Comments on: Well, Britney’s on the Cover of Rolling Stone Again

By: T

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:36:05 +0000

I don’t think anybody except other famous people can understand really what is happening here. It’s not like we are all the cover of “Rolling Stone” every other month.
How can a PERSON cope with being followed Everywhere by the papperazi anyway?? AT First it would be glamourous and fun, I think, by then wouldn’t u just want to go back to your place ALONE and watch tv or something?? Go out with some girlfriends to a coffee pub? It seems one cannot have FAME without having SPACE.

By: Lets Get some Dignity

Lets Get some Dignity — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:43:15 +0000

I hope Britney does come back, she is an amazing singer. Though, she definitely is bibpolar and might have severe “scitsofrina”

By: JPV

JPV — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:16:02 +0000

Rolling Stone has a superb journalistic investigation group. Its been known for years that they are thorough, and they can really write in a very effective manner! If you are just coming on scene as a sometime reader, you will soon see that the music business is not paramount! Rather, the entertainment business is! They are very successful because they cater to everything, i n depth, with a high degree of intelligence, in fact, they are virtually the English speaking version of Paris Match!…if you also speak French you would know that P.Match is Europe’s top weekly magazine! Rolling Stone is quoted in France in Le Figaro, frequently! Little Alice Springs, in the Outback of Australia, with barely a thousand readers of its weekly, occasionally quotes Rolling Stone!… Its influence is worldwide!!!

By: lalala

lalala — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:14:25 +0000

ahh… her self-worth is in the shitter.

By: JPV

JPV — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:45:41 +0000

Rolling Stone seems to have hit the nail on the head! Though they don’t say so, Britney’s complete disregard for the feelings of other people seems to have worked its way inward into her own psyche, she doesn’t really seem to like who she is presently! Obviously, she is self loathing! Her likes and dislikes are almost instantaneous, she likes someone in the morning, dislikes them by evening. Looks in the mirror, dislikes what she sees, changes clothing as rapidly as her personality does. Frankly, how do you help someone like that! Quite a quandary! That mental ward she was in, when she left, must have thrown a rollicking good riddance party!!!

By: Priscilla

Priscilla — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:00:03 +0000

sorry i didn’t have the strength to read the looooooong posts, so anyway. She is NOT an american tragedy, and i noticed that they stuck a photo of her in her prime, why didn’t they put one of her lookin all raggedy to make thier point?

By: Sasha

Sasha — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:04:26 +0000

Only the same tabloid scum that helped exploit her image for profit would have the temerity to declare what’s happened to Britney is a ‘tragedy’ and keep a straight face.

By: Yum

Yum — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:01:17 +0000

I like short comments best. Yup, short.

By: lollylicious

lollylicious — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:42:27 +0000

i think you need an enema, paul.

i didnt say she doesnt enjoy the attn, but she’s not responsible for the paparazzi. the overkill of the celeb media in general (no offense to you, dear beet) is responsible. it seems like the more that’s going wrong with the rest of the world, the more insane the celebrity media hype gets. i find it quite strange, and i am tired of reading about people’s personal info. tired of the interest in these stupid pop tarts and their trumped up addictions. tired of not being sure if what i am reading is even true anyway.

and i think it’s funny you mock Rolling Stone as a credible source on music. You’re posting online on a gossip weblog just as I am. I guess that makes you the authority on EVERYTHING.

By: Norman

Norman — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:13:27 +0000

An American Tragedy? I hardly believe that this qualifies as a dyed-in-the-wool Great American Sob Story. The girl is worth 40 million. She can certainly afford the best psychiatric care money can buy. I’m sure that all of the pressure of being famous (or infamous, as it is in her case now) can certainly drive someone batshit, but here’s an idea: If you don’t want or can’t handle all of the attention, stay home and watch a movie or do your kids’ laundry instead of driving around at 3:30 AM to try on underwear and then shit your pants in the aisle at Rite Aid. She is not a little girl- maybe she should just make better choices…

By: Ashley

Ashley — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:11:47 +0000

Whoa! People sure did have lots to day about this…all I have to say is yes, Rolling Stone is supposedly a music magazine, but I have seen lots & lots of actors, actresses, & just full out idiots on the cover that weren’t musicians.

How many times has Johnny Depp been on the cover? I’ve lost count. Last time I checked, he wasn’t a musician-he might try to be in his own time, but in reality, he’s not.

Britney is a crazy ass who got herself to where she is today. She’s still alive, Heath is not. He should have DEFINITELY gotten the cover. It’s bullshit.

By: Darth Paul

Darth Paul — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:21:51 +0000

I think you need a reality check, lollylicious. Spears is wholly responsible for the papps BS. She can’t do w/o the attention!

I doubt she’ll end up like Margot Kidder. BS is a spoiled brat who’s never known self-discipline (just Disney-imposed discipline) and who allowed her drug habits and insatiable thirst for attention dominate her life, to the detriment of her mental health and stability. If anything, she’s more like a drugged out Anne Heche than Margot.

To Rolling Stones (dubious) credit, she’s a music “artist” (using that word very loosely here), so it’s somewhat understandable that she be on the cover and not Ledger.