People—the magazine—paid millions of dollars for exclusive rights to the Brangelina baby pictures, only to have some of those photos leaked onto Gawker and a few other celebrity blogs days before it went to press. This is the subject of a hard-hitting article in the New York Times, which asks, "But did the Internet publication of the pictures really undermine People's publicity plan?" Let's go to the experts.

Or better yet, let's go to the expert in all things magazine-y, Samir Husni. Gelf has taken issue with publications' use of spurious trend-spotters like Husni in the past, and his comments in this case, which the Times uses to sum up its article, are especially dubious.

"The blogs are whetting the appetite of the public, but they want to see the real thing," he says. "To this addicted public, it is not real unless it is in their hands, on their laps, in their bath tub."

Aha. So by Husni's logic, some sort of addiction causes people to think pictures on the internet are imaginary. Maybe it's the same addiction that Husni referred to in a Times piece Gelf picked on earlier this year, when he told the paper that GQ's use of stars from the Dukes of Hazzard on its cover two months in a row "were indicative of a strategy of creating and feeding addiction in readers."

Let's kick another addiction: Instead of relying on silly, cop-out quotes from an expert, how about getting readers some actual facts?