Mailbag for September 19, 2025
Taylor Swift and celebrity security measures, how awards show presenters are chosen, is physical media making a comeback, Victoria Beckham’s fashion brand, and fear as a public figure
Dear Squawkers,
Last weekend Taylor Swift reportedly was at Arrowhead Stadium to watch Travis Kelce play in Kansas City’s home opener. She was not, however, seen on camera or mentioned by the announcers and there was a video that went viral of team and venue staff coordinating a bulletproof moving wall behind which several people eventually walked as they made their way through the tunnel. It is widely presumed that Taylor was one of those people. And given what had happened just a few days before, this was an extra security measure that was obviously deemed necessary.
So that was Sunday. On Tuesday morning we got an email in the LaineyGossip general mailbox, Jacek forwarded it to me. The subject title: “Secret of Mariah Carey”. Needless to say, my first reacting seeing that was, OK, please, I need it. But then I opened the message and saw that I was one of maybe a hundred recipients – it had been sent to basically every English-language news outlet and film studios and PR firms and Oprah Daily, LOL.
I laugh because, well, it’s funny. Like I immediately texted MC because he’s the most devout member of the lambily that I know and gave him the heads-up that I was about to share with him the “Secret of Mariah Carey” …
Which is that she is “secretly” married to some rando who, in this email blast, included screenshots of WhatsApp messages between him and “Mariah” and also messages between “Mariah” and “Anderson Paak”, where she has to tell him that the real love of her life is not happy that they have been pretending to be dating in public.
Plus, there was this “marriage certificate” – I’ve white-scratched out some information on this, errrr, document out of, um, respect for Mariah’s “husband”.
Two things can be true, though, right? This is funny but also…disturbing. We hear, from time to time, about celebrities having to deal with stalkers, but that isn’t at all an accurate representation of just how MANY unhinged followers there are out there who have created entire imaginary existences and relationships with stars like Mariah Carey and Taylor Swift. And who, often, act on those delusions. There are simply too many of them to report – and reporting on them might inflame them even more, so it’s a delicate balancing act of protection and precaution and working with the authorities when necessary while also keeping much of it off the front page. In my position as a member of the media, I see it in the periphery but I’m not sure how much the average person engaging with pop culture truly appreciates how much risk celebrities have to assess on a daily basis, and especially now in our time of parasocial and digital connection.
On that related note, Warner Bros is still moving ahead with a remake of The Bodyguard. It will be directed by Sam Wrench who directed Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour movie and written by Jonathan A Abrams whose last film was Juror No 2. This I’m sure will get a reaction out of Jacek because he thought Juror No. 2 was the most artless film he’d ever seen, LOL. Note to Jacek – that’s not a script issue, it was Clint Eastwood’s hilariously efficient direction.
Mailbag time.
Question from Andréanne:
I asked this question in the Emmys chat and thought maybe it was more of a mailbag question so I am it copying it here: I would love to know more about how the presenters are chosen at awards shows. For example, does CBS have to have a certain numbers of presenters from other networks/streamers? Also, Jude Law and Jason Bateman were paired together on Sunday because of their new Netflix show Black Rabbit but it wasn’t mentioned when Nate announced them so there were no publicity for the show, so then why have them paired together? Thanks!
Lainey’s Answer:
I don’t know that there’s an exact number of presenters that has to be from other networks, but it’s generally understood in the Emmys broadcast rotation (every four years between the four major American linear broadcast networks) that the presenters should be a representation of talent across the board. As you noted, Jason Bateman and Jude Law being paired together was an easy decision because of Black Rabbit – and I’m not sure why the name of the show wasn’t announced when they came out on stage but there were so many producing mistakes that night, it is possible that it was in the script but just not delivered. Nate Bargatze was the one who introduced them and a lot of his intros that night seemed bungled.
Pairing presenters at award shows is kind of an art in itself. And I don’t mean in the case of people who are there to promote a project but like at the Oscars where the whole point of the night is to get as many movie stars as they can in the room, whether or not they’re involved in the nominated films. A good recent example of this is Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield a couple years ago. That combination instantly went viral on the night so credit to whoever came up with that idea and it’s not like they really did anything special up there, it’s just that people loved their vibe. Maybe it’s that category though, the screenplay categories, because it was pretty great when Tina Fey and Robert Downey Jr were paired to present those two awards in 2010. I know I have talked about this moment before so apologies to those who remember that but, you know, not every post reaches every reader so here I go again! (tap the image to jump to the video)
I know there were some complaints about the presenter bits at the Emmys the other night and mostly because they were rushing the show along with that fucking money ticker which did the presenters so dirty because the audience frustration ended up being directed at them for taking up so much time on bits that mostly missed. In a regular award show situation, though, when the producers and the host aren’t disrespecting the achievements of people with a timed and depleting children’s bank account, there’s a reason why presenters want the airtime: because they’re there for an exchange. This is the mutual back scratch of the industry, right? Nominees are at the show for the glory; they get to hear their name called out during the most prestigious ceremonies Hollywood has to offer. But presenters? In a town full of insecure babies? They’re getting all dressed up to hear OTHER PEOPLE’s names, people they’ve auditioned with, people they may have gone to acting class with, people who dated their ex-boyfriend or current husband. Most of them aren’t showing up unless they’re guaranteed a moment – and, honestly, I don’t blame them. This town depends on fragile egos, and opportunities for those egos to be fed, please don’t ruin our fun.
Question from Janelle:
I want the details of Lainey’s trip to the criterion closet. And paired with that maybe for Sarah do you think physical media is making a comeback? Anecdotally I see lots of people in my life dusting their DVDs and blu ray players off.
Sarah’s answer:
First, I want to acknowledge there was a question about what could or should happen next re: Jimmy Kimmel, which I will be addressing in a newsletter next week. I need a little more space and time to think than a mailbag allows. As for physical media, still not bitter about not getting to do the mobile Criterion Closet at TIFF, not at all, not in the slightest. As for physical media making a comeback, yes and no. No, it will never be what it once was, which is not only a standard of home entertainment, but also a major economic force in the film industry.
But yes, there is still life in physical media. Like vinyl records, DVDs and Blu Rays are now mostly the purview of collectors. That’s why Criterion is so popular with cinephiles, because they do beautifully mastered physical copies of films, accompanied by essays, artwork, and thoughtfully designed packaging. Criterion is about collecting. The same goes for Steelbooks and box sets, and milestone re-releases, now remastered in 4K, etc. The home video market is now a market of collectors.
I also think it is sinking in for people that if you really love something, you need to own the physical copy, because the streaming/digital copy is constantly moving. I live in a very small apartment, so I can’t really devote a lot of space to physical collections—what room I do have is, currently, reserved for books—but my absolute favorite movies are on disc, in a binder stored in my media cabinet. The stuff I KNOW I am going to want to re-watch on a regular basis is within my physical grasp. I think many people do this, too, investing in their favorites, if not full-blown collections.
Streaming is not a complete replacement for home video. It can’t be so long as licensing keeps changing hands, and so many older titles, especially pre-1975, are not available to stream at all. If you really love it, you probably should just own it. It’s the only real way to guarantee you can actually watch on demand.
Question from Zoe:
I just read an article thetimes.com/life-style/celebrity/article/victoria-beckham-comp… about how Victoria Beckham’s fashion brand did not turn a profit for 17 years! How does that even work? Maybe this could be a mail bag deep dive on the difficult economics facing fashion industry.
Lainey’s Answer:
Let’s start with the fact that this is the British media and the only thing they hate more than Victoria Beckham’s fashion brand still being around is whatever it is that Meghan Sussex is doing today.
Second, it takes a while for most fashion brands to turn a profit, celebrity-backed or not, and many have not. Remember JLo’s Sweetface? That lasted all of five or six years and, honestly, the last four were flops. But Sweetface wasn’t luxury and Victoria Beckham, from the jump, went for luxury. Which is an even more ambitious goal.
In the luxury space for celebrities, it’s really only Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen’s The Row that has had continuous and exponential success. Katie Holmes tried it, too, remember? Holmes & Yang was a collaboration between Katie and stylist Jeanne Yang that basically went nowhere. Even Rihanna couldn’t do it. As successful as Fenty Beauty and Savage x Fenty have been, RiRi’s luxury label, that was backed by LVMH (!!!), lasted two years. It didn’t help that she launched just nine months before the pandemic but even with a conglomerate behind her, operations were suspended in 2021 – and in retrospect for her, it was a smart decision. Probably a tough one, but sometimes the best business decisions are about when to fold and not push. She’s not hurting for it. And she had all the cultural enthusiasm that, frankly, Victoria never did. The first few years of Victoria Beckham were about confronting and overcoming skepticism. And convincing her investors to ride with her through it. The next few years after that were about trying to get back to even.
Luxury is expensive, not just to buy but also to produce at all levels of production, from materials to where the pieces are being made and who is making them. When you’re not mass producing, you’re not lowering the cost of supplies and labour. There’s a loose comparison you can make here with, say, the restaurant industry. They kinda addressed this in the most recent season of The Bear, with the overhead of the fine dining experience vs the sandwich shop in the back that is partly funding the fancy restaurant, so successful that they were thinking of franchising. In so many different industries, aiming for the highest quality is always the most expensive and most risky option.
For Victoria, I’m sure along the way there were some management stumbles and other business challenges. Again, she doesn’t have a conglomerate behind her like other designers who can rely on an existing infrastructure. Stella McCartney, for example, for 20 years was with Kering, that’s how she first launched her brand. After that she was under the LVMH umbrella. And by the way, even though it wasn’t as widely reported in the gossip pages as Victoria Beckham, Stella McCartney hasn’t been entirely profitable either. In fact, from 2017 to 2023/24, the company was not profitable, though the house seems to be on a better trajectory over the last couple of years. Earlier this year Stella regained LVMH’s share of the business, so her label is now independent. In a statement announcing this move, the house said that, “This new chapter for Stella McCartney reflects its desire to write a new page in its history independently after working closely with the group to strengthen the fundamentals and governance of its house”.
That’s what Victoria Beckham never had – the support of a Kering or LVMH to “strengthen the fundamentals and governance”. She and David own the house, along with private investors so the fact that she’s was able to finally turn a profit in 2022 is a testament to her determination.
I am nowhere near an expert in fashion and retail, but I do think that the reporting on Victoria Beckham’s fashion efforts often lack context. The way that the British tabloids have made it sound, it’s like she was the only one struggling while everyone else in fashion was winning. That is simply not true – and the luxury market has actually been contracting. She doesn’t get enough credit for being able to sustain in this space.
Question from Betts:
This one is a loaded one, but … in this age of journalists get fired for saying the truth about what is going by news networks who are afraid of the right, how do you all balance what you share in your work and as public figures? Do you fear getting trolled for saying the truth and standing up for what you believe in? How do you protect yourselves (mentally and from very real doxxing and whatnot)?
Lainey’s Answer:
Betts actually submitted this for last week’s mailbag, before the Jimmy Kimmel situation. It was after Charlie Kirk was killed and broadcasters were getting fired, but Jimmy – to date – is now the biggest name to have been suspended.
As Sarah wrote at the end of her piece about Disney/ABC’s decision to take Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air, she is scared, she was anxious about reaction to that article, what the repercussions would be. Same goes for me. My hands were shaking a bit when I was editing it and going back and forth with her over email during the edit process. I sat with that post a lot longer than I usually do – and not because of what Sarah was writing, never that, she is brilliant, but because of the threats to democracy that are gaining strength, it is terrifying right now to put yourself out there. In this case we decided to because it’s television, it’s a comedian, it’s directly related to the business of entertainment which is the business we analyse.
Do you fear getting trolled for saying the truth and standing up for what you believe in?
More and more, every day. I would love to be inspiring here and tell you that I overcome it, but I don’t. I have no statements of courage to share with you. The fear is big, it’s bigger than my strength.
How do you protect yourselves (mentally and from very real doxxing and whatnot)?
Well, sometimes I make choices that are unseen and probably not popular. If that makes me a coward, I won’t deny it. What I will do is ask you to read back the beginning of this newsletter and consider that everyone who contributes to LaineyGossip has a public and digital profile. In my case, not only am I known online, I am also a television personality in Canada, extremely minor in comparison to the celebrities we talk about. But even that tiny bit of exposure comes with certain realities. It’s not just that I have to protect myself and my colleagues mentally, I also have to protect myself and my colleagues physically.
I do this by holding on to the people who know me, truly know me, and trusting that they know my heart and what I believe. I am trying to better protect myself mentally by not beating myself up over my lost ambitions. I had goals that I’ve either delayed or given up on, some of them have to do with other writing projects, because fear is insidious; when you are afraid of one thing, it makes you afraid or doubtful of other seemingly unrelated things. Since I haven’t figured out how to stop being afraid, I am working on not being disappointed in myself over the things I’ve been too afraid to try.
Thank you for continuing to read us at LaineyGossip and here at The Squawk in the times when we are brave and in the times when we are not.
Keep squawking and keep gossiping,
Lainey and Sarah
Oh my goodness Lainey. Thank you so much for articulating your thoughts around fear like this. As someone who lives with chronic, daily anxiety (I’ve heard it hilariously described as “fear of everything and nothing”), I am so tired of the toxic positivity/wellness/optimization bullshit that makes us feel like we’re only worthy if we stand up to, face, and defeat our fears. Being too afraid to try stuff is sometimes just a reality and it can be so exhausting to feel like you’re constantly fighting through those emotions. Sometimes acceptance and being kind to yourself despite fear is the bravest thing you can manage. And that’s ok.
I can't say anything better worded than Jen Ar's comment. We're all here in the Squawk because we love the LG Team's work - be it writing, interacting with us, live chats, all of it. The fact that you include us in any of this is more than we have a right to. Thank you for your work, for including us, and for continuing on even when that's a scary thing to do. Love to all of you!