Annoying label bookkeeping #14

This is a link to the story above, made necessary by too many labels.

Annoying label bookkeeping #14

This is a link to the story above, made necessary by too many labels.

Annoying label bookkeeping #14

This is a link to the story above, made necessary by too many labels.

Non scoop of the week! Katie Holmes is pregnant with her second child.

Publication: OK!
Date: 23 May 2011

Fresh trash on Thursdays! OK!, easily the nicest but hardly the most reliable of the gossip rags, goes big with the story that Katie Holmes is pregnant. Here are the headlines.

• Katie: It's official!
• "Yes, I'm pregnant!"
• A telltale bump, prenatal vitamins - now she tells friends:
• Suri will finally be a big sister

Representatives for Ms. Holmes have already denied the story. This is the fifth story of her being pregnant in the last year and a half.

Note that Star magazine lied about Katie Holmes, she sued them and they settled out of court for a loss, having to apologize and pay. The important difference between that lie and this lie is that Star implied Katie was a drug addict, and drug addicts find it hard to get work. OK! is lying about a pregnancy, and having kids is not a barrier to employment, so I don't expect the lawyers to give OK! a call, even though they got this one wrong.

Pre-emptive scoop of the week! Star apologizes to Katie Holmes!

Publication: Star magazine
Date: 9 May 2011

Fresh trash on Wednesdays?!? I don't do this very often, especially when I haven't seen any other covers, but the fact that Star is apologizing to Katie Holmes and giving some undisclosed amount of money to her favorite charity is a big damn deal.

The cover story in question is from January of this year. In point of fact, these magazines lie a lot, but when you say a movie star is a drug addict, it can be shown to inflict financial harm, so Katie called the lawyers. A story that says she's pregnant, a lie that has been told about her several times in the past year and a half, is just as untrue but not equally damaging.

I hope more celebrities get their lawyers after these grease weasels.

Meanest Story nominee: Suri's twisted world.

Publication: Weekly Life & Style
Date: 4 April 2011

The typical Suri Cruise story in the supermarket rags tells us she is a handful, but this one lays some of the blame on the adults in her life. Here are the sub-headlines.

• plays with x-rated candy
  
• dragged out of bed by Katie for 1 a.m. dinner
  
• still using a pacifier at age 4
  
• What Katie's parents are doing to save Suri
  

You will note that the sperm donor is left completely out of the equation.

This gets a nomination for Meanest Story of the Week.

Breaking news: Katie Holmes suing AMI, owners of Star magazine.

Publication: TheWrap.com
Date: 1 March 2011

I have wondered what it might take for a celebrity to sue a supermarket rag these days, and now the answer has come. Back in January, the Star had a headline claiming "Katie Holmes drug shocker!" (Side note: I gave it a nomination for Meanest Story of the Week, but it didn't win. Teabaggers showed up and voted for a story about Todd Palin visiting whores. So far, Todd isn't suing, but this might give him ideas.) As usual, this blog just reported on the headline and did not read the story inside, a story which backs off the claims in the headlines almost entirely. No matter, says Ms. Holmes' lawyer, the headline itself is libelous, and is suing AMI, the parent company of the Star, National Enquirer, Sun, Globe and the low rent Examiner, for $50 million in U.S. Federal court.

I have just four words to add to this story.

Good on ya, Katie!

And the camera noses in to the tears on her face:Humilated Katie Holmes fights back.

Publication: OK!
Date: 14 February 2011

Katie Holmes has hit some bad luck in her career recently. She played Jackie Kennedy in a mini-series that the Kennedy clan effectively squelched from being seen and some indie film she was in being previewed at Sundance got trashed by the critics.

OK! tells us she's fighting back, though exactly how is not made clear.