Did Katie Holmes and her daughter Suri pay the price by Tom Cruise for the actress's romance with Jamie Foxx? That was claim made by one of the tabloids exactly one year ago today. Gossip Cop reported it was false then, and now 365 days later, it couldn't be more clear how wrong the magazine was.
On January 28, 2018, OK! maintained Cruise was so angered by Holmes and Foxx flaunting their relationship that, as a result, his ex-wife and daughter were "paying the price." An unnamed and unverifiable "source" was quoted as telling the magazine how Cruise was "less than pleased" with Holmes's romance with Foxx, who he "used to consider... a friend," and that he was not inclined afterwards to "have more contact with Katie and Suri." But, as Gossip Cop noted 12 months ago, not only were some of the assertions completely phony, but the tabloid also didn't offer a shred of proof to back up its premise.
For starters, the publication never actually explained how Holmes and Suri were "paying the price" for the actress being photographed on public with Foxx at a pre-Grammys party a few days earlier? Equally significant, the idea that Cruise was no longer motivated to "have more contact with Katie and Suri" was beyond absurd. As widely established, Cruise hasn't been in Holmes and Suri's lives for years, and he obviously doesn't care who the actress dates.
And, as Gossip Cop pointed a year ago, the magazine apparently couldn't keep its various made-up stories straight. While it contended a year ago how Cruise was "upset" about Holmes and Foxx taking their romance public, prior to that the outlet's narrative was about the Mission: Impossible star being fully supportive of his friend and ex-wife dating. In a 2016 cover story, for example, OK! claimed Cruise gave his "blessing" to Foxx and Holmes getting married and having a baby.
In another front page article two months after that, the very same outlet asserted Cruise sent a "$2,500 bouquet of flowers" because he was so happy after hearing Holmes was pregnant with Foxx's baby girl. Nearly three years later, it's apparent the actress never had a child with Foxx and that the tabloid's tipsters are either wholly untrustworthy or possibly even made-up. Regardless, the main issue is the magazine has made (and continues to make) claims about Suri, Holmes, Foxx and Cruise, based on anonymous and unaccountable sources, and the tales don't hold up over time. Conversely, Foxx and Holmes's reps went on the record to call last year's report untrue.
In the intervening year, the publication hasn't become any more reliable. For instance, over the summer Gossip Cop busted the outlet when it wrongly reported Suri was begging Cruise to visit her. And just a couple of weeks ago, we debunked a cover story that falsely alleged Holmes and Foxx secretly got married in Paris. Curiously, that article left out how another cover earlier in the year untruthfully maintained Foxx and Holmes had split up.
As Gossip Cop has previously mentioned, we revisit stories from a year ago to show readers which outlets they can and cannot trust. Additionally, it's important to assess the track record of magazines that base their articles entirely on nameless and untraceable tipsters. In an effort to provide as much transparency and confidence in our reporting, Gossip Cop always seeks on-the-record comments and openly lists its sources. It's safe to say that while Suri and Holmes didn't pay a price by Cruise for the actress's relationship with Foxx, the tabloid's readers did and, in a way, it was way more than the $5.99 they were charged for the publication.
Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.