Or: Looks Like People, Smells Like People, But Is, In Fact, Not People: A Guided Tour Through An Issue of In Touch Magazine

What the hell is In Touch Weekly? The question has popped up recently on our own, hyper-culturally-sensitive discussion boards, but also, no doubt, in the minds of many idle shoppers as they wait in line at the grocery checkout. That question, though, was likely preceded by this one: Since when did People magazine start looking so crappy? And then this one: Wait -- this isn't People magazine?

Which is fitting, given that questions play such a central role in the editorial philosophy of In Touch. Questions such as this one, found on a recent cover: "J.Lo & Ben: Is the Wedding Still On?"

While US Weekly likes to use the leading-question coverline tactic ("Britney & Justin: Still In Love?"), In Touch Weekly -- an odd and half-assed hybrid of People and US Weekly -- lives by this particular editorial trick. In fact, the entire magazine is chock-full of such hypothetical ponderings: Could Trista and Evan Fall in Love? Is Ryan's poetry any good? Is Nicole an internet Junkie? How do you keep skin moist in winter?

These questions, for the most part, don't come with actual answers. (There are, to be fair, a few moisture tips.) They do, however, come with lots of wire-service celeb photos and hackneyed writing, itself involving a lot of leading, though unanswered, questions.

All of which leads us back to our own query: What the hell is In Touch Weekly?

In Touch is produced by Bauer Publishing, the company behind such other checkout aisle clutterers as Woman's World and First for Women. As ChrissySissyStar aptly put it on our own boards, the magazine comes off "kind of like the high school paper version of People." Moreover, In Touch serves as a tangible confirmation that we're now so awash in celebrity-related detritus -- wire-service photos, gossip websites, tip-planting PR flunkies -- that it's possible to create an entire weekly star-humping magazine out of an office building in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Not a good magazine, mind you, but a magazine nonetheless.

But don't take our word for it. instead, let's head inside a recent issue.

THE COVER: ITW shamelessly mimics People's design and US Weekly's attitude. The former it apes successfully; the latter, not so much. (The covers are so similar to People, in fact, that you have to wonder if there's a lawsuit in the works and, if not, why not.)

The cover of the issue in question is typical: two wire-copy paparazzi shots -- one of Ben, one of J.Lo (in which she looks eerily like a cross between Alyssa Milano and Missy Gold). The tantalizing coverline reads, "J.Lo & Ben: Is the Wedding Still On?"

The beauty of this brand of leading question, of course, is that you can really posit anything you please, without any factual backing. Is the Wedding Still On? Are Brad & Jen Headed for a Split? Is Britney Dating Joe Millionaire? Did Simon Cowell Have a Threesome With Paula and Randy? Is Trista Rehn A Member of Al Qaeda?

Once inside, you'll find that the answer is usually either "No" or "We don't know." Sometimes the question is never answered at all, as is the case with the Is-The-Wedding-Still-On? cover story. The "story" itself is, in fact, only half of one page in length, which means there's little space for anything save for more leading questions, e.g. "Is this J.Lo's idea of what it means to be an attentive husband? And just how long will Ben be willing to put up with it?"

We don't know? We were hoping you might answer that for us?

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. First, let's check out the other come-hither cover lines, such as, "Shocking Split: Is Helene in Tears?" (This is in reference to Aaron and Helene, the already forgotten pair from the last round of the The Bachelor. Of course, the only split between those two that would qualify as shocking is one that involved their bodies breaking apart and aliens emerging. And even then -- not that shocking.)

Or this sizzling exclusive: "Simon's Secret: He's only mean on-screen." Finally, his secret shame is revealed! How could Simon Cowell let such a red-hot nugget slip out to the public? Fire that publicist!

Okay, let's go inside. Please watch your heads. The standards are low.

PAGE 6: We're already at the opening section, titled "Up Close." This is an ironic title, given that so few of these grainy paparazzi photos look like they were taken within a hundred yards of their subjects.

We digress.

Here, In Touch feebly attempts to echo US Weekly's you-go-girl tone of celebrity familiarity. In part, this requires referring to all celebrities by first names only. It also requires pithy captions intended to create the impression that the staff of the magazine is comprised of one big, tittering klatsch of gal-pals, engaged in something like an extended pajama party.

This tactic works better for US Weekly, where it's been honed by Bonnie Fuller, the Dr. Evil of commercial rags. Far be it from us to criticize publications that write about celebrities without having any actual access to said celebrities. (The nerve!) But it's difficult for In Touch to sell itself as the product of a plugged-in, gossipy gaggle of entertainment insiders when it's so clearly the product of plugged-out, clueless wire-watchers.

For example, a photo of Jennifer Love Hewitt is accompanied by a caption explaining that she's wearing "a flirty romantic top with tailored wide-legged pants -- an adorable trend we first spotted last fall." Oh, did "we"? Who would that be, exactly? The gad fly staff of In Touch Weekly? No doubt they spotted this adorable new trend at their famous annual In Touch Weekly Oscar party.

PAGE 14: Look! We're already at the cover story, just fourteen pages in! Thankfully, our forward progress through the magazine has not been impeded by the presence of cumbersome advertising. To call this a "story," though, might suggest that it contains narrative, or factual assertions -- basically, anything besides more leading questions, hypothetical musings, and sketchily sourced anecdotes.

In fact, the sourcing is so tenuous that the sentences take on a kind of M.C. Escher complexity. Take this one: "Friends question whether Affleck is getting more and more infuriated by Lopez's legendary displays of diva-like behaviour, friends report." So wait -- are these friends who are reporting on other, different friends, who are questioning Affleck's infuriation, which may or may not be increasing? Or are these the same friends, reporting on their own questionings?

We like a good bit of gossip as much as anyone, but when you're referencing friends who are reporting on other friends who are questioning whether or not Ben may be feeling one way or another...well, then it's going to be hard for us to justify handing over our money for your magazine, even if it is only $1.99 ($2.99 in Canada). After all, for only a buck-and-change more, we could buy an actual magazine.

PAGE 16: Here we find what might be called a sidebar to the Ben/J.Lo article, if it weren't bigger than the article itself. We also find yet another breathy question: What's Keeping Them Apart?

Call us slow-witted, but is something keeping them apart? Are they apart? Did we miss that bulletin from the friends-of-the-friends?

In Touch, eminently in-the-know, offers five possible factors in the alleged apart-keeping: The Pal (Matt Damon); The Ex (Gwyneth Paltrow); The House (J.Lo's house); The Church (the Catholic church), and The Baby (an apparently hypothetical baby, though an actual, unidentified baby is pictured). Not implicated: the Agency (CIA); the Dictator (Fidel Castro); or the Virus (Ebola).

PAGE 20: Welcome to the section titled "Is It True?: The Real Story Behind the Hottest Gossip." Now this looks promising. We're always up for real stories behind hot gossip. Okay, what have we got here?

Question #1: Is John Travolta jealous of Richard Gere? Answer: Unknown. In fact, the accompanying blurb magically avoids any reference to Travolta's alleged jealousy of Gere. It instead recounts that Travolta turned down the part in Chicago that went to Gere and that Gere, consequently, "should have thanked John Travolta in his acceptance speech at the Golden Globes." You know, in keeping with that long-standing tradition of thanking people who turned down the role you eventually got.

Other burning questions, not quite answered: Will J.Lo do an art film to please Ben? Answer: Yes...ish. According to "British entertainment service Megastar," Lopez will "reportedly star in the next film directed by Lasse Hallström, who cheered the pants off everyone who saw his Cider House Rules, Chocolat, and The Shipping News."

First off, that's not really answering the gossip, so much as repeating the gossip. Perhaps this section should be called "Your Guess Is As Good As Ours: Hot Gossip Recounted From Other Sources."

Secondly: what does that part about Lasse Hallström cheering the pants off everyone who saw his movies mean? He was cheering their pants off? We're not sure how that works, but we sure wish we were there while it was happening.

Let's get this tour moving.

PAGE 32: "A Perfect Match: Could Trista and Evan Fall in Love?" Here we have an entirely speculative article about how Trista and Evan Marriott just might possibly have the hots for each other and, if they did, and if there were a show about them dating, what a big hit it would surely be. Yes -- and as long as we're making things up out of our imaginations, what about a show in which Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman try to patch things up, with the help of Dr. Phil? Another hypothetical ratings-buster, no doubt!

PAGES 33 THROUGH PAGE 65: In a reversal of classic magazine form, as you move through In Touch, the articles get shorter and shorter. There's a celebrity-secrets-to-sexy-stomachs piece (the secret: crunches) and a 10 Best Secret Weddings piece. (In Touch is apparently big on secrets that aren't actually secrets.) There's a non-sequitur profile of Delta Burke and Gerald McRaney. (Is there some enclave of Americans still fascinated by this couple? Now there's a good secret.)

Following this, we find a section called "Behind the Headlines: Making Sense of the News," that starts off with the story of Ben, the prize-winning Saint Bernard who's about to retire from dog shows. Ah yes -- remember how we all sat glued to CNN, watching that breaking story about Ben's retirement? And how we all wondered, "Sure, this is interesting. But can't someone take us behind these headlines, to make sense of the news?" Consider it done, In Touch faithful.

Finally, we reach this nonsensical little blurb of text, under the heading "Religion": "Gotta Have Faith: The world's fastest growing religions are probably the Assemblies of God and the Seventh Day Adventists, reports one American researcher, not the Latter Day Saints, as is often reported."

We've quoted that in its entirety.

PAGE 66: Continuing with the magazine's "something borrowed, something stolen, something else borrowed" philosophy, we now get a glimpse into the Manhattan apartment of Roberta Flack. This answers the question: What calibre of celebrity will open their doors to In Touch magazine?

Following the pictorial, we get tips for "stealing Roberta's style." (Perhaps the page should be called "stealing InStyle's ideas.") Because who hasn't looked at their own drab abode and thought, This could use a dash of that trademark Flack panache!

Okay, we'll stop now.

Having completed our tour, we hope you've learned a thing or two. As far as we can see, the primary selling point of In Touch is its discount pricing. In fact, flipping through it, we were reminded of those cheapie cigarettes you'll often see at drugstore checkouts (not far from In Touch) -- the ones with names like Monarch and Viceroy and Best Value.

In Touch would seem to be the celebrity magazine answer to Monarch cigarettes. An off-brand product, cheaply produced and containing suspect ingredients, but enough to slake your craving in a moment of desperation. Real desperation.