The NY Times’ Caryn James has a thought-provoking article that’s rather relevant to the realm of celebrity gossip blogs. She looks back on the year of celebrity gawking, and says that negative publicity affects the stars’ careers, but that the verdict is out as to how much.

2006 brought celebrity watching to new depths of detail. We saw Britney’s c-section scar, learned about Angelina Jolie’s method of birth control, and speculated about Tom Cruise’s sexuality while fawning over pictures of his supposed baby. We vascillate between mocking celebrities for the human foibles and admiring them for being skinnier than us with better accessories.

While old Hollywood presented screen stars as brands and shielded them from bad press, modern Hollywood throws them to the wolves and paparazzi. It’s not as damning as it once was to get a DUI, to go to rehab, or to be perceived as a husband-stealer, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect public perception. We say our most admired stars are the ones with home lives that are beyond reproach:

This emphasis on off-screen fame almost brings celebrity full circle, back to the era when actors were brands; their larger-than-life personalities were as flimsy as cardboard and constructed for the public, but so huge that “Cary Grant” was bigger than any Cary Grant movie. The crucial difference, of course, is that the fierce control studios maintained over actors’ images — covering up arrests, arranging bogus dates — has given way to a media culture in which virtually nothing remains hidden, from Mr. Gibson’s arrest report to Britney Spears’s no-underpants crotch. As an old-fashioned emphasis on personality collides with today’s ever-changing onslaught of truth, gossip and damage control, the result is a moviegoing public that paradoxically idolizes and mocks its stars.

What this cult of personality means for movies is still in flux, as stars, publicists and filmgoers adjust to a new tug-of-war over image-making, but the conflict certainly intensified this year.

Stars searched for ways to fight back, not very effectively. Some were mischievous: George Clooney suggested thwarting the celebrity-sightings section of the Gawker Web site by flooding it with fake reports. (There are already so many ludicrous reports, who could tell the difference?)

Others took the battle (nearly) to court. Reese Witherspoon sued Star magazine for falsely stating she was pregnant and in return got its version of a retraction: another photo of her in a bikini and the explanation “She’s not pregnant — it’s bloat!” At least we know she’s not pregnant. (She has reportedly settled the suit.)

And Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes’s Vanity Fair photo spread introducing their baby daughter, Suri (shot by the also-famous Annie Leibovitz), followed by their hugely hyped, celebrity-jammed wedding in Italy — what was that about if not image shaping? They allowed only their own photographers at the wedding, which made the hype more orchestrated, not less real. Their control added a veneer of desiring privacy, a sham the public didn’t buy…

There was more dismal news for image-shaping celebs recently, from the annual Gallup Poll measuring movie stars’ appeal. Asked which star’s films they would make a special effort to see, the respondents gave Tom Hanks the top spot, no surprise. He has always been an actor in the old-fashioned mold, sticking close to good-guy roles that mirror his clean-cut image.

Asked whose films they would avoid, those polled gave it to Mr. Cruise in a landslide, 34 percent. Coming in a distant second was Ms. Jolie at 18 percent. Being perceived as a wacko or as a home wrecker are obviously not the best P.R. choices.

It’s unclear how much the human failings of celebrities affect the box office. When people say that they’ll avoid Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie’s movies, all these details about their lives do seem to hurt their careers, but at least they’re staying in the public eye.

The posts about Angelina always have heated discussions, and some people dislike her so much that they use different nicknames to say the same thing over and over again as if several people have the same point about her. Rationally-minded commentors note that she’s considered the poster girl for husband-stealers and is an easy target for scorned women. While some may hate her, she attracts so much constant attention that the impact on the box office may be slight.

I hope that Britney’s career is going to suffer for all her partying and poon-baring, though. She’s a clear cut case of a celebrity who has made her bed and hasn’t changed the sheets in a long time.