<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, star magazine]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, star magazine]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/starmagazine http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/starmagazine <![CDATA[Fat or Thin, Mary-Kate Just Can't Win]]> Remember the prolonged outrage-masked-as-concern over Mary-Kate Olsen's shrinking body? Well, it's back, but this time its directed toward her fleshy frame. What's the poor thing gotta do to keep the tabloids off her back?

Australian tab New Weekly has a cover with the star looking like she's put on a few pounds. Given all that talk of anorexia a few years ago, you'd think that would be good, right? Wrong! The caption looks forward to the day she gets "healthy." Just last Wednesday Star also did the "Mary-Kate is fat" story, calling her weight gain shocking and saying "bye-bye billion dollar looks, hello bloat."

Star has a long history of railing on Mary-Kate's weight. It started in 2004, when they ran a cover saying she was too thin because of drugs.

They finally believed the actress' claims of anorexia in 2007 (see cover above), but did so by chastising her "stick thin legs" and wondering what is the best way to get her back to health.

Then, in 2008, they did an about face, saying she's headed back to rehab because of drinking and drugs.



There are really only six stories in a gossip glossy: diet (either too skinny or too fat), drugs, boyfriends, weddings, pregnancy and deaths. So just wait, they're soon going to say that the "bloat" is from drugs or bulimia or pregnancy or (gasp) all three! Maybe if everyone wasn't so obsessed with what she's eating, her weight would even itself out naturally. Why not go after Jonah Hill. He's overweight and probably much more in danger of a heart attack than Mary-Kate is in danger of anything other than wearing a bad outfit.

]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5350436&view=rss&microfeed=true <![CDATA[Is Lindsay Lohan Back On The Drugs?]]> Poor Lindsay. She finally just admitted to her relationship with Samantha Ronson, she has a meaty cameo in the in the season premiere of Ugly Betty tonight, and she even reportedly booked a gig as the guest judge for the premiere of Project Runway when it moves to Lifetime. Things were going so well. Not Mean Girls well, or even I Know Who Killed Me well, but about as good as they’ve been for her in months. And then along comes Star Magazine to burst her happy little bubble. That’s right, the tabloid is reporting that Lindsay is “on the fast track to another drug and alcohol-driven breakdown.”

Though she’s only been out of rehab for a year, insiders are claiming that “Lindsay's been drinking, doing cocaine and causing all-around mayhem for the past few months…. She quit going to Alcoholics Anonymous and has absolutely never taken recovery seriously. She's gotten progressively worse, and everyone in her life is really scared." Even worse, she showed up at the VMA’s with red scratches all over her arm, leading people to fear she’s started cutting herself again. If you’ll recall, the last time she did that was back in 2006 when she claimed she’d hit “rock bottom.”

Of course, Lindsay’s MySpace blog tells a different story. In an entry dated September 19th, the starlet writes (without using capital letters, just like e.e. cummings):

“my publicist emailed me today saying that star magazine is going to publish another ridiculous story about me- then again it’s not like their track record is up there with the new york times. if anything they printed was true, i’d be married, pregnant with mark ronson’s child and hanging with my sister and her ‘fake’ boobs all this while being dead due to an overdose… wow! according to them i am one busy girl, even more so i am one busy dead girl!!!!"

Hmm. So who are we to believe here, Lindsay herself or a tabloid magazine? At this point, it’s hard to say. Whatever the case, I’m just glad Lindsay has such a supportive family environment to fall back on in times of trouble. Oh wait…

[Photo Credit: Getty Images]

]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5054808&view=rss&microfeed=true <![CDATA['Star Magazine' Readers in Revolt After Mario Lopez 'Chesthairgate' Scandal]]>
In the annals of celebrity scandal, the question of whether a Saved By the Bell co-star fibbed about his chest hair would surely rank below most — but not to the aggrieved, vigilant readers of Star magazine. After Mario Lopez gave an interview with People where he testified — under oath, no doubt — that he has never had to manscape, Star dug out old photos of the Dancing with the Stars alum that tell a different tale. What started as an eagle-eyed catch by connoisseurs of celebrity skin quickly became full-on outrage as fans of Lopez flocked to the forum to castigate their former idol. Said Star:

Apparently honesty isn't always the best policy for Mario Lopez.

Last week, Star told you that Mario was double-timing his recent ex, Karina Smirnoff, with a Hooters waitress. Now, we've caught him telling another fib.

Recently named to a magazine's hot bachelor list, Mario was asked during the accompanying interview if he "manscapes," which means removing excess body hair via waxing, shaving, laser or plucking. He responded, "Not at all. That's the Latin Indian blood in me. My Dad has a hairy chest, but I don't."

So how come he has a hairy chest in this 2003 photo... and a bare one in a more recent one?

J'accuse! Reader "blah" recoiled in shock, spitting, "What a liar! You can see the stubble on his ta'ta's... He is a complete loser!!" But perhaps no one was more hurt than "chris," who said, "I think Mario is pretty dishonest. He talks about how religious he is, and has such a strong faith. Excuse me...since when is not being honest ok?"

Indeed, Chris! Did Moses (or whoever) die for our sins so that Mario Lopez could lie to Hollywood publications about his smooth chest? Who among us will stand idly by while the pecs of Hollywood's so-called "Christians" go unchecked? Kudos, Star magazine: only one tabloid had the guts to adhere to that most forgotten of commandments (Commandment 9c): "thou shalt not worship false razors."

[Photo Credit: Star Magazine]

]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5019922&view=rss&microfeed=true <![CDATA[Pardon Us For Not Getting Too Worked Up About Latest Unbelievable Britney Headline]]> One would think that, by now, there would be no more room on the OMG BRITNEY DID ANOTHER CRAZY THING belt. However, this week's Star cover story proves that there is still plenty of space on said belt for another notch or thirty. The rag claims that Britney is pregnant once again with none other than paparazzo-turned-paramour Adnan Ghalib's baby. Yawn! Their evidence? A few pictures of Britney's bloated belly and a sketchy (at best) quote from a member of Ghalib's press-hungry posse who exults that Adnan will "be made for life" if the story proves to be true. Don't hold your breath, homes; we've been down this path a handful of times over the last two months.

For one thing, Britney sporting a minor bloat anywhere near her uterus is neither a confirmation of pregnancy nor what anyone with a sane mind would consider to be "news." Rather, that's just how her body looks these days (besides, after having two children and losing a very public battle with Cheeto addiction, who can blame her?). Additionally, just about everything coming out of her camp of late seems to have very little to do with anything resembling the truth. That rubbish about her getting married to Adnan in a secret ceremony in Mexico? No dice. Brit sending her driver to buy meth in a dark alley? No evidence. So congratulations, Star! You've got yourselves an explosive cover story with the believability quotient of the late, great Weekly World News' Batboy coverage. Best of luck to you with your upcoming "Britney Impregnated At Area 51" exclusive!

]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=361380&view=rss&microfeed=true <![CDATA[Have You No Decency? A Britney Chronicler Responds]]> In the Los Angeles Times, Asra Nomani, a former contributor to People, calls on Time Warner and other media conglomerates to leave Britney alone. Portfolio's Jeff Bercovici compares Nomani's call to the moment when Joseph McCarthy was famously asked: "Have you no sense of decency?" (Who knew dirt-digger Bercovici could raise himself up to such moral height?) The celebrity weeklies are sufficiently on the defensive that they maintain an official silence; but, under the protection of anonymity, one senior editor hits back at the critics. When one of the biggest pop stars in music history — one who no less has had a long and open relationship with the press — loses her children, ties up our court system, and is diagnosed with a major mental illness that also afflicts many other Americans, that is a news story. Are the actions of the mentally ill man who recently murdered the Upper East Side psychiatrist, or the NIU killer, any more or less worthy of exploration and explanation? And is it exploitative of the New York Times to run a series on military personnel who kill and beat and stalk their wives and children when they return home from serving in Iraq? These are people after all who actually did reside in privacy prior to their newsmaking bouts of mental illness. To somehow say that Britney Spears, or any celebrity, who have flown like moths to the flame of fame, deserve more privacy or consideration than private citizens is actually journalistically bankrupt, and a rather pathetic attempt at "morality" cloaked behind celebrity worship. Any person or outlet in the mainstream media who actually attempts to put forth this "morality" argument is a. either ignoring other news and events that have likely gone neglected as his or her own outlet chases Britney Spears (i.e., the Los Angeles Times), or b. desperate to find a new way to draw attention to a topic they know their readers continue to be interested in. Yes, these stories need to be handled sensitively, but to say they are not newsworthy... well, you might as well stop being a journalist, and go bag groceries. ]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5003180&view=rss&microfeed=true <![CDATA[Is 'Star' Mag Going To Call B.S. On Owen Wilson's Wrist-Slitting?]]> Star reporter Ilyssa Panitz is in search of experts to look at a couple of photos—photos of someone admitted to a hospital after "reportedly attempting to slit his wrists in a suicide try. The two photos, taken just eight days afterwards, appear to show no scars, scabs or bandages whatsoever."

Her full query to ProfNet:

I am looking for a psychiatrist who specializes in suicide and a surgeon who has treated patients who attempted to commit suicide. I need them to first look at two photos. Background: This particular individual was admitted to a hospital after reportedly attempting to slit his wrists in a suicide try. The two photos, taken just eight days afterwards, appear to show no scars, scabs or bandages whatsoever. My question is, is it possible, based on these new pictures, there could be any way this person had tried to slash his wrists eight days before? Even if he only scratched at them deeply, would there be at least some scabs or bandages? Contact: Ilyssa Panitz, [REDACTED]
]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=297228&view=rss&microfeed=true