Us Weekly and People magazines have gone for opposite stances regarding Paris Hilton this week.

People have an exclusive post-jail interview with Paris - presumably actually carried out when she was still in jail given the printing timing - while Us Weekly have pledged a “100% Paris Free!” issue. The latter was probably sparked by the former: People got the exclusive so Us Weekly won’t have anything fresh to sell and any coverage will be second-hand (from family members or friends). While “a close source” is usually enough of a basis for a cover story in this sphere, there is no comparison between “from the horse’s mouth” and “from a close source” - the close source story is bound to look inferior.

So I can see why they’ve done it but there’s something about the “100% Paris Free!” tag which smacks of “well, I didn’t want to go to the stinking party anyway - I’ve got laundry to do, so THERE”.

It’s like when the Associated Press refused to cover anything about the Hilt’ for a week earlier in the year - short term or one-off “boycotts” mean nothing if you pick back up with the coverage as soon as it’s in your interest to do so (for the AP, they didn’t cover Paris’ comings and goings’ for a week but when she was arrested for driving on her suspended license, they ended the embargo). Either have a spine and stick to your convictions or don’t make such a big deal about them in the first place.

Perhaps Us Weekly will surprise us though and stick by their ban. We’ll have to see I guess.

(Obviously at Fametastic we also make editorial choices regarding what we do and don’t cover but mostly it’s on a case by case basis rather than “no $celebrity-name for us this week” blanket ban - for example this Paris case, this Lindsay one and this Angelina one. Now we’ve got this blog, we hope to keep explaining our decisions rather than just sensationalising our whims.)