#I need to find that graph form gossip cop about which tabloids are reliable

[taylorrepdetective]

Normally I would not even glance at a Life & Style article, but given the new music mention, it made me pause at the Taylor Swift Thinks Travis Kelce Could ‘Flourish in the Studio’: They’re ‘Writing Lyrics Together’. Do you think this is planting a seed for a possible William Bowery II, or is it just “made up or from very unreliable sources?”

Life and Style is absolute garbage. They have never gotten an exclusive from a reputable source in their lives. Not once. Not even ever getting a reputable source who wanted to spread disinformation. 95% of it is 100% made up by them and the other 5% is based on fan speculation, which is sometimes correct, so if they get it correct, it’s because the fan speculation was correct. Not because they know more than you or I.

Do not pay it any mind. If by some chance Taylor decided to hilariously grace us with Billiam Wowery, it will be 100% coincidence or luck that L&S said this.

To put it into perspective, gossip rags that are 95% garbage but have actually gotten occasional good exclusives include the Daily Mail, Deux Moi, US weekly, TMZ (somewhat better than 95% but still a lot of garbage) and Page Six. If they say “exclusive” or quote a spokesperson for the celeb, then you can believe it came from an official source. However, if they say “sources close to the star” without the word “exclusive” it’s just as likely to be from garbage sources or made up as true. It’s possible that it’s made up garbage that is planted by their teams to throw people off or create speculation that eventually will be proven as untrue, but I honestly don’t think Taylor does much of that. It’s possible, but again just because garbage is coming for Taylor’s team does it make it any less worth throwing away.

For example US weekly yesterday had an exclusive source say “nothings’s changed. They are still together.” No other useful information from sources was included in that article. But that tidbit should tell you that travlor’s official people are saying this is what we should all be believing. And when she shows up on Monday, it will confirm it to everyone. However in similar articles you might see things like “previously, people close to the celebs had said they are ready to get engaged.” This is from a separate source that’s not exclusive and not official and from an earlier date and published in an earlier article, often from different publication (which they will cite.) For example, it might say “sources close to the singer previously said, as reported in the Daily Mail, that their loved ones expect an engagement soon.” This is a whole other thing, but because they put it in a same article as the one that is official saying they’re still together, people conflate the two “facts” and think to themselves “nothing has changed so their loved ones still think an engagement is soon.” Ignoring the fact that this first unsubstantiated garbage source said that 6 months ago and it stretches our imaginations of what “close” and “soon” mean.

Stay in school kids. This is why your high school English teachers made you analyze readings.

~~Edited to add another example how to read celeb gossip news: People just came out with an article about Travis’ diet and how he has to ignore sweets to stay in football shape. Now, People is the most “reliable*” and “reputable**” outlet when it comes to articles that have sourced information: their sources are the official sources. But this article does not cite an exclusive or sources close to the celeb or a spokesman for him. It is a fluff piece regurgitating public information that Travis said on his podcast this week, then going back and reiterating things he’s said in the past on his podcast. It is not an interview he did with People or anyone else, except to his brother on his edited podcast that he recently did a $100 million dollar deal on. They did a click-baity headline to get clicks, and wrote up a blurb about the silly things he said about staying in football shape. Just because it’s in People doesn’t mean it came from his camp exclusively to be published in People, or that this is part of some sort of selling of a narrative. It’s just a fluff piece that People published because they know any Travis content right now will get clicks.

*reliable means that they are spoon feeding us information directly from publicists which is not the same as the truth. Look at it as the official narrative that certainly has some semblance of truth or at least won’t be proven to be a lie later down the road.

**reputable means they are not just making stuff up on their own without getting some kind of reasonable confirmation.