Celebrities rebel! Stern steps are contemplated!

I tell now a story from the deep past of celebrity journalism. I was in Los Angeles interviewing Larry Hagman, who would one day become J.R. on "Dallas" but at that point was Maj. Tony Nelson on "I Dream of Jeannie." I was not on the trail of any scandal or larger story, it was just a sit-down interview from which I would construct a story.

It was a breakfast interview. It took place in a hotel restaurant. There was coffee in a silver pot and iced orange juice and wonderful small plates of lox. The conversation started out earnestly but quickly devolved into something else. We talked about music and politics and famous parents (his).

His mother was Mary Martin, the musical-comedy star, and as a young boy I had something of a chaotic crush on Martin, who came through town with the road company of "Peter Pan." I shared that with him. He offered to take me into the parking lot to share a joint.

It was all very lovely.

My point is that there were no flacks around, no personal assistants, no lawyers, no agents, no media handlers. They didn't even want to sit in on the interview. Questions were not submitted beforehand, nor was story approval granted or even demanded. There were no ground rules, no areas that were out of bounds. The name of the photographer was not specified.

The network calculated that a story in The Chronicle might mean a few more viewers in the Bay Area, which would marginally improve its fortunes. The Chronicle figured that a piece on Larry Hagman meant space filled with local writing. It was a tiny interchange with large calculus wired in. That was the way the world worked because everyone made money.

That has changed now. If a magazine wants a big star on the cover, it better make sure to give that star loving coverage. Celebrity magazines compete for glam shots of your favorite movie (occasionally TV) star or pop diva or boy band. The more comfortable stars are with their fame, the more they can successfully manipulate the media.

In general, magazines go along with this. Make nicey-nicey, report everything breathlessly, enter into a fantasy world where rehab is always successful for those who make a wrong turn. (Occasionally, as with O.J. Simpson, the fantasy world meets the larger world, and then everyone is agog. Remember Marcia Clark? Chris Darden? Barry Scheck? Kato Kaelin? You were agog, weren't you? You had an opinion.)

Some don't go along with the wink and the nudge. Vanity Fair doesn't. It prints the nice profiles, all right, and the super-glamour photo spreads starring everyone you ever heard of, and it brushes into society worship as well, but that's not all it does. Even though the darned magazine is impossible to read, what with all those ads, it has done long, investigatory pieces on various public scandals, including Tom Cruise and Scientology and the questionable practices thereof.

I'm not saying Vanity Fair is the Journal of Foreign Affairs, I'm saying it does journalism. And that has celebrities upset. They like the nicey-nicey world better, the world where their status matches their own idea of themselves.

One could point out that Vanity Fair has made a lot of actresses a lot of money over the years. It's a transaction, don't you know? You get publicity; I get magazine sales; we both make money. But it's also the search for good stories. If that leads you to some facts about the rocky production of Brad Pitt's zombie movie, "World War Z," so be it. Yeah, Vanity Fair did that story.

According to the New York Times, one of the people incensed by Vanity Fair is Gwyneth Paltrow. She wrote in an e-mail to friends: "Vanity Fair is threatening to put me on the cover. If you are asked for quotes or comments, please decline. Also, I recommend that you all never do this magazine again."

Paltrow may be cover-worthy just now because of Goop, her online magazine about things of importance to her, including recipes and child-rearing tips and fashion. Her editor's notes are hilarious; much mocking is already being done in the social media.

But she's adopted a bad strategy. If Vanity Fair is going to do a piece on you, you want people from your side talking to the writer. You don't want a piece defined by your enemies - although how could you hate that adorable overachiever? Not I; I am a member of the agog profession.