Some readers have speculated that in the aftermath of this whole episode, Brad and Angelina will be even more selective in the outlets they interact with.
Since late September, they apparently totally clamped down on the flow information and decided to only use TMZ as their outlet of choice. TMZ had access to Angelina's side from the start through Harvey Levin's friendship with Laura Wasser but now they release info for both. And you can probably look at the timeline and figure out when Angelina finally got to talk to Brad and explained the situation and her reasons for filing.
They want people to know that only TMZ has access to both of them. They are now obviously working together with "sources close to Angelina" a.k.a. "sources close to the case" also giving updates on Brad and Brad's intentions. And only TMZ can issue reliable reports on what is really happening.
People seems to have been the biggest casualty as it struggled to find a single reliable source to provide them with a story. All quotes from "family sources" and "friends" on events after the clamp down have been misleading or false.
For example, around the same time that TMZ revealed Brad had his first visit with Maddox and that he wasn't filing a response and she wasn't seeking a default judgement on the petition, the People story was:
One month after she filed for divorce, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are still locked in divorce negotiations — with disagreements over child custody their primary issue.
“Things are still strange and strained between them,” a source close to the family tells PEOPLE. “They are still working on issues that they can’t agree on. It seems their issues still involve the kids.”
At a time when they were telling the world thru TMZ that "healing the family is the priority" and "there's a chance the whole divorce case could settle privately" People was exposed as peddling a false "strained divorce" story line.
Coming not long after the hugely embarrassing false visit report, the People editors may have finally realized that dubious sources were seriously undermining their credibility. And so the subsequent story on the expanded DCFS investigation just safely quotes "a legal source with knowledge of the situation" and "another source with legal knowledge of the situation" -- likely members of Bert Fields' team.
As I noted previously, none of these stories were written by Mary Green who has interviewed both repeatedly in the past and who is usually the main writer for their big cover stories.
Lastly, a note:
This is a tiny blog. I am not out to attract traffic. In fact I avoid posting attention-grabbing headlines.
As the blog description notes, it is "Highly Selective and Opinionated."
You will know quickly if this blog is for you.
But I welcome having others point out things I missed or challenge a conclusion or piece of speculation and ask for supporting evidence.
I moderate the comments here to make sure it does not become, like other comments sections, a toxic pit of hate and venom. Comments that give vent to hate will be removed. Comments that seem designed to upset other readers will be removed.
This is a fun exercise for me and I want it to be fun for the readers of both the blog and the comments.