Nine months ago, a celebrity magazine published on its cover that Brad Pitt got an unnamed woman pregnant. Since the child should've been born by now, Gossip Cop would like to know where's Pitt's baby from his alleged "secret lover"? In May, we had fact-checked the claim and determined the entire premise was untrue. Not only were our impeccable sources accurate when debunking the story, but time has proven us right as well.
Tabloids should be held responsible and accountable for what they put on their covers because people who buy these publications are not spending $5.99 a week for what's on page 34. They're paying for and presumably believing what they see on the front page. And in this particular case, Star profited from deceiving its readers that Pitt had a "secret lover," and she was having his baby. Both of those contentions were lies.
Frankly, as trained journalists with decades of experience, the article immediately read like one giant fabrication. It claimed Pitt met an unidentifiable woman, who was supposedly in her 20s, at an art show. Notably, the outlet didn't offer even a first name for its purported "lover," nor did it report when or at what gallery the movie star crossed paths with the woman it maintained was having his baby. As consumers, signs like that should be red flags the story is possibly nothing more than a work of fiction.
The next thing to be wary of are quotations from untraceable sources. There are instances when it's understandable if someone has to cloak their identity out of fear for their life or livelihood, but many tabloid articles do not come close to that threshold. The one about Pitt allegedly having gotten a "secret lover" pregnant is most assuredly not that type of story. As opposed to the publication, which lobbed lies from behind an anonymous source, Pitt's rep went on the record with Gossip Cop to confirm the tale was untrue.
Still, let's examine what the magazine's phony "source" claimed. At the time, the alleged tipster contended Pitt was in for an "absolute nightmare" because he supposedly impregnated a nameless woman. Equally bad, asserted the seemingly made-up insider, Angelina Jolie was "furious" about it. The tipster added that it was "anyone's guess" how Pitt was "going to explain this." Glaringly, since publishing the provably incorrect report, the tabloid has never explained its error or apologized for duping readers into paying nearly $6 that week for a wholly fictitious tale.
As if one needed more evidence that the magazine is not a reliable source of information about Pitt, it stated in the same report how he was "worried" about how his fling with the "secret lover" would affect his relationship with MIT professor Neri Oxman. But, as Gossip Cop was among the first to note at the time, Pitt was never in a romantic relationship with Oxman, a point she later publicly made in a New York Times profile.
In the nine months since the absurd cover story (see below), Star has not only continued to spread falsehoods about Pitt's personal life, but oddly it has also quietly dropped its narrative (without any explanation) about him having gotten a young "secret lover" pregnant. Instead, it continued to push various tales about him and his first ex-wife, including a report that wrongly alleged Pitt dumped Jennifer Aniston for spiritual healer Sat Hari Khalsa. Of course, Pitt never dated Khalsa nor did he get back together with Aniston, who he saw for the first time in person in a long time on February 9 at her 50th birthday party in L.A.
Incredibly, the very next week after its tale about Aniston being left for the spiritual healer, the exact same tabloid insisted Pitt was dating Charlize Theron. Unsurprisingly, even though just days earlier it maintained he was involved with both Khalsa and Aniston, in the article about Theron, it simply ignored those storylines to claim Pitt and the South African actress had been secretly hooking up for a year "at luxury hotel suites around the world."
And then weeks later, the magazine flip-flopped again when it ran a cover story that untruthfully asserted Pitt and Aniston were having a baby after rekindling their romance. It's clear the outlet has no concern about consistency or accuracy. And in each instance, while the publication staked its claims and reputation on non-transparent sources, Pitt's rep went on the record to confirm to Gossip Cop the reports were bogus.
The only thing fertile here were the imaginations of the writers at that tabloid. Pitt didn't have a baby with a "secret lover," who never existed, nor is he having one with Aniston. Gossip Cop feels it's important to revisit these cover stories, which are sold to fans, yet are filled with lies. It's important readers become more informed about these magazines' practices because it doesn't appear those outlets are willing to bear any responsibility for the falsehoods they routinely manufacture.
Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.