Skip Nav
Leonardo DiCaprio
You'll Want to Jump Right Into Leonardo DiCaprio's Lap While He Lounges Poolside in Malibu
Margot Robbie
Margot Robbie Looks a Hell of a Lot Like Winifred Sanderson on the Set of Her New Movie
Lauren Conrad
Lauren Conrad and Lo Bosworth Have a Mini Hills Reunion at Friend's Wedding

Does Angelina Orchestrate Her Entire Image?

On Thursday, the New York Times ran a pretty unflattering piece about Angelina Jolie and her calculating way of leveraging coverage of herself.

The article asserts that she struck a deal with People: baby photos in exchange for a $14 million donation to the Jolie-Pitt foundation and a promise of favorable coverage of all of Angelina's charity work around the world. The article also says Angelina got away from unflattering coverage post Brad and Jen's split by taking a trip to Pakistan and making sure the media picked that up instead. It paints her as a conniving manipulator going so far as to set up photo ops playing with Maddox and tip off the paparazzi. There's a lot more in the article as well as denials from Angelina's people and People magazine. Check it out and let us know — do you think Angelina so carefully orchestrates her entire image?


Join The Conversation
Dottie35 Dottie35 8 years
Of course she did. It's quite amazing the kind of transformation that has taken place too. I mean, the public just ate it up and everyone forgot how vile and vulgar she actually is. I mean, the punk kid with tattoos is indeed who she is and that's probably the most honest she's ever been.
hiighfashion hiighfashion 8 years
i agree myperry!
kll421 kll421 8 years
freaking finally an agreement that she's not ms perfect as everyone seems to think that she is
lin-lin lin-lin 8 years
By being a celebrity she obviously plays the game like they all do. Her publicist will tip off the paps and she'll use the media for both her personal gain as well as promoting the need of aid for others. It's a win all situation. She'll have nannies to take care of her picture perfect looking kids, because nobody could take care of that many and do the amount of jetting around that she does whilst looking A list perfect. I don't think by any stretch that she's orchestrated her entire life because I can't believe anyone would go to such extreames as to adopt children and do so much charity work. She's changed and matured like most humans do and has obviously gained amazing media savviness along the way. How else would she have been able to build herself up to the pinacle of A list stardom.
dyanrush dyanrush 8 years
Oh I'm sure she did. But all the charity work will never cover up her skanch reputation. We all know what she's about and I've been waiting a long time to voice my opinion. She seems to think that adopting and having all these kids will cover up what she really is but we see right through her. And yes I think Home Wrecker decribes her well. Just look back through her history of men. Most of them were in relationships when she sank her claws into them. I think it's just a challenge for her. I cannot wait for the day that Jen can sit back and say Ha Ha Bitch, because Angelina's perfect little world has came crashing down around her.
Joanna Joanna 8 years
Wyclef Jean is being investigated according to a story I read so I am not sure that he is the best person to use as to how wonderful Angelina is. He owes back taxes, didn't pay the workers on his house and they are looking into where all the money from his charities went. It said they were tracing it. I am sure that the New York Times has valid imformation or they wouldn't risk running it in the News paper. Media attention is one thing for stars but telling everyone what to print is quite different. This isn't the first time we have heard that they have made pledges and then didn't pay them (at least not for a long time.) St. John's pledged $12 mill., they have collected approx. $20 mill. according to the magazines for pictures of their children, she has told us that she gives 1/3 of her income and yet in 2006 none of that was true. We haven't seen the tax returns for 2007 so we knows what it is going to say. A pledge looks and sounds good but you need to send the money.
jaan_black jaan_black 8 years
she's a poser
Cinquettacubina2 Cinquettacubina2 8 years
ning Since you find the NYT story so important, please read the PEOPLE magazine rebuttle unless of course you like a some others are determined to believe whatever is said simply because you hate her. If that's the case, of course don't waste your time.
Cinquettacubina2 Cinquettacubina2 8 years
Imabeliever of course the end was cut off! There's no controversy in the complete statement and so why bring attention to it. It's just like when Angie mentioned meeting with Jen, which of course isn't what she said, but it's been completely ignored that Angie didn't bring up Jen and never has let alone talk about her. She was asked a question, band answered she would meet with her IF that's something JA initiated. If people weren't so deadset on believing unsubstansiated stories, rumor and inuindo, they would find that 90% of what is sad and assumed has little to no truth, and/or has been presented with the sole purpose of selling mags. I repeat that Angie could care less about the negative opinion, but I do care just on principal.
ning ning 8 years
I am glad NY Times bothered to do the investigation and publish this article. While we often see celebrates look bothered in photos of them in bikinis, lying on the beach, reading a book, Angelina's manipulation goes far beyond that. This is affecting journalism integrity, specifically the deal with People. Those who like to manipulate other people in real life would probably love Angelina more after reading this article. They now have a role model to look up to. For the rest of us, shame on you People and Angelina.
Imabeliever Imabeliever 8 years
Actually they cut off the end of her quote..I just found the interview and her actual quote was: ‘They haven’t seen a lot of our films yet, because they are a little young, but I’m looking forward to them one day discovering Mr and Mrs Smith,’ she smiles. ‘They’re going to have a great laugh – to see when their parents actually met, and watch them fall in love and try to kill each other!' To me that sounds like she is talking about the characters in the movie..not an admission of OH we fell in love on set and won't it be great for the kids to see that. When you remove the and then try to kill each other it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Media manipulation at its sound byte finest!! Obviously if they had not done the movie together..they more than likely would not be together today. They met and realized the chemistry and the joint interests and became friends and it went from there according to all threes accounts. But no one has yet to admit an affair.
figurine figurine 8 years
Why is it that when the NY Times writes a positive story about AJ their credability is not questioned? -- Probably because the people who write positive stories tend to use proper, named sources; in this article we're left with "two people with knowledge," "two people involved," "nearly two dozen people who have worked directly with her over the years" and the former editor of Us Weekly and Star -- um, thanks? I'm not saying the NY Times didn't do their research, but honestly, why am I supposed to trust sources I have no way of looking up? Also, the thing about Angelina and Brad not liking to be called "Brangelina" seems to be taken out of thin air since Angelina recently said that she doesn't "have a thought either way" when asked directly what she thought about the name.
locusthill locusthill 8 years
Of course she orchestrates her image, as most celebrities do. I've never been an Angelina fan, but I don't think she's losing sleep over that. Does anyone else think that this picture looks strangly like Mortitia Adams?
locusthill locusthill 8 years
Most celebrities orchestrate their image. I've never been an Angelina fan, but I know she's not losing sleep over that. Orchestrate away, it's your life. Does anyone else feel that this picture looks strangly like Mortitia Adams?
356UIK 356UIK 8 years
Holy loaded question Batman!
llg1113 llg1113 8 years
Why is it that when the NY Times writes a positive story about AJ their credability is not questioned? I highly doubt that the Times is pinning its hopes of increasing traffic to their site by writing one or two not so negative articles about AJ.
martiandoll martiandoll 8 years
I have never found Angelina to be a wonderful actress. I just did not have interest in her or her movies at all. Although, I appreciate her efforts to help other people and think she's doing a great job being a UN ambassador. But I can't help myself and question why she gave an interview about falling in love with Brad on the set of Mr. & Mrs. Smith? I realize it's been a long time and it's the past...but, was it really necessary to blab about how you and your current beau fell in love while he was still married? Yes, Brad was at fault, but I think if Angelina didn't give him a reason to cheat, it wouldn't have happened. She just came across in ther interview as a homewrecker and a selfish person who doesn't consider other people's feelings as long as she gets what she wants. Does she manipulate the media? To an extent, I think she does. Michelle Pfeiffer has an adopted daughter, but I have never seen her out and about with her kids. It doesn't mean the media is not interested in Michelle, but I think Michelle doesn't want the intrusion that the media brings to her and her family's private life; while Angelina, Brad, and kids show up in New Orleans taking a walk, in France getting off a private jet, in Italy, etc. etc. The camera films the paparazzi use to take the Jolie-Pitt's pictures can be used to document just how others are living in famine, drought, and wars in other countries. Maybe that would get some attention.
marybethrizalucy marybethrizalucy 8 years
Does anyone have a link for the Jolie smoking heroin video where she is talking about it "being the good stuff" and how it was not cut and pure? I want to see it so bad. She probably went off a tangent about how she knew everything about the best drugs and how she was the smartest person alive and, etc. She does think very highly of herself IMO. I want the link though.
ilek ilek 8 years
Copyright AFP 2008 "NYTimes profits slide; S & P downgrades credit rating" The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered by online competition and falling print advertising revenue. The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from 13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a year ago. The company, which owns, The Boston Globe, International Herald Tribune and 16 other daily newspapers besides the flagship The New York Times, said overall advertising revenue fell by 14.4 percent during the quarter. Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times’s credit rating to “BB-,” or junk status, while Moody’s Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade. Moody’s changed the rating outlook for the company to negative from stable in July. A further downgrade would reduce it to junk status. Both companies said the moves were based on the uncertain outlook for newspaper advertising. Print advertising revenue has been declining at newspapers across the United States as circulation drops, more readers go online for their news and advertisers shift their dollars to the Internet. The New York Times’s share price rose slightly on Wall Street on Thursday, gaining 0.19 percent to close at 10.70 dollars, but was down 3.74 percent to 10.30 dollars in after-hours trading. The Times said print advertising revenue fell by 18.5 percent in the third quarter while online revenue from and other websites rose by 2.5 percent. “The decline in print advertising revenues this quarter accelerated as the economy slowed,” New York Times chief executive Janet Robinson said in a statement. While print advertising revenue fell, online advertising revenue grew by 10.2 percent in the quarter to 74.4 million dollars, The New York Times said, and now accounts for 12.4 percent of revenue, up from 10.6 percent in the third quarter of 2007. It said total revenue fell 8.9 percent in the quarter to 687 million dollars from 754.4 million in the same quarter last year. Circulation revenue rose by one percent due to an increase in home-delivery and newsstand prices for the paper. The company said it managed to reduce operating costs by 6.8 percent during the quarter and “given the adverse economic conditions, we will continue our strict cost discipline.” The New York Times also indicated in its statement that it may cut its dividend. “Our board of directors plans to review our dividend policy before the end of this year to determine what is most prudent in light of the overall market conditions,” said Robinson. It also said it was looking at writing down the value of assets in its New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe, by 100 million dollars to 150 million dollars.
ligaya ligaya 8 years
@llg113 If you look closer, the article source is "Washington Times/AP" meaning the original source is the Associated Press wire from which the WT (agree it's right-wing trash) got its story which it then printed.
ilek ilek 8 years
The bottom line is that NYT, respected pub or not, still put an Angelina Jolie article because it increases traffic - and they need that and will Need that even more especially if they continue in the path they're going, which is writing an article and using US Weekly Mag (who's editor has gone on record w/ the Washington Post about their weekly lying and making up crap stories about celebs because their readership is just not too bright) AS THEIR SOURCE.... them and the anonymous sources who we all know reside in their craptactic imagination.
amandahugginkiss amandahugginkiss 8 years
"@amandahugandkiss: Maybe you are a magazine editor and writer (hard to check that out), but the Grey Lady is tottering just like the rest of the Old Media. And it's not quite the Newspaper of Record anymore since it drank Bush's WMD KoolAde. Newspapers are in a death spiral - ergo, their tabloidization. As for the NYT: New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent..." as i said before, after someone else posted the 2Q profit drop story, that the new york times NEWSPAPER isn't doing as well as in the past because newspapers and magazines around the country are suffering. newspapers have been on a downward spiral for years and that's not going to stop. the new york times, la times and probably u.s.a today will survive; most of the rest will go the way of the dodo. and magazines have suffered as well. look at all the layoffs at time inc, conde nast, hearst, etc. since the election. a lot of my friends are currently out of work and they won't be the last. what i was saying is that the new york times WEBSITE, which is what someone was initially talking about, is still one of the most popular for news and that it doesn't need a story on angelina jolie to stay popular. yeah, you get more hits with a controversial story, but the site itself is not in trouble. that's what i was saying. and are you really saying that people have lost respect for the new york times because the paper said there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq? really? i don't see people scoffing at the news it contains. it's very highly respected. they triple check their facts and have a high ethical standard. now if we were talking about the new york post, that would be a different story...
llg1113 llg1113 8 years
I don't ever remember hearing about her tipping off the paparazzi when she visiting refugees before she was with Brad Pitt. I remember her talking about getting a Velcro room built in her house, I remember her speaking about having sex with Billy Bob before walking the red carpet but I don't remember her bringing in camera crews to spotlight her efforts with AIDS victims. That is why she appears disingenuous.
Cinquettacubina2 Cinquettacubina2 8 years
Catherine1, why should her motives matter to anyone? I don't get this "should I trust-should I not" drama. She's not running for office. Her actions have no direct bearing or shouldn't have that is on your life, my life or anyone elses. If this about Jennifer Aniston and it's always been. No one had the opinions of Angelina Jolie in the negative like they do until she and Brad become a couple and Jennifer was viewed as the victim. Angelina was doing humanitarian work before him and no accusations of manipulation was in the air. She becomes a family with him, and now people are allowing themselves to suddenly question her motives. She's on record stating clearly that she uses her celebrity to bring attention to those who might not get it any other way, so why are people clutching the pearls and swooning in need of vapors like she's jut sprung that method of getting us to look at refugees etc on us? It's so phoney to me the constant outcry. It's disengenious, and bull imo.
catherine1 catherine1 8 years
I think that the fact she is in the media all the time and the orchestration is very obvious, it creates a negative image that makes most people question her authenticity. (over exposure is not good for anyone) Is she being really real? I don't know if she is... and in that question, that makes me not feel completely open to trusting her motives... good or bad.
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie Divorce Details
Angelina Jolie Everlane T-Shirt With Suit
Angelina Jolie Favorite Fashion Brands
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie Quotes About Divorce
From Our Partners
Latest Celebrity & Entertainment
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds