I was about to write a story about how much I dislike Gwyneth Paltrow – which would have been news to so many, right? – but then I came across this interview with famous journalist/celebrity-profiler Taffy Brodesser-Akner, who is currently promoting her first novel, Fleishman Is In Trouble. Taffy is well-known around the gossip blogs for doing some of the best celebrity profiles and best pieces of entertainment journalism of the past five years or so. Her GQ profile of Tom Hiddleston still haunts me (and truly, Hiddles has never been the same since that profile). Her NYT profile of a dour Bradley Cooper last year was so unfavorable, it probably did more to ruin A Star Is Born than anything else. And of course, she did an epic profile of Gwyneth Paltrow and Goop for the NYT which spilled so much tea about Gwyneth’s true motivations for Goop and her lack of interest in fact-checking or, you know, actual science. Here’s what Taffy says about the Gwyneth profile now:

Brodesser-Akner had wanted to interview her for ever and had gone on a long campaign to secure the interview, assuring Paltrow she would take her seriously as a businesswoman, which she did. (And rightly so). She didn’t let her off the hook. I remember reading the piece and not liking Paltrow much more than I had going into it. I also wondered if, when the piece came out, she had felt betrayed. The story quoted from Dr Jen Gunter, Paltrow’s arch-nemesis who likes to point out the ludicrous and occasionally dangerous implications of, for example, suggesting underwire bras might cause cancer.

In fact, says Brodesser-Akner, Paltrow liked the piece, posting it on her Instagram and letting it be known that she found it broadly flattering. Didn’t she flinch at the paragraphs detailing Goop’s appalling lack of fact checking? “Oh my God, no! She was like, you bet we don’t do fact checking! It’s part of her revolution. And don’t you always find that the thing you’re horrified to ask is the thing people really stand by?”

What Brodesser-Akner hadn’t anticipated was what reporting on the story would do to her own psychology – the terrible Stockholm syndrome that can descend when you spend too much time with a subject. “There was a time in the middle when [Paltrow] became scared of me and my intentions. And after having gotten along so well, it made me so angry. But the anger was embarrassment that, oh, I thought we were getting along. Awful. I mean, I never hated her. I really liked her. And I thought she was so talented. And the thing that people hate – ‘Ugh, she’s just so privileged’ – how can you hold against her? It’s OK to be born wealthy. It’s very lucky. And also most of the people I know who were born privileged are incredible f–k-ups. They can’t figure out a goal or a motive. She [Paltrow] works so hard.”

Did people get mad with you for not being more critical of her? “No. I didn’t hear any of that. I hope that I made a compelling case. And the thing I determined was that it was not about how I felt about her; it was about how I felt about myself in her reflection that was the issue. And it was unbearable to me. I’ve never been happier to be done with a story, to go back to being an average person as opposed to the least graceful person in the room, the least successful person in the room. I’m a fine successful person, but next to her … ”

By the end of the story, even Paltrow’s posture struck Brodesser-Akner as a rebuke. When she asked Paltrow how she managed to keep her back so straight, “she was like, ‘You think so?’ She’d never considered it. And then I was even more upset! If you can have that posture without thinking about it? I don’t even know what species you are.” The bottom line is you can’t be friends with these people; above a certain altitude, not even their friends can be friends with them. “These are people who no one makes requests of any more. They think they’re having a friendship, but they’re not.”

[From The Guardian]

“Oh my God, no! She was like, you bet we don’t do fact checking! It’s part of her revolution. And don’t you always find that the thing you’re horrified to ask is the thing people really stand by?” It’s part of her revolution! The revolution of… pseudoscience and not fact checking. Honestly though, I respect what Taffy did with that specific profile of Gwyneth – it was half-respectful of the actual lucrative business of pseudoscience and half-shady because it was so matter-of-fact about how much bullsh-t Gwyneth actually shills.

Taffy also talked about the Hiddleston profile and how there were paparazzi photos of the two of them, and the Daily Mail called her Tom’s “mystery brunette.” Tom called her afterwards and she says: “He said, ‘I’m so sorry. Tell your husband I’m horrified.’ And I said you should not be horrified! It’s the best week of our lives!”

This Gwyneth Paltrow profile in @nytimes Magazine should be nominated for a Pulitzer. Or a comedy writing award. The kitchen scene should be required teaching material for kids in journalism school. What a great read. https://t.co/6kOgLiS4zV

— Ed O'Keefe (@edokeefe) July 27, 2018

Photos courtesy of WENN.