Kanye West and Kim Kardashian reportedly turned down $3 million from an Australian magazine to publish the first public photos of their baby, North West.
Yes, the offer means their baby probably is more valuable than the airline of a similar name.
Talk about easy money. I just don't get anything about this deal.
I don't know why they wouldn't take the money, unless they're trying to look like good parents while being part of a family that allowed its two youngest members to go through puberty in front of TV cameras for wheelbarrows full of cash.
If Kim and Kanye don't want the money, give it to the poor. Or to homeless animals. Or to poor, unemployed homeless animals. Whatever. That's a lot of money that someone could use. And after all, it's only a baby picture.
Celebrities may be better looking than the rest of us, but babies are still babies. And they're all funny looking.
From the opposite angle, I don't understand the offer the same way I didn't understand why People magazine reportedly paid $15 million in 2008 for baby pictures of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's newborn twins, Knox and Vivienne. Or any of these other cash-for-baby-picture deals magazines and tabloids strike with celebrities.
They're pictures of babies -- and have you looked lately at a picture of a baby under the age of a couple months? Who in their right mind would drop six bucks on a magazine just to look at pictures of a celebrity baby that is indistinguishable from those made by the rest of us?
Right -- it's sort of a cross between a small, badly shaved marsupial and something that just landed from outer space.
Don't get me wrong. I love kids. I'm pretty sure I have three or four of them. I saw a couple of them being born, and each time it was absolutely miraculous (and all that other stuff parents are supposed to say).
I loved them from the second I heard them howling because someone evicted them from that warm, quiet place they'd been squatting in rent-free for nine months.
But babies are funny looking. Period.
Despite what unnamed sources "close to" celebrity parents claim, or what people congratulating new parents on Facebook say, no baby comes out looking more like one parent or another -- unless those parents happened to be featured in a movie about invading space aliens.
My two biological daughters have grown into wonderful, beautiful children.
But their first couple days, I was afraid the first one was going to pull a ray gun on me, and that the second one's giant purple head would explode any minute.
OK, so maybe I really did think they were beautiful at the time (I could have told you all about it if I weren't so busy blubbering like a woman watching "Terms of Fried Green Magnolias"). But they were my kids. Yes, I thought they were gorgeous, once they wiped all that stuff off them.
But everyone else's newborn babies are kind of strange looking. So why, why, why would anyone else pay to see them? And why would a magazine pay millions of dollars to publish photographs of them?
West reportedly is against any photo deals, because he wants to protect the baby's identity.
He probably doesn't realize that in a few months, his baby won't look anything like it does now (the good news is babies start to look human in a relatively short amount of time).
Besides, who does he think he's kidding? With all the paparazzi roaming around, and Grandma Kris Jenner only too happy to milk every member of her family for profit and TV ratings, that child's identity is about as secure as a butterfly in a wind tunnel.
The reality is, so long as publications are crazy enough to pay millions for celebrity baby photos and people are crazy enough to buy those publications, Kim and Kanye ought to take the money.
Maybe they can buy North West an airline.