People Mag’s Dirty Little Secret:The Kristen Stewart Apology Lie

After reading Twilighter’s excellent post from earlier today, Examining the Case for a Kristen and Rob Breakup, I realized I had a screen captcha of People magazine “reporter” Dahvi Shira’s tweet admitting Kristen’s “apology” from last July came from a “source”, and not from Kristen herself. Thank you once again to Cold Minds for this – here’s the link for a better view:
As always, peace. Misty
OneTwoThree
Advertisements

40 Responses

  1. Great addition to Twilighter’s latest post! Both of you are doing a great job! If nothing else, this seals the deal on last July’s scandal! 🙂

  2. No words poor kristen they should hang heads in sham.

  3. Forgot to mention that I DID research Dahvi Shira when I saw this tweet, and she DOES work for People magazine, and worked for them back in July 2012 when the tabloid printed these lies. Since her name is the byline of the article in Twilighted57’s article, that corroborates the research. Corroborating is something tabloids don’t do – double-checking to make sure their “sources” statements are true. Some people are under the false impression that People magazine is reliable, that all their articles are true. While some of their articles ARE true, because some entertainer’s publicists use them for publicity, that magazine is a tabloid, just as capable of lying as HollyLies or Star. Anytime they use an unnamed “source”, with unverified statements, the vast majority of the time, that statement is untrue.

  4. My God,with this Tweeter it is even scarier.All these insults for Kristen…Even this can be punished?

  5. Does anyone know how to read. Of course when People Magazine says “sources” it’s always a rep or someone who is allowed to talk on behalf of the actor/actress. That’s why the reporter was like Kristen “didn’t admit to us directly she cheated but someone close to her did”. Then a day later after that Kristen gave an ‘exclusive’ statement.

    • I know how to read very, very well. But thank you for asking. People Magazine is a tabloid. I won’t bore you with the facts of tabloid journalism – since you know how to read so well, I’m sure you know how to look it up – may I suggest Wikipedia? When a TABLOID, including People Magazine, says “sources” it is most definitely NOT always a rep or someone allowed to talk on behalf of the actor/actress. In fact, an unnamed “source” is the exact opposite of what you described. An unnamed “source” can be anyone – someone on twitter that mentioned the actor/actress, the second cousin of the boyfriend of their housecleaner, the chauffeur’s ex-wife’s new stepchild. I’m sure you can understand where this is going. A tabloid DOES NOT HAVE TO VERIFY THE TRUTHFULNESS of the statement made by the unnamed “source”, as the actor/actress is a public figure, which takes us into an entirely different area of civil law. Often, the tabloid will use the blanket of “Freedom of the Press” to not name their “sources”. You are sadly misinformed about this topic, as are many people in the US. Why don’t study tabloid journalism a bit, and then come back and we’ll discuss this further. I do have a link for you that may help – it’s an excellent article on tabloids, and how they work. http://www.howstuffworks.com/tabloid.htm

      • I can understand in a way why Kristen wouldn’t want to feed the tabloids more than necessary, keeping silent would annoy them etc..but then you have Rupert who apologized publicly to his wife. Was that part of the game too? They are separated now aren’t they? From the very start I felt the scenario very strange, didn’t know why. The whole thing still doesn’t make sense. No matter what the whole scenario for whatever reason was ridiculous, I can understand why people find it hard to come to terms with it but Maybe time to let it go.

    • As Misty notes below, you are seriously misinformed if you think just because People cites sources that that means a rep is talking to them on behalf of the involved actor. That is utter nonsense. And as for the “exclusive” statement, that is People’s editorial claim and is not even in the purported statement.

      Quoting People’s 1:05 PM July 25 release they claimed was exclusive by putting that caption above the article:

      Kristen Stewart is issuing a public apology for hurting her boyfriend of three years, Robert Pattinson, by having a fling with her Snow White and the Huntsman director, Rupert Sanders.

      “I’m deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I’ve caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I’m so sorry,” Stewart said in a statement Wednesday. ”

      There is nothing in her alleged quoted statement referring to it being “exclusive” to People or being “official”.

      Yet people in the blogshere like you run around and throw out comments like “: Kristen admitted it in an official statement. Or Kristen spoke exclusively to People and released an official statement.” Blah, blah , blah.

      That is simply not the case and you are being sloppy with words as well as being irresponsible and misleading. Which is why there is so much bs circulating over this story.

      If they received a press release from Kristen’s rep, they would have said so. But they obviously didn’t, because that never happened.

      So I strongly suggest that you pay attention and read more carefully yourself before you start suggesting that others can’t read. And once you actually understand what you are reading, take the next step and critically assess whether what you are reading is credible. Otherwise you will go blindly through life believing anything and everything you read in a tabloid or a newspaper for that matter. And that is a very dangerous thing.

  6. Many people (myself included) have asked, if those statements were not real, why didn’t Kristen Stewart or Rupert Sanders disclaim them? Why keep quiet?
    This item brings up similar questions. If this apparent statement by Shira that the apology came from a source is not true, and it is being handed around online reducing People Magazine’s credibility, why hasn’t People responded? If the statement came directly from Kristen Stewart or her publicist, why don’t they come out and say so openly?

    • People magazine’s what??? Credibility??? What credibility???

      • I know what you mean, but there is a public perception that they’re fairly trustworthy. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard someone refer to People as reliable, not a tabloid, or at least not like the other tabloids. I assume People know this and would like to keep their reputation if they can. It’s just interesting that they haven’t said openly that the apology came through Kristen’s publicist or agent.

    • Unfortunately, Badger, it is extremely difficult for public figures to sue a tabloid or newspaper because of their “public figure” status, and very difficult to prove the tabloid knew the statement was false when they printed it. It would basically be a case of he said/she said, and would draw more attention to the issue than it already had. Twilighter could answer this with much more clarity than I can, but in the reading I’ve done researching the tabloids, the hoops public figures must jump through to prove the tabloids were lying would make Evel Knievel cringe. I’m not sure if this article covers that area or not, but it does give a good understanding of how tabloids operate, and might help.
      http://www.howstuffworks.com/tabloid.htm It’s called How Tabloids Work, and might be useful here.

      • Misty: Twilighter has clarified that in the past. I can now see why someone like Kiristen Stewart might simply stay quiet rather than sue or even deny a false report. She might not be believed, and either way it only adds to the publicity she’s trying to avoid.

    • So this is why I THINK they didn’t do any thing about what was said . If they were to give a statement or take them to court it would only bring MORE attention to them give the paps MORE attention give paps more money remember Rob and Kris DON’T sell their life. And i hope they would think THE TRUE FANS would not believe the bullshit that was being said about them I think Rob and Kris are NOT the only ones who do this. Why give the ASSES the big bucks .And I think some of the SO CALLED FANS out there are just as bad as the paps LOVE TO START SHIT makes their life happier if you can call it a life.

    • They don’t because they can’t. It just didn’t happen that way. Which is why they also have refused to comment on whether it was directly from Kristen, oral or written, and what were the circumstances of how they obtained it.

      Lets play devil’s advocate. Kristen wants to put out a statement. She wants everyone to know that she is sorry for what happened. She prepares the statement, gives it to Ruth, her publicist and says release it to People.

      Ruth calls and/or faxes People the release.

      People says yes we have the statement from Kristen’s rep and here it is. There is no need to protect any “source” since Kristen freely wants the information out there, wants to nip this in the bud by making everyone believe it, and she has clearly authorized Ruth to release it on her behalf.

      End of any controversy about whether the statement is hers.

      But that not what we have here. People is stonewalling. And People can’t say that it came from Ruth, because they didn’t get it from her. Which begs the question, if it didn’t come from Ruth, where did it come from and how authentic was it.

      People is clearly not talking. And quite frankly neither Ruth nor Kristen have to.

      The final matter to remember is People is a tabloid. They were under the gun to print this before someone else decided to run with something like it. Or their unnamed “source” ran to some other tabloid. They had already been scooped by the US Magazine on the original story and couldn’t afford to be beat to the punch again.

      So they took and chance. And won. And made millions off of it.

      Even if they were called on it, they could always fall back on this unnamed source claim. And claim the First Amendment privilege to report whatever they want on a public figure so long as they did so without “actual malice” (they knew the story was false) or they didn’t act with “reckless disregard for the truth”, the legal standard for proving libel against a media defendant for an article about a public figure.

      Sorry for the long response, but I hope that helps clarify things.

    • Do you think she could’ve just come out and say it wasn’t true and leave it at that? No, then she would’ve had to explain the situation and the general opinion would’ve been even worse if she didn’t explain. Keeping quiet was the best course of action. They don’t talk about their private lives, it’s their right not to. The apology, in my opinion, was to draw her out. She didn’t take the bait. This is just my opinion ofcourse.

  7. Hasn’t it already been established that none of the tabloids have any credibility, especially People. And that’s the way they like it because when it comes right down to it, they just look at what’s going to make them them money and not be concerned about whether it is true or not. I don’t and won’t believe that the photos were of her last year as they never looked real to me, more staged. In fact, I never believed they were her at all and she doesn’t need to tell me they’re not.

  8. I can tell you why, even though I left a comment wanting the truth to come out. It won’t matter what Kristen or anyone says. I’ve been there. Once it’s out there, people believe it. Time usually stops lots of rumors. Say they say someone is pregnant, but a year later no baby. Rumor. As for all of thsi, the pics convince people. Of course, today pics can be altered and made to look anyway someone wants them to. Look at movies, etc. My only question about all of this is why did Liberty divorce Rupert if there wasn’t something to at least the make out session? I figure this wasn’t the first time and that she has had enough. I mean look at the age. Liberty was about Kristen’s age when she and Rupert got together. Two kids later she is in her 30s he is 41 and he goes after Kristen, 22. If Kristen was stupid enough to hook up with him I guarantee in 10 years he would kick her to the curb for another 22 year old. He would only be 51. He is a philanderer. Now, as for all the pics and garbage, who knows. Can’t anyone clear the air on any of this? Rob and Kristen don’t deserve this mess. If these pics were manufactured, then shame on whoever was involved. This is not a joke, or at least not a very well played one. It is sick, twisted and down right evil.

    • Why did they divorce at that time? I’ve heard several people online claim that Ross had filed for divorce twice before, then withdrawn the petition, before finally filing for divorce again in early 2013. I have no idea whether this can be confirmed or not. If it’s true, the divorce might have been coming on for some time, and might not have had anything to do with adultery or with the scandal.

      Related to this is the idea that the planned divorce was not the result of the “cheating” but the cause. In other words, Sanders and Ross were already preparing to divorce by summer of 2012 and considered themselves free to date outside the marriage. Sanders therefore considered himself free to make a pass at Kristen Stewart. (I’m not defending the theory; just pointing it out.)

      Another theory circulating is that Liberty Ross is the one who arranged for the pictures to be photoshopped and released through FFN, either for some kind of revenge or in order to win a bigger divorce settlement.

    • The pics, in this case, WERE altered (see The Grand Punk series here for proof of that), but even with the altered pics, the fake apology, etc., Kristen was tried and hung by the court of public opinion. As for the reason Liberty divorced Rupert, there were reports that the marriage had been in trouble for quite some time, well before the staged Kristen incident. Were the reports true? Who knows – I don’t believe anything I read anymore, unless it comes from Reuters. You could very well be right about Rupert as well. Again, who knows. What I DO know, thanks to hours of tireless work by Twilighter, is the pictures of Kristen and Rupert were staged, altered, and/or manipulated, and the “apology” did NOT come from Kristen, but from an unnamed source. The old saying IS true – Don’t believe everything you read, and only half of what you see.

  9. So Kristen has been crucified over the last year all on the basis of what a ‘source’ said?Why did Ruth not do anything about it when it has affected Kristen personally and proffessionaly?

    • Ush: Stewart’s representatives can only take action that she herself approves. It was apparently Kristen Stewart’s decision to refuse to respond to the scandal or discuss it in any way. If the public apology didn’t come from her, she has never made a single comment on the scandal or responded to it in any way whatsoever.

  10. There are two different stories. The one referred to in in these tweets was the very first story about the cheating that came out the night before the pictures were released. It was advance damage control from Kristen’s team, trying to get her side of the story out before people saw the pics.

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20614660,00.html

    The NEXT DAY was her official statement, that came right from her.

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20614722,00.html

    Note the times on all these tweets are BEFORE the time of the article with Kristen’s apology. Because the apology wasn’t out yet.

    • Jackie, I’m sorry, but you seem to be a bit misinformed. The first article, the one you say was damage control from Kristen’s team before the pictures were released? That article was originally posted on July 24th, 2012 at 7:55PM EDT. In the article, it is written that Kristen’s rep had no comment. The only comments quoted in this article were from an unnamed “source”. This article was updated on July 25th, 2012 at 7:55AM EDT. The second article is the article with the “apology”. Nowhere in this article is proof that the apology actually came from Kristen Stewart. Because People magazine used quote marks, and tells us Kristen Stewart said it in a statement, we’re supposed to believe it? I’ll refresh everyone’s memory here:

      Kristen Stewart is issuing a public apology for hurting her boyfriend of three years, Robert Pattinson, by having a fling with her Snow White and the Huntsman director, Rupert Sanders.

      “I’m deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I’ve caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I’m so sorry,” Stewart said in a statement Wednesday.

      This is copied and pasted from the People magazine article dated 07/25/2012, at 1:05PM EDT. There is NO copy of the supposedly written statement, no actual proof, other than the quotation marks, that this statement was actually made by Kristen Stewart.

      Also in your comment here you state that the tweets were posted before the apology was issued. The dates on the tweets are 07/25/2012. No time is shown on these tweets. How would you know what TIME they were tweeted? Are you “damage control” for People magazine? I don’t work at a magazine, but aren’t there meetings before articles are posted or printed? The authors of articles would know beforehand that their articles were going to be printed or posted, correct? Not that this makes a difference, as the tweets were posted on 7/25/12, but even if they were tweeted before the article was posted, wouldn’t the author know that the article was going to be posted?
      People magazine got caught. Period. They wanted their piece of the very large money pie that is Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. And this pie was going to be the most valuable of all, wasn’t it? People magazine couldn’t stand back and let that happen, and not claim their share of this money pie, could they? So they did what ALL tabloids do. They made something up, not thinking they’d get caught. Well, guess what – THEY DID.

      • AMEN THEY SURE DID just shows you you can’t believe ANY THING you read. All this for money and look what happen. They got what they wanted BIGTIME .Its just so sad what was said about Kristen and STILL being said.Did they win in the end?I would hope not but like a few has said once the lie was out there its hard to take back people are going to think what they want and believe what they want They didn’t give a fu*k what they did to Kristen or Rob or their fan’s.I just hope that the next time you look at or read something about them you stop and ask yourself hey is this the truth or just one more lie to get the BIG MONEY. As for myself i didn’t believe and still don’t believe what the trash has to say truth or not If I don’t hear it from Kristen or Rob it didn’t happen THE END

  11. FACT: Kristen cheated on Rob with Rupert
    FACT: Kristen and Rupert were caught cheating by a pap and photos of the incident were published in US Weekly
    FACT: Kristen and Rupert issued statements va their reps (quoted as sources)
    FACT: If none of the above were true, Kristen and Rupert would have demanded a retraction of the story in US Weekly and a retraction of the statements in People. No need to sue, just a simple retraction. And both magazines would have complied if they knew the photos and statement were fake. Their lawyers would have been all over this.
    FACT: Because the photos were in fact real, the story was in fact true, and the statements were in fact issued, no such retraction was demanded
    FACT: There is no way that Kristen would have allowed damaging “lies” about her to be printed. Not at a time when she was a sought after actress. It damaged her reputation and she is still feeling the effects. She is no longer a sought after actress.
    FACT: There is no way her management team would have allowed the negative publicity to go unchecked, if it was all based on “lies” No way they would have allowed her reputation to be tarnished with damaging repercussions to her career, if it wasn’t all true. NO WAY
    FACT:There is no way Summit/Lionsgate would have allowed the negative publicity based on “lies” to rage out of control with BD2 about to premiere and with millions of dollars at stake. NO WAY
    FACT: There is no way Rob would have simply brushed off the crushing humiliation if it could so easily have been disproved. Again, not with the unecessary complication of a lawsuit. Merely a simple retraction.
    FACT: The delusion on this blog is truly frightening.

    • FACT: You haven’t studied any of the SCIENTIFIC evidence presented in The Grand Punk series.
      FACT: You can’t fight the science that prove the pix from July that day were staged/altered/manipulated – (Physics, astronomy) Think “You can’t fight DNA” – you’ll be in the same ballpark.
      FACT: The tweet of the apology being from a “source” is true. Many people have captchas of these tweets. Ms. Shira DOES work for People magazine
      FACT: Public figures have to jump through MUCH bigger hoops in a civil case (slander, libel, etc.) than an ordinary citizen, in order to prove that slander, libel, etc. has occurred. These laws get very complicated, but most attorneys will give you a free consultation should you wish to question these laws.
      FACT: Kristen is STILL in much demand. She was, once again, the highest paid actress in Hollywood, and has many projects lined up.
      FACT: Lionsgate/Summit didn’t lose a dime from this so-called “scandal”. If anything, they made even more money.
      FACT: I don’t know anything about PR – perhaps her management thought by saying nothing it was the best way to handle it – who knows. I don’t, and I doubt you do, either.
      FACT: I sincerely doubt that you would know WHAT Rob would do. Do you know him personally?
      FACT: I do apologize for frightening you by this website. Perhaps if you read the FACTS with an open mind, instead of one clouded by hate, you’d see that you are, indeed, wrong.

      • Honestly, I don’t even know why I bothered. It’s clear that you are determined to wallow in denial and delusion. Peddling your so-called scientific evidence to people so they can keep their fantasy alive, is the height of irresponsibility. You are as bad as the tabloids whom you detest so much. Kristen Stewart has not refuted a single thing about what happened last July. Because it really happened, it was the truth. Simple. You are doing her no favors by continuing this madness. She likely just wants to move past all this. You are doing her an injustice by keeping this delusion alive. The exact opposite of what your blog is claiming to do. She’s moved on. You should too.

      • AD: I consider myself a skeptic, first and foremost, regarding both anything reported as celebrity gossip, and Twilighter’s theories. I don’t see that anything reported as part of this scandal story is proven, in any meaningful sense. I respect your viewpoint, but I think it’s possible to become so cynical you become more easily fooled than the naive, if you see what I mean.

        Kristen Stewart did not refute the story. She also did not refute the published story that she was a racist who refused roles that involved direct contact with black actors – to name just one libellous and potentially damaging story. We can’t start from the position that silence means affirmation where gossip is concerned.
        What if Twilighter’s legal opinion is correct, that it is rarely worthwhile to either sue or demand a retraction in these cases? Wouldn’t total silence be the next best option – especially for someone who values her privacy?

        I don’t necessarily take the view that the scandal was either staged or entirely faked, either. I just think it’s suspicious, and coming from an extremely untrustworthy source known to distort the truth constantly. If this were a written story claiming Stewart had been making out with Rupert Sanders, I doubt you would have much trouble believing that the story was either false or deliberately distorted. These magazines have a vested interest in making any celebrity story as shocking as possible.What is the likelihood that they’d publish a story like this without trying to spin it more salacious if they can? Roughly zero. I’m sure you know this. It’s the photos that have the psychological effect of convincing us something is real, which I assume is why tabloids use pictures to accompany a story even when the pictures are not of the actual event described.

        I realize that photographs have a great deal more impact than a verbal story, but the story can still be false in a number of ways. For example… the tabloid could have selectively published a few pictures which seemed to support their story, and withheld the rest. It would explain why a photographer (or several) spent all afternoon watching these people and only got about 50 pictures. The remaining pictures could tell a different, much less scandalous story, one less interesting to a gossip magazine. And/or, they may have doctored the images just enough to imply more was going on than was actually the case. And/or, they may have omitted both pictures and verbal accounts of mitigating circumstances which could put the entire story in a different light. Add a printed account that leads the reader to interpret the pictures the way they prefer, and the damage is done. And if Stewart was actually there, it could be impossible or not worth it to try and get the real story out.

        The FACT is, we can’t conclude anything about what the real facts are based on tabloid accounts. That’s the only fact I find completely convincing in this matter.

    • Putting the word “fact” in front of your unsubstantiated personal opinions doesn’t make them any more believable.

      Your first three “facts” are nothing short of unsupported assertions , ones that have been meticulously disproved on this website.

      As for your next assertion, you obviously don’t have a clue about the law. Take it from a lawyer with over 30 years of experience. Public figures are seriously limited legally in their ability to prove libel and slander cases from irresponsible media outlets. Barring absolute evidence that the media outlet knew what they printed was false, or they were some how reckless with the truth, N.Y Times v. Sullivan and related cases provides very little protection to wronged celebrities. They can always hide behind a faceless source or tweet. Which is what they do all the time. Her lawyers could very appropriately counsel that doing nothing would be better than fueling a media circus they might not win. Because anything, anything can happen in a civil trial. And demanding a retraction when you are unable to follow up on your demand is a fool’s errand.

      Your next couple assertions are just that, repeated BS.

      As for Summit making out from this whole thing? You bet. They spent virtually nothing on the promotion of BD2. Tens of millions of dollars is what they got out of that. So don’t act like you think you know something that you don’t.

      And finally, you have entirely missed the possibility that Rob and Kristen were in fact involved in this from Step 1.

      So here is a fact for you. You can believe whatever you want, including your tabloid bull. But don’t expect to come onto this website and spout your BS without being challenged on it, just like we will continue to challenge this BS in the blogsphere. We’re not buying it, so just run along. I sure you can find some other website out there that is more than willing to listen to your nonsense.

  12. Thank you. You can not imagine how happy I am that your blog exists. Thank you!

  13. I still believe that Summit had something to do with it all along and I wonder if RP and KS were helpless to say anything that woud dispute it. Weren’t they still under contract? Wouldn’t it answer the question of who put this all together? You said it best in Grand Punk notes, ” Summit Entertainment fabricated a romantic relationship between them to promote and hype the Twilight franchise in order to maximize its profits. Under this scenario, the Kristen/Rupert affair was designed to “breakup” the dream couple that Summit had fabricated so that they could be “reconciled” just in time for the promotion of Breaking Dawn II. That all of the make out photos and the “affair” itself were created and filmed by Summit so that it could release them to the unsuspecting celebrity gossip machine. Once the magazines ran with the story, Summit was ready with carefully crafted confessions and a pr strategy to milk the scandal for all it was worth and end it all with a grand reconciliation just in time for doing the Breaking Dawn II promotions.” It didn’t matter who’s lives would be hurt but just for how much money could be made.

    As far as that director and his wife were concerned, they were probably in it as well. I’m certain they got something out of it too. Hey, it looks like it has helped her career. Don’t know about him and don’t care.

    • Although this is a popular scenario, there is frightfully little in the way of provable evidence to prove that this is actually what happened. And as for the socalled control studios exercise over actors, see Busting Urban Legends About the So-Called Kristen Stewart Cheating Scandal: The PR Relationship Contract Clause Myth elsewhere on this blog.

  14. The only thing that is clear to me is that someone keeps “LIVE” this scandal, so far, with a purpose, such as Rupert in the car, such as the “famous” Kristen text. messages, blaming new break. I think enough money has flowed to the discredit of this girl. WHAT IS THE REASON? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?

  15. ah now I see why my comment from June 19th is still awaiting moderation..I forgot a letter in my emailadres! I fixed it…sorry!! Here I was thinking my post had something bad in it!

  16. Please don’t get mad. Just saw pics of Kristen wearing a gold ring on her right hand forefinger is this ring what everyone has been talking about? I don’t know her jewellery and was wondering if it was the one.

  17. I have seen that ring too, but I also read Rob’s article and it was not like him at all, is he changing???????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: