According to this link ([www.msnbc.msn.com]), there is no interview with Dugard.
"Dugard was not interviewed by the magazine, although people close to her spoke at length about her rehabilitation and that of her two daughters, Angel, 15, and Starlit, 11. Dugard and her daughters are recovering from their long ordeal at an undisclosed location in northern California; Jaycee’s mother, Terry Probyn, is with them.
The 10-page article is accompanied by many pictures of Dugard and her mother. Dugard’s daughters are shown only from the back.
TODAY’s Matt Lauer asked People’s managing editor, Larry Hackett, if the magazine paid for the photographs, which were taken by a private photographer engaged by the family."
This is going to sound a bit dark, but I'm curious as to how her photo today would match up with an age progression photo put out by the police. I'm always curious as to how accurate those things are.
@hortense: I was actually watching that when I was watching yesterday's oprah, about missing children. They focused on quite a few stories, some of which the child was only 2 or less when taken, back in the 80's. I wonder if those ones are at all accurate, when there's such a huge gap (a 2 year old to a 23 year old for example).
I'm really interested in reading this interview. She looks happy and well-adjusted in the picture, and I've heard good things about her reintegrating with society and her family, but I can't imagine there aren't any deep-seated psychological issues there. With all the isolation and abuse she suffered over 18 years, how can there not be? Hopefully her family won't take her smiling and saying she's okay as proof that she really is and gets her good treatment.
@FormerEnglishMajor: yes. And I'm fascinated that some lawyers choose to be court-appointed defenders. When faced with building a not-guilty case for these criminals, I suppose acting ability (what if he really hadn't murdered those people? Let's pretend...) must come in handy.
@ardentlilac: From what I've heard, for a lot of public defenders it isn't so much their first choice for a lot, it's a matter of finding a job and trying to stay afloat above their steep law school debts.
And for others, they do it for altruistic reasons-- to give a voice to those who can't afford their own representation in the criminal justice system (many of whom *are* innocent). Perhaps a legal Jezzie can clarify-- I was under the impression that as a PD you can't pick and choose your cases, and you need valid legal grounds (beyond just finding your defendant creepy) to be recused from a case?
@formergr: It's mostly the second reason, I think. Anyone who takes a job as a PD expecting to make a dent in their law school debts is pretty sorely mistaken!
But as a public defender the amount of cases like Garrido's are a reeeally small percentage. The majority of cases aren't this notorious or out there.
@formergr: Yeah, PD's aren't that well-paid, although the nice trade-off with a government job is that you get more of a "regular" schedule than a corporate or private attorney.
When I was in law school (I have the degree but chose not to pursue a career in the field), I took a course taught by three appellate defenders. One said that he went into it because "9 out of 10 are guilty, but I do it for the one who isn't."
Sorry to be OT. Jaycee looks lovely and I hope she is recovering well.
@maybeimamazed02: @ardentlilac: I just feel for Jaycee having to deal with a trial. The guy is guilty. Cop your damn plea, you've done enough to her, and serve your time. He was sane enough to keep her hidden and tell her daughters that she was their sister - he knew what he was doing. Putting Jaycee on the witness stand is inhumane. I don't see why the PD's job is to get the defendant to say "not guilty" and go to trial, rather than - look man, no jury is going to have sympathy for you.
@Cher_Horowitz: I feel the same way, but then I consider the other options. If they chose not to do this, you just know somewhere like TMZ would be paying much more for a shot of her going into a courthouse. At least this way it's on her own terms. I'm glad she looks healthy.
@Adah: True, but I think this is one of those situations where there really should be no media circus until she's had some serious time to begin to address what she went through. But you're right - at least this seems to be on her own terms.
@Cher_Horowitz: Agreed. In a situation where she has been the victim, this is a way for her to re-assert some control over how her story is being told. Better to release an image of her smiling and radiant in a picture taken from the privacy of her own home than to have photographers scrambling to get the "first" picture, in which she's stressed/scared/vulnerable.
It's sad that she even has to deal with this after all she's been through, but it seems that she's getting some good PR advice so she can continue to privately seek the help and support she needs.
Dodai: InTouch, along with gossip websites, and the public are the ultimate winners. Mags and websites provide a service that people want. If folks weren't interested, we wouldn't have the mags or the Perez's.
Hell, even people who claim to be above the fray or "to have never watched an episode of (fill in the blank) show" feel the need to comment in Jezebel's mid-week round-up.
@That-Dude: It's totally not that simple and I hate that excuse that comes from tabloid-peddlers and paparazzi that they are just "giving the people what they want." Sure, they are fulfilling a voracious need for this gossip but I think the tabloids play a role in creating that very demand. It's a vicious cycle where both sides play their part in sustaining this culture of voyeurism and schadenfreude. The paparazzi seem to take an entirely amoral approach to the whole deal, asserting that they are just providing a neutral service, when in fact they could have the moral stones to not participate in such a damaging industry. But they want to get rich with the "money shot," so they participate in what amounts to legalized stalking. Celebrities themselves participate in cultivating demand through their publicists and carefully-orchestrated media appearances and information leaks. Tabloid editors create salacious stories that appeal to the lowest-common denominator. And the public eats it up, providing further incentive for the tabloid media to continue the vicious cycle. Meanwhile, real lives are ruined as a result.
@Cerridwen: Meanwhile, real lives are ruined as a result.
. . . please explain.
Sure the tabloids are complicit, but its their business model. If documentaries about classical artists in magazine form were huge sellers, they would move to that model, but its hard to knock them for doing what it takes to get by.
If everyone is somehow "in" on the cycle, as you make it seem, what's the issue?
@That-Dude: I don't think you can argue legitimately that real people are not impacted negatively by the intensity of current celebrity culture. Case in point: Britney Spears. A host of factors went into her breakdown but I think it's fairly obvious that her mental instability was voraciously exploited and consumed by both the tabloid media and the public. Are you really arguing that is a morally-neutral thing to do? I think the Gosselin family is another interesting example. Yes, they made a deal with the devil for fame but would they have made such a deal if that option wasn't available to them? Now their children have been publicly exploited because of the celebrity machine.
Just because it is their business model does not make it ok and morally benign. Is Nike blameless because it utilizes a business model that includes sweat labour just so it can make a fuckload of money off a public that is willing to buy luxury goods without questioning where they come from and the larger impact?
Even if everyone is "in" on it, I still believe it's contributing to a culture in which people seem willing to do anything, sacrifice anyone, or degrade themselves publicly to be famous. It encourgaes vapidity, solidifies negtive stereotypes, unfairly punishes women...need I go on?
The thing thats most disturbing is the AMOUNT of emotional investment (some) people have with (certain) celebrities. The level of love/hatered I read when it comes to Brangelina, and the sheer level of absolute HATE people have for the Gosselins. Kate in particular.
@SevenNationArmy hates summer: I don't particularly like Kate but I have found myself vociferously defending her as of late because (1) I don't think she's that bad relative to her lump of a husband and (2) it bothers me how much she is villified and (3) people just EFFING HATE her with a passion. It's like she personally did something to them. I don't get it.
The question is: how can we construct a story around a set of emotions that our readers are going to relate to? It can come from a genuine tip, or a photo. Or it can come out of our ass.
The more "Brad and Angie Split Up" covers I see, the more I am convinced that they are happily married and will stay happily married. And beautiful. And wealthy. We'll all just have to live with it.
(Also, I think that "bachelor" just means "not married," or in this day and age, "not romantically involved with anyone." So, I think it's ok to call young Chase a bachelor. Not that I'm a word nerd or anything).
I definitely earned a few smacks on the rear end as a child, so if the "hitting" was spanking, I'm not so disturbed. What I AM disturbed by is the extent to which these parents have whored out their children.
I am so glad that there are no pictures of my mom spanking me out in the public. I probably was spanked on an average of 2-3 times a week. Why would they even publish that?
@Scout 3.0: Astronomical. But Pattinson is already a big enough heartthrob that his publicists/handlers/whoever didn't NEED to push for him to be on the cover of People.
10/14/09
"Dugard was not interviewed by the magazine, although people close to her spoke at length about her rehabilitation and that of her two daughters, Angel, 15, and Starlit, 11. Dugard and her daughters are recovering from their long ordeal at an undisclosed location in northern California; Jaycee’s mother, Terry Probyn, is with them.
The 10-page article is accompanied by many pictures of Dugard and her mother. Dugard’s daughters are shown only from the back.
TODAY’s Matt Lauer asked People’s managing editor, Larry Hackett, if the magazine paid for the photographs, which were taken by a private photographer engaged by the family."
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
/shallow
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
And for others, they do it for altruistic reasons-- to give a voice to those who can't afford their own representation in the criminal justice system (many of whom *are* innocent). Perhaps a legal Jezzie can clarify-- I was under the impression that as a PD you can't pick and choose your cases, and you need valid legal grounds (beyond just finding your defendant creepy) to be recused from a case?
10/14/09
But as a public defender the amount of cases like Garrido's are a reeeally small percentage. The majority of cases aren't this notorious or out there.
10/14/09
When I was in law school (I have the degree but chose not to pursue a career in the field), I took a course taught by three appellate defenders. One said that he went into it because "9 out of 10 are guilty, but I do it for the one who isn't."
Sorry to be OT. Jaycee looks lovely and I hope she is recovering well.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
It's sad that she even has to deal with this after all she's been through, but it seems that she's getting some good PR advice so she can continue to privately seek the help and support she needs.
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
Hell, even people who claim to be above the fray or "to have never watched an episode of (fill in the blank) show" feel the need to comment in Jezebel's mid-week round-up.
06/25/09
06/25/09
. . . please explain.
Sure the tabloids are complicit, but its their business model. If documentaries about classical artists in magazine form were huge sellers, they would move to that model, but its hard to knock them for doing what it takes to get by.
If everyone is somehow "in" on the cycle, as you make it seem, what's the issue?
06/25/09
Just because it is their business model does not make it ok and morally benign. Is Nike blameless because it utilizes a business model that includes sweat labour just so it can make a fuckload of money off a public that is willing to buy luxury goods without questioning where they come from and the larger impact?
Even if everyone is "in" on it, I still believe it's contributing to a culture in which people seem willing to do anything, sacrifice anyone, or degrade themselves publicly to be famous. It encourgaes vapidity, solidifies negtive stereotypes, unfairly punishes women...need I go on?
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
Clearly, their readers can relate to shit.
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09