<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; Paying for Jamie Lynn Spears&#8217; Pregnancy May Be &#8216;OK!&#8217;, But Is It All Right With &#8216;US&#8217;?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/2008/01/paying-for-jamie-lynn-spears-pregnancy-may-be-ok-but-is-it-all-right-with-us/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 00:33:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>Paying for Jamie Lynn Spears&#8217; Pregnancy May Be &#8216;OK!&#8217;, But Is It All Right With &#8216;US&#8217;?</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2008/01/paying-for-jamie-lynn-spears-pregnancy-may-be-ok-but-is-it-all-right-with-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:56:32 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2008/01/paying-for-jamie-lynn-spears-pregnancy-may-be-ok-but-is-it-all-right-with-us/</link>
			<dc:creator>David Foxley</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2008/01/paying-for-jamie-lynn-spears-pregnancy-may-be-ok-but-is-it-all-right-with-us/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/010308_spears_web.jpg?w=300&h=147" />Did <em>OK!</em>, the celebrity gossip magazine,<em> </em>really pay $1 million for exclusive rights to the <strong>Jamie Lynn Spears</strong> pregnancy story? <em>US Weekly</em>, a competing whisper weekly, seems to think so, going so far as to print the claim on the cover of <em>US</em> last week.
<p class="MsoNormal">But, as an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/media/02ok.html?ex=1356930000&amp;en=446497f17814ecfe&amp;ei=5088&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss" target="_blank">article in today’s </a><em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/media/02ok.html?ex=1356930000&amp;en=446497f17814ecfe&amp;ei=5088&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss" target="_blank">Times</a> </em>points out, the prevalence of “checkbook journalism” is common among such publications. Paying celebs for exclusive photo and/or interview rights is hardly a novel notion. And such transactions are not always intended to remain so hush-hush, either. Remember when <strong>Brad Pitt </strong>and<strong> Angelina Jolie</strong> sold <em>People </em>the rights to take pictures of their daughter, <strong>Shiloh</strong>, for a rumored $4 million? Or just consider all of the recent, widespread rumors that <strong>Lindsay Lohan</strong> has <a href="/2007/expert-rules-paparazzi-engagement-how-survive-scientology" target="_blank">shopped her whereabouts</a> to the paparazzi in exchange for cash. After all, it seems only fair that stars who are constantly hounded by armies of aggressive photographers have an opportunity to grab a slice of what is really, at the end of the day, their own pie. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is new about <em>US</em>’ recent allegations, as the article points out, is the pregnancy issue. <em>OK!</em>’s American edition<em> </em>editor, <strong>Sarah Ivens</strong>, said that if paying for the pregnancy story did in fact occur, they would not have been the only potential buyers. “If there’s something out there, there will be a bidding war,” she said, adding: “We’re not bidding against ourselves.” Asked if her magazine did in fact pay Ms. Spears for the expecting exclusive, Ms. Ivens said: “I’m not very good at lying.”</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/010308_spears_web.jpg?w=300&h=147" />Did <em>OK!</em>, the celebrity gossip magazine,<em> </em>really pay $1 million for exclusive rights to the <strong>Jamie Lynn Spears</strong> pregnancy story? <em>US Weekly</em>, a competing whisper weekly, seems to think so, going so far as to print the claim on the cover of <em>US</em> last week.
<p class="MsoNormal">But, as an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/media/02ok.html?ex=1356930000&amp;en=446497f17814ecfe&amp;ei=5088&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss" target="_blank">article in today’s </a><em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/media/02ok.html?ex=1356930000&amp;en=446497f17814ecfe&amp;ei=5088&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss" target="_blank">Times</a> </em>points out, the prevalence of “checkbook journalism” is common among such publications. Paying celebs for exclusive photo and/or interview rights is hardly a novel notion. And such transactions are not always intended to remain so hush-hush, either. Remember when <strong>Brad Pitt </strong>and<strong> Angelina Jolie</strong> sold <em>People </em>the rights to take pictures of their daughter, <strong>Shiloh</strong>, for a rumored $4 million? Or just consider all of the recent, widespread rumors that <strong>Lindsay Lohan</strong> has <a href="/2007/expert-rules-paparazzi-engagement-how-survive-scientology" target="_blank">shopped her whereabouts</a> to the paparazzi in exchange for cash. After all, it seems only fair that stars who are constantly hounded by armies of aggressive photographers have an opportunity to grab a slice of what is really, at the end of the day, their own pie. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is new about <em>US</em>’ recent allegations, as the article points out, is the pregnancy issue. <em>OK!</em>’s American edition<em> </em>editor, <strong>Sarah Ivens</strong>, said that if paying for the pregnancy story did in fact occur, they would not have been the only potential buyers. “If there’s something out there, there will be a bidding war,” she said, adding: “We’re not bidding against ourselves.” Asked if her magazine did in fact pay Ms. Spears for the expecting exclusive, Ms. Ivens said: “I’m not very good at lying.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2008/01/paying-for-jamie-lynn-spears-pregnancy-may-be-ok-but-is-it-all-right-with-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/010308_spears_web.jpg?w=300&#38;h=147" medium="image" />
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
