There's this rumor going around that OK! magazine owner Richard Desmond is hiring Bonnie Fuller, she being the former American Media editorial director and Star leader, to run his American exclamation point tabloid.

Fuller, who just left a $2 million-plus payday with David Pecker, is starting her own company, Bonnie Fuller Media, which by all accounts is some sort of digital (and maybe some TV) venture with backing from former Viacom exec Russ Pillar.

The rumor says there are "protracted talks" between Fuller in Desmond, who is said to be looking for a high-profile EIC to replace Sarah Ivens, who's been running the tabloid since it launched on American shores. The U.S. OK!, which Desmond reportedly sunk $100 million into (though, because he pays in British pounds, he gets everything half off), has seen circulation increase, but not enough to really compete with more established players like In Touch or Us Weekly. Which might explain why we're also told Desmond made overtures to Us editor Janice Min, who declined.

So is Fuller taking over at OK!? No, say well-placed informants. But it's true Desmond did reach out to her.

Which leaves only one real question:

CONTINUED »

We're hearing big news out of Bauer today: The New Jersey tabloid publisher is moving Richard Spencer to the position of editorial director of Life & Style, though he'll remain editor-in-chief of In Touch. Filling in, then, for Spencer's open EIC slot at L&S, which he took over when Mark Pasetsky vacated the position, is Donna Armstrong, who was running Australia's New Woman magazine after leaving Britain's More, both published by Emap. Dan Wakeford and Michelle Lee, who were the deputies at both tabloids, will stop splitting their duties and move back to In Touch.

That People magazine has a nicey-nice relationship with Madonna, as Gawker relayed today, has been an ill-kept secret in the tabloid biz. Some veteran tabloid editors said they weren't surprised managing editor Peter Castro is rumored to be accepting free tickets to the pop star's concerts — but comp'd tickets, though worth thousands of dollars combined, isn't enough to guarantee her protection from the biggest circ celeb weekly. Rather, Madonna relies on the magazine's "straight and narrow" approach to celebrity news (though, to be sure, fairness is a relative concept in the industry).

While Madonna's publicist Liz Rosenberg isn't known to play well with others — which makes her awesome to us — we're told she has a soft spot for People, because they're always willing to run her statements and spin, and not the rumors others traffic in, as the real news. (i.e. "Madonna 'Over the Moon' About Finalized Adoption" sounds a lot different than, say, "Madonna Finally Nabs African Baby After Adoption Scandal.")

But what are the consequences of Madonna having such a lovey-dovey relationship with the Time Inc. tabloid? For one, the other kids on the playground won't be so nice.

CONTINUED »

It was not Rolling Stone that Conde Nast was after, but another of Jann Wenner's publications: the tabloid Us Weekly.

That's what Keith Kelly hopes to clarify in today's column, where he names a price tag of $750 million that Si Newhouse would have to cough up to get his hands on the well-performing celeb weekly in what's already a crowded market.

Except news of a potential deal brings more questions than it does answers. Officially, Wenner media says, "There are no talks. Wenner Media and its properties are not for sale." As for Conde Nast, they're word is, "It is a company policy to never comment on potential acquisitions." But what would upscale Conde want with a tabloid that, no matter how much revenue and how glossy, is still viewed as downmarket?

CONTINUED »

In the July issue of Portfolio, now-former American Media editorial director Bonnie Fuller took over the back page to do two things: Wrap her arms around an issue of Star, and reveal almost nothing about where she's headed from here.

Then, in the Times's Sunday Business section, she did something similar: She posed in the same position (sans tabloid) and said, well, almost nothing about where she's headed from here.

Despite what one errant blogger may claim, Ms. Fuller is the Queen of All Media.

From YM and Marie Claire and Cosmopolitan to Us Weekly and Star, Fuller has earned – some might argue rightfully – a reputation as a ball-busting, no-nonsense editor who routinely brought her staff for a visit to the brink of sanity all in the name of a close. And now that she's heading off on her own, with a venture aptly titled Bonnie Fuller Media, and funding from former Viacom interactive chief Russ Pillar's 5850 Group, perhaps it's time to stop counting all of Fuller's flaws, sand your bedpost smooth, and begin notching her successes.

CONTINUED »

We're hearing Rob Shuter, the lying former Jessica Simpson publicist who just took over OK!'s executive editor post (since arriving as entertainment editor, then being named deputy ed), just named editorial manager Katie Caperton to the deputy editor slot, while nightspot staple Shauna Bass (of Life & Style) was installed as news editor. We're also told tabloid vet David Caplan, currently at People, was offered the exec ed slot by EIC Sarah Ivens about a month ago, but turned it down.

You know what you get when you're a celebrity and you sign an exclusive deal with a tabloid? Bad karma from the rest of the magazines.

Jamie Lynn Spears, who signed a $1 million exclusive deal with OK! for her pregnancy story and pics, is getting stabbed by Star with a dramatic cover story exclaiming, "Delivery Room Drama!" Since Spears is prohibited from playing ball with the other celeb weeklies, there's only one thing Star can do: deliver one piece of bad news after another. If only Spears hadn't signed with OK!, she could've scored some protection.

CONTINUED »

JOSSIP REPORTS

Ellen DeGeneres does some things conventionally (launch a mega-hit daytime talk show) and some things unconventionally (announce she's gay on her own sitcom). Thanks to California's OK-ing of gay marriage, she's about to do something else quite conventional: get married, to partner Portia de Rossi.

But here's the unconventional part: She won't be selling the pics, Jossip hears.

While plenty of magazines would love to get their hands on the exclusive pics of her big day – since it'll really be the first celebrity wedding of its kind, with that whole gay thing – most of them will find themselves in another situation: with pics, but without exclusivity. That's because the talk show host plans to distribute multiple sets of pics a single photo to scores of media outlets, we're told, while avoiding certain places she's at odds with (among them, American Media's titles) (a well-placed insider says the photo will be available to everyone who asks).

DeGeneres is said to be one of very few celebs who refuses to accept payouts from the media in exchange for access. And especially with the wedding, she wants to get as much exposure for it as possible, which would help normalize the idea of gay marriage, which she's spoken endlessly about on her show. The more press with the photos, the more blanket the coverage. (Though without giving any magazine exclusive shots, she may lose out on major play on the covers.)

But one fear remains:

CONTINUED »

Every gossip outlet gets things wrong now and then. When a mistake is made online, it's fixable in minutes; just throw a strike through the error, insert the accurate info, and you're all set. When a mistake is made in a daily, it's only 24 hours before the next issue pops up to make readers forget. But when a mistake is made in a weekly, well, that's seven long days of staring at your error.

This week, Us Weekly is doing just that. It was only after they mocked up their Love Notes page and sent it to the printer did anyone notice their gaffe: In their story (pictured, left) on Sheryl Crow's new man friend, John Cassimus, the chief of southern restaurant chain Zoë's Kitchen, they feature Crow with somebody, but it isn't Cassimus.

It appears the photo agency WENN (at least according to the magazine's photo credit) misidentified the guy she's walking with, and editors at Us didn't double check. Meanwhile, the story itself is several weeks old; blogs like Just Jared picked up on Life & Style's report from a May issue (pictured, right), where the actual Cassimus is shown.

Full image below.

CONTINUED »

When Ben Widdicombe sprung his departure from the New York Daily News on his bosses last month (well, he did quietly give two weeks notice), the paper found itself with quite the dilemma: Without Widdicombe's Gatecrasher, it had a single daily gossip column, Rush & Molloy. Indeed, former junior gossip Jo Piazza began penning the weekend-only Full Disclosure, but we hear the News still wants more gossip-centric fare.

So when Krissy Mac, who'd been penning a column about celebrity tabloids for the past two years, announced her exit, there was a rush to fill the void.

Enter Patrick Huguenin, the former R&M stringer. He'll be taking over the Friday space, beginning tomorrow. Huguenin's sheet will be called "Newsstand Junkie," and, if he can get his copy through editors without too many changes, it might just read like the witty fella he is.

Offering yet another glimpse into the world of a tabloid magazine, Us Weekly lets ABC News inside its operation to reveal some startling facts: Sometimes Janice Min works with celebrities to give them a better cover photo (like she did when Mariah Carey lost weight); sometimes Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt are not the cover story; and the most standard acts of invading stars' privacy happens in the magazine's "Just Like Us" section, where trips to sushi restaurants and Starbucks qualify, just barely, as newsworthy.

And also: Even Us' editors believe that sometimes, celebs get this whole paparazzi-tabloid-publicity game right. One person rising above it all? Matt Damon.

CONTINUED »

Comparing Us Weekly to In Touch is both an exercise in futility and the best thing we've read all day. [Magazine Rack]

Bonnie Fuller, who yesterday announced she was leaving her editorial director post at AMI to work on new things, knew she was going to get picked up by the industry press, who have never taken kindly to her. Keith Kelly reminds us that "In the end, few are sorry to see her leave AMI." [NYP] And the Post also took the time to mock up this faux tabloid cover, with coverlines, "Terrible Tyrant Tossed!," "Pecker Wins Day!," and "Former Staffers Jubilant!" Eh, it's kind of weak, but they did manage to squeeze four exclamation points on the thing, and even Bonnie would respect that.

Is the willingness of celebrity weeklies to engage in political fodder – Bill Clinton essays, Barack Obama "Just Like Us?" spreads – evidence that tabloid readers are interested in mixing politics with escapism, or are the editors so starved for actual content that isn't recycled from the blogs that they're looking to any pop culture talking points for an easy pictorial?

We're going to go with a more simple rationale:

CONTINUED »

Are these seven-figure sums that celebrity weeklies pay for exclusive pics justifiable? Are magazines actually turning a profit from these huge payouts? Is the inflation of photo prices only benefiting the celebs?

In a story that could've been on the shelf for weeks, the Times' Richard Perez-Pena looks at the tabloid industry's growing tendency to pay huge sums for exclusive photos.

So what are the answers to the questions above?

Yes, yes. And yes. (Asterisk, asterisk. And asterisk.)

CONTINUED »

AUDIT BUREAU OF PERCOLATION With audit data finally here for 2006 (Was Britney a complete mess then? Cannot remember!), the celebrity weeklies are showing off just how many times they missed their rate bases. Every tabloid missed the mark in double digits, except for People BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFECT. [NYP]

Kudos to Us Weekly for being the only tabloid wise enough to realize Americans might be just as interested in Beyonce and Jay-Z's (maybe) wedding as, say, a white girl like Katherine Heigl's.

Janice Min might be the only celeb weekly editor who understands the newsstand lure of black celebs; her magazine's Janet Jackson "How I Lost 40 Pounds" issue was among its best selling ever (though it's said that Min was on leave, and didn't have much to do with it).

While the paparazzi hounded the Tribeca apartment building where Jay-Z and Beyonce supposedly got married, and the local television news had a field day guessing why everyone was wearing white, OK!, In Touch, Star, and Life & Style all ignored the week's biggest story on their covers.

How come?

CONTINUED »

Judging from this week's tabloid covers, it was an uneventful week in Hollywood, besides the fact that Jay-Z and Beyonce got married in an anticlimactic top secret ceremony. Luckily, for all five of you who care, Us Weekly has the mundane details.

Britney only made one cover this week, which must mean her road to recovery has been going smoothly over the last seven days. But not so fast! In Touch swears the trainwreck is having a relapse, complete with bloody scalps and bald spots. Yum.

Also this week: Us finds yet another angle to the presidential race, some stars lost baby weight and Kim Kardashian continues to whore out her "exclusives" for the spotlight.

CONTINUED »

Turns out People magazine's Christina Aguilera baby photo issue, which cost them a reported $1.5 million, sold better than the estimated 1.3 million copies originally thought; it moved 1.45 million on the newsstand.

That's one highlighted stat from the latest tabloid data, which shows People up 5 percent year-to-date, with an average 1.5 million copies moving on the newsstand, according to ABC data being released today. The mag's biggest mover? January's Heath Ledger, which sold 1.8m, thanks to it being the only weekly to close late enough to catch the obit. But that issue is expected to be bested by Jennifer Lopez's newborn twins, with estimates of 1.9m.

And how is the competition faring?

CONTINUED »

If all goes accordingly, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's baby twins could fetch upwards of $10 million from the right celebrity magazine. The deal will likely be worked out before she's even in her third trimester, and far before she's admitted to the hospital under a cloud of security. Placed in the proper high-yield investment fund, those twins could be worth $50 million each before kindergarten.