Yes, People is a softball celebrity magazine. But editor Larry Hackett has been defending his publication as a deeply ethical, serious crown jewel in the Time Inc. empire, despite its obvious kowtowing to powerful subjects like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Who the hell is he kidding?

First the Times showed how People shamelessly fulfilled actress Angelina Jolie's publicity wishes right after Jolie sold the magazine exclusive baby pictures. Then the paper's public editor, in a column criticizing the Times' earlier Jolie takedown, let slip this:

I have read the seven-page contract for the photos and interview... It said... Jolie and Pitt would answer e-mailed questions.

Mary Green, the People reporter who conducted the e-mail interview, said no one put any limits on what she could ask.

So People agreed to interview "Angelina Jolie" not face to face but over email. The magazine sends the questions, and answers come back with Jolie's name on them.

As a tipster reminded us, this means there's a good chance Jolie didn't write the answers herself. Her flack or assistant or manager would write a response, maybe Jolie would read and approve it, or not, and off it would go, under Jolie's name, for publication. An exciting "interview" with "Angelina Jolie!"

It's one thing to obtain factual information through an email interview, or get quotes from someone who doesn't have a professional entourage eager to craft her every word.

But People sells the actual words of actual celebrities. That's the whole point: Not what's going on in Cambodia but what the hell does Angelina Jolie herself personally say about what's going on in Cambodia. There's no point, then, in interviewing Jolie if it's not really her, but just pure, synthetic drivel churned out by her machine. If you want the consensus of a team about Cambodia, go to the UN, or a think tank.

The biggest loss here isn't one of journalistic ethics — expectations for People seem fairly low in that regard — but for the magazine's future. If the magazine offers neither an authentic (if pandering) glimpse into celebrities' emotional lives or a buch of scandals, why shouldn't readers just flip on the TV? At least they'll know the quotes are real.