I mean, sure, you're right. But isn't criticism of celebrity journalism kind of like criticism of a Wayans Brothers movie? As in...why bother? It is what it is, and everybody knows it. Nobody called people who trashed "Little Man" brilliant...and I find this article to be just as obvious.

There's no insight here...just bitching about celebrity journalism, and celebrity culture. Let's move on.

I agree; a waste of analytical effort. I also have to admit to some sympathy for the interviewees: If my livelihood largely demanded on my image, I'd damn well do everything in my power to control that image. Especially since the moment I step over my threshold I'm considered fair game by anyone with a cell phone. God forbid I should grunt; it's going to be on Gawker in five minutes.

Furthermore, so many journalists in recent years have proved so obnoxious I'm not surprised that nobody wants to talk to them unless absolutely necessary. They're jerks -- snide, arrogant, obnoxious jerks. I can't tell you how many times I've read a piece, and thought, about the writer, "And who the hell are you? You've done exactly -- what?"

This is why you see articles in which the interviewee limited his or her responses by email, or where the interview took place in a restaurant, not in the person's house -- the celebs don't want journos crawling all over their living quarters and practicing armchair psychology based on their home decorations.

When you put this together with the dereliction of duty in covering stories like Iraq, it's hard to get worked up.

If reporters really want to demystify the celeb machine, they should stop covering it. Despite what they might suggest, no one is putting a gun to their to head to cover Paris.

No! Let's not move on! You talk as though everyone is in agreement that this sort of thing is ludicrous. And that just isn't the case. We have a culture gone mad in it's worship of celebrities-- and I don't mean that word as metaphor or hyperbole. I mean literal worship as a higher being. Turn on the E! channel. Turn on the VH1. Read US magazine. Maybe the more educated among us are aware that this sort of celebrity is ludicrous. But the vast majority of the people of this country are not. And they're pushing us farther and farther along.

Somehow, I don't think that a lot of Slate readers need the lecture. Certainly, the approach didn't have to be quite so ponderous. BTW, I really like Ron Rosenbaum when he takes on subjects that deserve the treatment.

He didn't even mention that "the best woman in the world" is living with another woman's husband.

I see your point, kth, but if we don't poke a little fun at the complete insanity of celebrity culture, we will surely all go stark, raving mad.

Because although we all know this is ludicrous, it just keeps getting worse and worse.

Kth:

I see your point, but I think the fundamental difference between a Waynas Bros. movie and Angelina Jolie is that Jolie matters more to American culture. I think Rosenbaum's article is critical because it elucidates a grand illusion: the fact that Jolie actually does matter to popuar America. Rosenbausm addresses that self-aware paradox of imitative form. Christopher Hitchens speaks of the same idea in his Paris Hilton sympthy article: by writing about wrothless celebrities you either have to give them a greater value (like Junod in Esquire) or you have to pretend they don't matter at all, which begs the obvious question, "Why then are you writing about them?" See, celeberties do matter in this country. They might not matter to some of these journalists, but in order for the journalists to stay culturally relevant, they have to discuss what matters to the culture, even if they refute its popularity.

Well argued. I think Junod's Esquire article was actually structured around the same point - I wrote a top-post about it, but I'll summarize.

His article basically made the argument that Jolie is 'great' because she is visible, because people pay attention to her. He wasn't saying this as fact, but as an effect of our society. If we were to tally all the greatest women of the world, she'd show up pretty high on that list - not because she is the greatest, or because her works are more admirable, but because we, the American public, know who she is.

Many good and well-argued points here. But what do we do about stories like this that appear not in glossy magazines like Esquire (which to its credit has a venerable literary history, though that now has probably been for the most part betrayed) but in publications that are still considered, for better or worse, standards of high, or at least medium-high, culture? What do we do with John Lahr's profile of Helen Mirren, or any of Ken Auletta's CEO porn?

Hmm. Not sure to whom you are referring, since if it's Brad Pitt he isn't married (once you're divorced you are no longer "another woman's husband"). And if you mean before the divorce, that was between him and his former wife - put the blame where it is due, on the person who broke a vow.

First, that's a really priceless comparison you have drawn between criticism of celeb journalism and criticism of a Wayans Brothers movie. However, I disagree that there is no insight in the article. My understanding of the article was that the author went beyond "just bitching about celebrity" by suggesting real, substantive content/subject-based alternatives that would have served, at least in the author's estimation, to increase the value of the article and actually would have imparted something other than the standard schlock to its readers. The author correctly identifies several missed opportunities to discuss something other than the saintliness and long-suffering pseudo-philosphical raiments of A. Jolie like, for instance, say... "the meaning of Pearl's death." I find that to be an important insight which, given the current field of sub-prime writing inundating the magazines which the article specified, would be a welcome break from the zero-thought value of common celeb profile writing. What is more, in my opinion is that the maniacal fascination with celebrity in this country deserves more critical eyes and I welcome it.

"I think Rosenbaum's article is critical because it elucidates a grand illusion: the fact that Jolie actually does matter to popuar [sic] America."

I don't know about other people, but it's painfully obvious to me that Angeline Jolie matters to many Americans; so does Paris Hilton, so does Britney Spears; so did Princess Diana, for whom people wept as if she were a close relative.

Although personally I appreciate the effort, intelligent, high-minded rants like Ron Rosenbaum's never seem to make any difference; the line keeps getting pushed ever further. Although the Web offers many pleasures, the reduction of everyone to an image is not one of its better points. It only exacerbates the problems of a lookist, superficial culture. Celebrities are at the top of the pyramid. People who rail against silly celebrity profiles had better be able to demonstrate, meaningfully demonstrate, that being young, hot and rich don't matter. (Good luck with that. And after that, please turn to world poverty, racism and sexism.)

I'm afraid that some religious fundamental group is going to be the force that finally pushes back, à la Hollywood after the Code (Why are sensitive, intelligent liberals always so ineffective?).