Katie Holmes Slaps Star Magazine Around, Accomplishes Nothing

April 27, 2011

Katie Holmes earned a rare apology from Star Magazine for a cover the outlet ran in January titled ‘Katie Drug Shocker’ — but will the slap on the wrist change the way they do business?

Katie Holmes

I sure hope not. Nothing helps me get through those few awkward minutes waiting in line at the grocery store like reading wildly exaggerated celebrity news headlines. Plus, it helps draw my attention away from the fattening candy. Thanks Katie.

No seriously, Katie Holmes was not too thrilled about her treatment in the January 2011 Star Magazine cover. The cover pic made her look like she was disheveled and maybe even burned out.

Fast-forward a few months and the mag was slapped with a $50 million lawsuit, which claimed the story was ‘unethical and unlawful.’ Fast-forward yet another month to the present day, and they apparently reached a non-cash settlement in the form of a formal apology.

The problem for me is that the only people who would see the apology are the same drooling news hounds that could care less about journalistic integrity. If the premise of forcing an apology is that they somehow come clean on the original claim then fine, but it seems like a lame outcome overall.

Doesn’t this set the precedent that tabloids can print whatever they want then simply apologize to get away with it? What is this kindergarten?

Oh, sure, it makes it so much better that they made a substantial donation to her charity. Right.

At some point celebs need to grasp the fact that we don’t take those magazines seriously. It would be one thing if Time Magazine printed something like that (which they wouldn’t). In that case, sure, it could do some damage. But Star? Come on Katie.

What do you think about the melee? Feel free to leave us a comment below.

Photos: www.wenn.com

« Previous Next »

13 Responses to “Katie Holmes Slaps Star Magazine Around, Accomplishes Nothing”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    Stacy Says:

    Yea we all love the drama, but I’m glad she got her name cleared.

  2. 2
    MeMeMe Says:

    Katie Holmes A-lister?!? Dream on.

  3. 3
    Miriam Says:

    I am glad too Stacy!

  4. 4
    j mc Says:

    saying she could care less should be she could not care less

  5. 5
    Jimmy Torellini Says:

    I thought this article was written by a chick.

  6. 6
    Smok&Mrrors Says:

    Well, perhaps Katie was disheveled and burned out. Aren’t we all at one time and another.That doesn’t mean we are on drugs.It means we have multiple responsibilities overwhelming us. One of those is the child seemingly unable to ambulate. Another would be the strange and demanding commands of a cult. Yes. That’s right. A cult. Look that one up. The definition is a legal one; not an accusation of fantasy. How does one keep up? By going home, shutting the doors, and contemplating exactly where we are in this life. Spank the monkey. Take a tour of reality, Katie.

  7. 7
    Jeanette Says:

    Will this prevent the tab from printing other untruths? Probably not…

  8. 8
    Gary Abel Says:

    So what is the pronlem, Katie gets her name piblished again, the Star has more drivel to write, both get their name mentioned one more time. It is a win win situation for all.

  9. 9
    Obvious Says:

    Well Scientologists are well-known for suing those who say unflattering things about them, and this is no different. Scientologists have expensive, high-powered and aggressive legal teams. I would guess the wife of Tom Cruise is no exception. That aside, if the crap they printed about Katie is untrue, then they do owe her an apology. It’s a shame that ultra-pricey lawyers are required to clear your name when lies are printed about you.

  10. 10
    Ashley Says:

    how is the cover pic different from any other time we see pics of her? she’s always lookin like crap!

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All