's longevity still has yet to be determined, they should take comfort in the fact that, should they prove to have a shorter shelf-life than expected, they've still got at least a 50/50 chance of besting Portfolio in the category of "Most Expensive Failures."
[NYP]
Starting October 12, Us Weekly will be charging a whopping $3.99 for its weekly dose of rumors, hearsay and unsubstantiated gossip.
The move, though unwelcome, is not wholly unexpected given that People (Us' number one competitor in the soccer mom demographic) increased their price to $3.99 a few weeks back and even less-read celeb titles such as OK! and Life & Style, as well as the quickly spiking In Touch, hiked their newsstand prices by $1 shortly after Labor Day.
And before you start complaining ("Why, Us?") about forking your hard-earned cash over to Janice Min to support that nasty gossip habit of yours, just look on the bright side: At least you're not spending $9.11 to exploit a national tragedy.
Last week, People magazine appeased its loyal suburban-mom demographic with an uplifting cover story featuring an exuberant (and residually famous) Halle Berry and her just-confirmed pregnancy. Meanwhile, the other celebrity weeklies appeased their bitchy tween/queen demographics by uniformly rejecting the Berry cover in favor of snarky unconfirmed stories about more important celebrities. [WWD]
Did you see? OK! magazine has relaunched its website! And, as often happens when we're talking about OK!, we seem to be having some trouble containing our enthusiasm! (And our completely superfluous exclamation points!)
However, after nearly two seconds of reading Folio's evaluation of the new site, we're already slightly suspicious. First off, we don't exactly agree with the writers' characterization of OK! as a "celebrity glossy wunderkind" (unless it should turn out that "wunderkind" is actually the German word for "crappy.")
Today in the Land of the Sort-Of Blind, Ben Widdicombe tantalizes us with a teaser about a certain anonymous celeb weekly that's short on profits (and, presumably, also on readers). Naturally, we're stumped (Kidding! It's totally Cocktail) so we figured we'd put this one up to a vote.
So which glossy is so broke it can't even afford to go to the free clinic? Which tab needs to take out a second mortgage just to pay its Wireimage bill? Who's about to get their celeb weekly ass kicked by the thugs consummate professionals over at x17 Patrick McMullen?
If you think you know the answer, vote below! And if you don't, just pick whichever mag you hate the most.
With a couple of notable exceptions (think In Touch's disastrous Virginia Tech cover) the tabloids tend to steer clear of anything even resembling actual news. Instead, they manage to fabricate loosely sourced (and often contradictory) vignettes about the supposed secret lives of prominent public figures largely irrelevant celebrity has-beens.
And so it stands to reason that, when given the chance to sink their collective chompers into a legitimate celebrity scandal, the glossies would (metaphorically) jump at the chance. Which is why we were kinda surprised to see that out of the five covers, only one (Us Weekly, natch) was devoted to famous-person Owen Wilson's shocking true-life struggle with drugs and depression.
But why? How? And, more importantly, why?
When pondering the "Mystery Of The Missing Owen Wilson Covers," we came up with a couple of equally implausible theories. Our inexpert and largely incomplete analysis, after the jump.
"Are readers finally sick of Paris Hilton and regular rehabbers Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears?" wonders every person who's ever picked up a tabloid WWD.
"It might be some reader fatigue," said People managing editor Larry Hackett. "This has been one where the news stories and personalities involved started to have some of the same old, same old feel, and the likeability in some of the personalities has started to fade."
Which is to say that "Open-Door Peeing, Fried Chicken Eating, Unfit Mother" Britney simply isn't selling as well as the Brit who had abs of steel, some semblance of a singing career and—most importantly—a manager, and could say things like "Well, of course I'm a virgin, y'all!" without being laughed out of her high-class trailer park.
[WWD]
So what did the glosses tell contribute to the world this week?
Well, they reminded us that the celebrity baby boom makes for some excellent page fillers, resulting in copious amounts of baby pictures and relatively few stories. Meanwhile, Paris Hilton is out of jail and most of the tabs have either realized that we're well past caring, or else failed to get the interview exclusive (ahem, Janice Min). Regardless, we made the most of our Paris-free afternoon by reading about LiLo's newfound sobriety, appreciating the meager efforts of the remaining four-person Life & Style staffers and admiring In Touch for giving us a jam-packed issue that may or may not result in a libel suit with Jesse Metcalf.
Intern Josephs sifts through the unconfirmed rumors, celebrity scandals and summer cellulite to bring you the highlights…after the jump.
Since we've all been oversaturated with Paris Hilton news this past week or so, the tabs have graciously spared us the "Heiress Behind Bars" cover stories, and relegated her to a far more tolerable two-page spread. In fact, for perhaps the first time in recent history, all of the tabs successfully filled their covers with actual news, managing only one "weight loss story" between them. Hot topics this week included Britney Spears and her mother's on-again off-again relationship, Jennifer Aniston's inability to pick the right boyfriend, and the inside scoop on Paris meltdown. (Yawn).
A slightly hungover (but still surprisingly productive!) Intern Joseph gives you the highlights and lowlights of each of the weeklies, after the jump.
This morning, we woke up and prayed that the tabs wouldn't completely drown us with "OMG, Paris Hilton's in jail" news, however nothing could have prepared us for what we found instead…nothing. In typical humdrum fashion, we get a sleep-inducing collage of celebrity images—from no makeup, to extreme weight loss, to baby bumps and cellulite. The only exception to this week's snoozefest is that bastion of credibility otherwise known as US, whose groundbreaking research ultimately revealed Vanessa Manillo's penchant for cutlery.
Intern Joseph has your in-depth review (and our iced mocha latté) after the jump.
Now that Lindsay Lohan having checked herself back into rehab, Britney Spears is angry at having lost the spotlight, Michael Lohan is suddenly comfortable doling our parenting advice and the celebrity weeklies are fighting tooth and nail to one-up each other with breaking Lindsay "exclusives."
Us Weekly offers us "Lindsay's Rehab Timeline," Star retaliates with "Lindsay Update: Her Dad Says She's Abused OxyContin" and TMZ explains the reason behind Lindsay's fight with DJ Samantha Ronson just before the crash (and no, it wasn't a "lover's quarrel.")
Fortunately, the New York Times is on hand to shed some much needed perspective, and to handle the subject with the maturity and decorum we've grown to expect from the Grey Lady.
Remember yesterday when we told you about Andy Roddick's head being transplanted on Andre the Giant's body? Well today, In Touch is up in arms over accusations that the glossy 'retouched' a cover photo of Angelina Jolie.
Angelina Jolie has come in for some cover doctoring. The latest issue of In Touch features Jolie on the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival, showing her usually veiny arm looking silky smooth.
Unfortunately for In Touch, a nearly identical photo of Jolie appeared on page 58 of the current issue of People, which clearly showed the veins — in an unretouched photo.
Fortunately, In Touch's EIC was able to remain calm, cool and collected as he addressed the public outcry.
Richard Spencer, editor-in-chief of In Touch, was unapologetic. "You're right, we softened those veins. The arm was very, very veiny."
And if that's not repentant, we don't know what is!
It's the end of an era, people. After more than 50 years, American Heritage has disappointed history buffs everywhere by announcing that it will be suspending publication, effective immediately.
And while many are already mourning the loss of the history-infused bimonthly, some staunch competitors are eager to strike while the iron is hot.
Among the early scavengers is In Touch, who hopes to entice self-professed history buffs with a comprehensive timeline chronicling the evolution of Brangelina's relationship in their current issue. Not to be outdone, Us Weekly quickly fights back, exhibiting the fossilized remains of Brad/Jen's love affair, while Star steps up to the plate by commissioning an archaeological dig to uncover relics from the depths of TomKat's dumpster.
When reached for comment, the American Heritage editor expressed his regret at last week's announcement, but added, "I trust that publications like Us Weekly and Life & Style will take over where we left off, and continue to adequately furnish the minds of our nation's future intellectuals for generations to come."
As we mentioned earlier this week, In Touch decided to take itself out of this week's tabloids race to bring us a cover story of actual sociopolitical import. But did their courageous move inspire their fellow weeklies to likewise abandon celebrity culture?
Answer: No, no it didn't.
While People came through with an in-depth look at the survivors, the victims and their friends and family, Us Weekly, Star, Life & Style and OK! threw themselves full-throttle into this week's celebrity gossip rat race, devoting their respective covers to Prince Williams' breakup, Brangelina's rumored** split and Larry Birkhead's cash-cow daughter, Dannielynn.
But was this a glaring oversight on the parts of the celebrity-obsessed glossies, or a brilliant strategic move?
CONTINUED »
Editorial Director
