I think you're quite wrong on this, about the financial stake part, at least.
Gossip rags' fortunes thrive when there are big stars in the media. No Brangelina, Lindsay Lohan, Suri Cruz, Lady Gaga, etc., means overall less interest in gossip/celebrity news, thus fewer pageviews. So, there's an implicit interest to drum up fervor/attention, including coining attractive-easy branding phrases like, "Brangelina."
Celebrity agents work in tandem with publications all the time, offering them "scoops", such as, "Lindsay is going to be eating at [swank restaurant] at 7PM with her new respectable BF" in exchange for favorable coverage that makes their client look good.
> "People reportedly paid $4.1 million for newborn photos of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, the child of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.[2] The photos set a single-day traffic record for their website, attracting 26.5 million page views.
There's still a difference between being in a symbiotic relationship with the subjects you cover and the rags that cover you and having a direct financial interest in the subjects (or companies) you cover.
The latter being arguably the biggest journalistic sin.
It would only really be the same thing if (say) Gala has a 10% stake in "The Brangelina Project" or an option on the gross receipts of their next movie.
I'm not claiming that those rags are lillywhite. For example: I know for a fact that reviews are sold for cash.
However, in my opinion that's not the same level of corruption then a "journalist" covering a company in which he has equity.
Well, if the movie industry is advertising in said rag, doesn't that translate into a financial stake? It may not be direct investment, but talking (even negatively) about celebrities is still buzz that draws audiences to the movies those celebrities are going to be in.
Comments
I think you're quite wrong on this, about the financial stake part, at least.
Gossip rags' fortunes thrive when there are big stars in the media. No Brangelina, Lindsay Lohan, Suri Cruz, Lady Gaga, etc., means overall less interest in gossip/celebrity news, thus fewer pageviews. So, there's an implicit interest to drum up fervor/attention, including coining attractive-easy branding phrases like, "Brangelina."
Celebrity agents work in tandem with publications all the time, offering them "scoops", such as, "Lindsay is going to be eating at [swank restaurant] at 7PM with her new respectable BF" in exchange for favorable coverage that makes their client look good.
And then of course, there are the many instances in which a publication will outright pay millions of dollars for exclusive rights to photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_(magazine)#Competition_f...
> "People reportedly paid $4.1 million for newborn photos of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, the child of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.[2] The photos set a single-day traffic record for their website, attracting 26.5 million page views.
There's still a difference between being in a symbiotic relationship with the subjects you cover and the rags that cover you and having a direct financial interest in the subjects (or companies) you cover.
The latter being arguably the biggest journalistic sin.
It would only really be the same thing if (say) Gala has a 10% stake in "The Brangelina Project" or an option on the gross receipts of their next movie.
I'm not claiming that those rags are lillywhite. For example: I know for a fact that reviews are sold for cash.
However, in my opinion that's not the same level of corruption then a "journalist" covering a company in which he has equity.
Well, if the movie industry is advertising in said rag, doesn't that translate into a financial stake? It may not be direct investment, but talking (even negatively) about celebrities is still buzz that draws audiences to the movies those celebrities are going to be in.