In your drenched Wednesday media column: the NYT pay wall draws near, a royal wedding can't sell magazines any more, Anderson Cooper reams an old Texas man, James Hibberd moves to EW, and Romenesko is all weird now.

In your perplexing Wednesday media column: Mort Zuckerman's eying Newsweek, movie stars are creeping off our magazine covers, the owner of the Cubs knows news, and people at People are out the door.

As if celebrity babies didn't face enough perils — paparazzi, feuding celebrity parents, ill-advised playdates with Michael Jackson — they now have to keep a weary little eye on the stock market. Because amid Wall Street meltdown and the worst advertising decline in seven years rumors are now swirling that the undisputed highroller in the market for pictures of famous infants, OK! magazine, is cutting off payments for exclusive shots of the little tykes. (Sure, the fees usually went to charity, but you can't put a price tag on adulation.) New general manager Kent Brownridge has allegedly said "no more picture buying, and to keep readers interested we will have to 'get creative,'" a disgruntled staffer told Page Six. Underlings are no doubt praying Brownridge doesn't confirm another rumor and squander the savings hiring boss-from-hell Bonnie Fuller to replace a departing Sarah Ivens. Reports the Post:

America's celebrity magazines are facing a grave situation: the interest in celebrities themselves is not great enough to move the millions of copies they need to sell. No, all that people really want to see are celebrity babies. That's where the money is these days. But the vital open flow of capital in our national celebrity baby picture market is being threatened by OK! magazine's blatant pandering and deep pockets. Can we accept a bunch of sleazy, credulous Brits winning the first $15 million-plus baby picture auction? It staggers the mind! Here is the nature of the threat:

For unclear reasons, the Times felt compelled to hand a huge chunk of its Sunday Business section over to a profile of Bonnie Fuller—the woman most responsible for creating our nation's soul-destroying cast of powerful celebrity magazines—who was recently axed from her multimillion-dollar gig as editorial chief of American Media. A sympathetic profile! The news peg, purportedly: Bonnie Fuller is doing some vague new project on the internet. For women! With specifics to be determined! Color us skeptical. The Fuller that the Times describes does not sound like the woman who was so despised by her assistants that they put snot in her food. What's the major malfunction here?