Jennifer Lopez Looks Like A Completely Different Person With Any Makeup On News Jennifer Lopez Looks Like A Completely Different Person With Any Makeup On
Gwen Stefani And Blake Shelton Planning 'Extravagant $3 Million' Wedding? Celebrities Gwen Stefani And Blake Shelton Planning 'Extravagant $3 Million' Wedding?
Who Is Courtney Taylor Olsen? All About The 4th Olsen Sister Celebrities Who Is Courtney Taylor Olsen? All About The 4th Olsen Sister
Report: Ryan Gosling 'Walked Out' On Eva Mendes Celebrities Report: Ryan Gosling 'Walked Out' On Eva Mendes

Angelina Jolie is not doing a tell-all TV interview about Brad Pitt, despite a new report that repeats previously debunked claims. Gossip Cop can again correct this false narrative. We're told trashing Pitt on TV is not on the actress's agenda.

RadarOnline contends in a new article it has "exclusively" learned Jolie is tired of being "demonized," and will get "off her chest" how she feels about Pitt. The outlet then quotes a supposed "insider" as stating, "Part of their settlement includes a clause preventing her from directly publicly trashing him, but Angie is smart enough to find a way around that." According to the blog's "informant," Jolie will bypass any nondisclosure agreement by going on TV show and promoting "charities" that help women in "abusive relationships... stuff that'll be indirectly aimed at Brad."

Not only is this premise untrue, but contrary to the site's claim, it's also not "exclusive" at all. In fact, other than changing "Ange" to "Angie" for its story, the outlet is actually ripping off several quotations from Heat, which Gossip Cop first busted about two weeks ago when it wrongly maintained Jolie was "plotting revenge" on Pitt by doing a TV interviews. For other examples, the Heat article also asserted Jolie felt "demonized," and that she would get back at Pitt by "promoting charities" related to "single moms" who have to deal with "alcoholic dads."

At the time, Gossip Cop checked with a Jolie confidante, who on condition of anonymity, assured us the report was 100 percent fabricated. We were told then that the Oscar-winner has no plans whatsoever to go on TV to slam the father of her six children. Nothing has changed in the two weeks since that bogus narrative was first published by the British tabloid and now when RadarOnline bizarrely claims its "exclusive."

It bears mentioning that when Pitt and Jolie reached a custody agreement last month, an insider in Jolie's camp told the more reputable "Entertainment Tonight" the actress was "pleased to be entering the next stage and relieved at the progress for the health of their family." The reality is Jolie will not be alluding on TV or otherwise to "charities" or anything that could negatively be construed as relating to Pitt because she doesn't want to jeopardize the current custody arrangement. In June, Jolie was even warned she could lose physical custody of the kids, if she didn't foster a better relationship between them and their father. She's not going to risk it all for a few cheap jabs on TV.

Of course that website hasn't exactly been a beacon of accuracy with its stories about Jolie. One year ago, for instance, Gossip Cop shot down the blog's article about how Jolie and Pitt were getting "back together for Christmas." In that tall tale, the outlet alleged the estranged spouses had ironed out their differences and hadn't "ruled out a full reconciliation." Obviously, that was completely wrong.

Also absurd was the blog's article about how Jolie was "getting serious" with a mystery British man. Like the current story, the premise of her dating an unknown English millionaire and "philanthropist" was also floated first by other outlets before RadarOnline foolishly glommed on to it. As Gossip Cop said from the beginning, and time again has proven us right, Jolie never had a "mystery" man, nor has she dated anyone since her split from Pitt.

For Gossip Cop, it's hard to decide what's worse: The original made-up tabloid story about Jolie planning to get back at Pitt in TV interviews or the website repeating the falsehood (and then calling it "exclusive")"? Or was it, in this case, AOL simply picking up and re-posting the blog's report without fact-checking it? Regardless of what's worse, it's still pretty bad journalism.

Our Verdict

Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.


Is Gwyneth Paltrow Planning, Even Assuming Bridesmaid Duty For Chris Martin, Dakota Johnson's Wedding? Here's What We Know