Britney’s OK shoot not really a disaster?
July 25th, 2007 
Maybe it's optimistic Spears spin, but according to jossip.com, that career-endingly awful photoshoot Britney Spears allegedly did with OK Magazine wasn't half as bad as the magazine is making it out to be, infact, if Jossip's article has any truth - looks like Spears' tabloid power is being manipulated to save the ass of its ailing editor. Apparently, there are no exclusive pics and the interview is weak.
OK! has no Britney exclsuive [sic] photos and the interview’s bad…no real revelations. Sarah Ivens is trying to make herself look good in front of her bosses as her ass is on the line because sales are poor. Richard Desmond’s pumping millions into it but news stand sales struggle to get above 400,000. No one wants to advertise in the magazine. He’s losing patience with Ivens. She’s planning her exit strategy by putting out stories about herself.
Whatever. Don't take the thought of Britney staining dresses with dog shit away from me. Such a beautiful image.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:14 am
The sad thing is, Britney doesn’t have that bad of a body. If only she get a decent weave, better clothing, and learned how to do her makeup then she’d at least look reminiscent of her best days.
She just looks effortlessly trashy.
July 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
>
Agreed, but she has pretty ugly fingers and toes. And her feet only look acceptable when she’s wearing stiletto heels.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Who gives a crap if her fingers and toes are ugly? That seems like a pretty minor thing to obsess over. A good manicure and pedicure can hide a multitude of sins. Although I must agree, it does seem like she puts very little effort into her public image these days.