|
|
| Author |
Message |
| funmi |
 Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:21 pm |
 |
|
|
Hey! Where's my individual title?
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 916
Location: london
|
RnR4eva wrote: funmi wrote:
but i thought most people on here used to love people magazine and used to what for confirmation from them before believing any other story from othe r tabs/ media so what changed?
I didn't say anything about their reliability but I have always been critical of People Magazine. They favor certain celebrities now more than ever. Yes they are more reliable than Life and Style but they are first and foremost a tabloid and all tabloids have their agendas. They learned the art of blending their magazine with real news to further themselves away from the more gossipy tabloids but their still a tabloid.
even if that was the case i still dont see the big problem....people magazine still has a better reputation than the other ones and i feel they are at least one of the magazine that treat jennifer well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| RnR4eva |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:34 pm |
|
|
|
Moderator: Jen's Aquarius Friend
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 7036
Location: D.C. Metro Area
|
funmi wrote:
even if that was the case i still dont see the big problem....people magazine still has a better reputation than the other ones and i feel they are at least one of the magazine that treat jennifer well.
When they want too.
tic tac wrote:
This is just sad!!!why would they do this? to hurt jen?? i maynot be a supporter of this relationship but this is just bad. it's like they get a kick out seeing jen being publicly hurt.
Since 2005. It sells. |
_________________
~*Kamia*~
   
"If you spend five minutes with Jennifer, you get that she's funny, beautiful, charming, sweet - all of those things."
"Change doesn't come from Washington, it comes to Washington"-Barack Obama |
|
| Back to top |
|
| funmi |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:41 pm |
|
|
|
Hey! Where's my individual title?
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 916
Location: london
|
RnR4eva wrote: funmi wrote:
even if that was the case i still dont see the big problem....people magazine still has a better reputation than the other ones and i feel they are at least one of the magazine that treat jennifer well.
When they want too.
tic tac wrote:
This is just sad!!!why would they do this? to hurt jen?? i maynot be a supporter of this relationship but this is just bad. it's like they get a kick out seeing jen being publicly hurt.
Since 2005. It sells.
but rnr i thought u loved people magazine , if i remember correctly four months ago u thought they were one of the best tabs out there and u usually raved about their so called 'jen and john headquaters' ; so why the sudden change on people magazine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| wwwed |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Jen's Obsessed Friend
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 320
Location: Seattle, WA
|
RnR4eva wrote: funmi wrote:
even if that was the case i still dont see the big problem....people magazine still has a better reputation than the other ones and i feel they are at least one of the magazine that treat jennifer well.
When they want too.
tic tac wrote:
This is just sad!!!why would they do this? to hurt jen?? i maynot be a supporter of this relationship but this is just bad. it's like they get a kick out seeing jen being publicly hurt.
Since 2005. It sells.
See this is weird because when they did the forbes thing, (1) she is the most liked celebrity next to Heath Ledger, and you know, he died so, and also (2) people like to hear about her triumphs, the ones with Brad saying 'I want Jen back,' on the cover were the best sellers...
I think the public likes Jen, the tabloids just don't |
_________________
"I wish we could ad-lib 'f-ck' into our TV show. I love that word. Maybe only my character, Rachel, should be allowed to say it though. I wish we could be like Absolutely Fabulous and swear and talk about sex and drugs. That would be great!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| RnR4eva |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:03 pm |
|
|
|
Moderator: Jen's Aquarius Friend
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 7036
Location: D.C. Metro Area
|
funmi wrote: RnR4eva wrote: funmi wrote:
even if that was the case i still dont see the big problem....people magazine still has a better reputation than the other ones and i feel they are at least one of the magazine that treat jennifer well.
When they want too.
tic tac wrote:
This is just sad!!!why would they do this? to hurt jen?? i maynot be a supporter of this relationship but this is just bad. it's like they get a kick out seeing jen being publicly hurt.
Since 2005. It sells.
but rnr i thought u loved people magazine , if i remember correctly four months ago u thought they were one of the best tabs out there and u usually raved about their so called 'jen and john headquaters' ; so why the sudden change on people magazine.
What? I don't know what you're trying to get at but that was a joke about their daily coverage back during the summer. I don't think I have ever said I love People Magazine in a serious manner. |
_________________
~*Kamia*~
"If you spend five minutes with Jennifer, you get that she's funny, beautiful, charming, sweet - all of those things."
"Change doesn't come from Washington, it comes to Washington"-Barack Obama |
|
| Back to top |
|
| sweetheartM |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Jen's Obsessed Friend
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 320
Location: florida
|
I think People Mag does play favorites. Many times you see 4 or 5 stories about someone, that comes from the same inverview , spead out to give them more coverage. They do this with their fav's.
As for their Jen coverage I think someone dropped the ball many times.
You will see pictures of her out shopping and there will be ten perfect shots and one or two bad ones and they will always pick the bad one. (or should I say not so good ones)
Once or twice a bad pic? Maybe but over and over again it really ticks me off.
Also their use of "sources" has in the past upset me. You might have said it was just a guess! |
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| aniStunning10 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
|
|
Jen's Loyal Friend
Joined: 16 Sep 2008
Posts: 107
Location: in the clouds
|
wwwed wrote:
See this is weird because when they did the forbes thing, (1) she is the most liked celebrity next to Heath Ledger, and you know, he died so, and also (2) people like to hear about her triumphs, the ones with Brad saying 'I want Jen back,' on the cover were the best sellers...
I think the public likes Jen, the tabloids just don't
I totally agree. Remember, she has messed up their stories several times in the past (during her divorce and around a couple of break-ups) and they are probably a little bitter. The good news is that I really don't think she pays attention to a word of it. Some stars say it, but I think she really means it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jenforever |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:24 pm |
|
|
|
Jen's Obsessed Friend
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 426
|
I don't think "most" here pick and choose when to like People and when not to. Everyone here has an opinion on that and there is no picking and choosing since their opinions from whatever lil I can gather have been pretty consistent even when it comes to People!
I personally think People is quite neutral but that doesn't just apply to Jen but to the way they cover things. That is one of the main reasons why it has the reputation it does along with the reliability factor. I can though also see where some are coming from when it comes to the "fav" subject but I don't get as to how that affects the other people they oover. I'm looking at it from a general perspective as of now and not from a fan's perspective so when I look it that way I don't really see much of a difference because the same coverage that they give to their "fav" is being given to them by other media sources too. Nothing new in there except that People has done certain things to earn those rights.
ETA: I just saw the video of that crazy woman outside John's house! Thats just beyond sick I must say. If she was planted by one of the pap agency then I don't even know what to say to that. I don't know how the guy was able to maintain his composure while she was talking. |
Last edited by jenforever on Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| MegFL |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:25 pm |
|
|
|
Jen's Oldest Fan
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 3044
Location: Florida
|
Quote: jenforever wrote:
the same coverage that they give to their "fav" is being given to them by other media sources too. Nothing new in there except that People has done certain things to earn those rights.
Not sure what you meant by this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| katac |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
|
|
Jen's Friend
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 67
|
MegFL wrote: Quote: jenforever wrote:
the same coverage that they give to their "fav" is being given to them by other media sources too. Nothing new in there except that People has done certain things to earn those rights.
Not sure what you meant by this.
Do we need to spell this out? In order to score the Jolie-Pitt's first baby pictures, they gave glowing pictorials and 'most beautiful list' very obviously omitting Jen. They courted them to get the most sought-after exclusives. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tic tac |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
|
|
Private Eye
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1710
|
Didn't people come up with "paul shopping with jen for baby clothes?",
also, it was appalling the way they covered jen's TBU JUNKET!!! for those who remember it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| wwwed |
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Jen's Obsessed Friend
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 320
Location: Seattle, WA
|
tic tac wrote: Didn't people come up with "paul shopping with jen for baby clothes?",
also, it was appalling the way they covered jen's TBU JUNKET!!! for those who remember it.
I don't remember it... Do telL! |
_________________
"I wish we could ad-lib 'f-ck' into our TV show. I love that word. Maybe only my character, Rachel, should be allowed to say it though. I wish we could be like Absolutely Fabulous and swear and talk about sex and drugs. That would be great!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| md123 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:14 am |
|
|
|
Jen's Friend
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 87
|
| there was a time when I thought People magazine was a quality magazine and had a variety of topics in it. now I just think it is a high class tabloid who salivates over their favs and it no longer such a high quality magazine for me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lithia fan |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:54 am |
|
|
|
Hey! Where's my individual title?
Joined: 17 Jun 2007
Posts: 722
|
Looks like Jennifer and John are just being private, and not going out together where they know the paparazzi will get a picture of them. Here is Extra tv saying they got together on Sat night:
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2008/10/jen_and_john_do_beverly_hills.php
"Extra" revealed that John Mayer and Jennifer Aniston hooked up for the "Body is a Wonderland" singer's birthday last week -- but was it a one-time rekindling?
That's a no! "Extra" has learned that the "Marley and Me" actress reportedly met up with Mayer on Saturday night at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
Will another love song from John be on the way? Stay tuned. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jenforever |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:20 am |
|
|
|
Jen's Obsessed Friend
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 426
|
katac wrote: MegFL wrote: Quote: jenforever wrote:
the same coverage that they give to their "fav" is being given to them by other media sources too. Nothing new in there except that People has done certain things to earn those rights.
Not sure what you meant by this.
Do we need to spell this out? In order to score the Jolie-Pitt's first baby pictures, they gave glowing pictorials and 'most beautiful list' very obviously omitting Jen. They courted them to get the most sought-after exclusives.
I was most certainly not refering to that. Infact it was never a thought that crossed my mind while stating my opinion. I was just refering to the amount they paid to get the rights to the pics and I remember reading somewhere the amount wasn't the only factor but things such as they should not be called by their combined names was one of the conditions too. Don't know if thats true or not. I don't have anything against People covering them the way they do. Put them on every cover for all I care..lol! Besides if there is something to be covered every other day and it gives them hits then it only makes sense that they would print those stories just like they print any other story.
Anyways , sorry for diversion. Its a territory I don't want to get into again so I'll just leave it at that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Images and Articles posted here and elsewhere are for comment purposes only and are used under the Title 17 Fair Use as provided by section 107. If you find your work here or elsewhere on this site and want it removed; Contact one of the Administrators or Moderators and we will remove it immediately.
