By emily

BIG NEWS, everybody: Jennifer Aniston is in possession of some fallopian tubes! A source close to Aniston reports that she also has a uterus, a vagina, and ovaries, leading to speculation that SHE COULD BE PREGNANT! Recent photos show Aniston touching her stomach. Could her dreams of motherhood finally be coming true? “Jennifer wants kids more than anyone has ever wanted anything in this universe,” says a friend. “Now that Friends is over, she and Brad have being trying desperately to unite some of her ripe ova with Brad’s sperm!”

Jesus, sorry, I don’t know where that came from. Oh, wait, no, actually I do. It is because for the last couple of weeks I have read literally nothing except Us Weekly, In Touch, and Star. You know how, when you’re sick, all you want to eat are bland, easy-to-digest comfort foods like chicken soup and mashed potatoes? Well, these magazines are like a big bowl of warm buttered egg noodles for my brain. But even though they look exactly the same and contain basically the exact same articles, there are huge gulfs of difference that separate these three gossip rags. And if I was going to be stuck with one of them on a desert island, I would want it to be . . .

US Weekly: C+

Even with its higher price point, Us trumps the $1.29-cheaper In Touch nearly every week. It’s printed on slightly thicker paper, so you feel less like a trailer trash housewife while reading it. The photos are better, and the editorial tone is generally a little bit meaner. My main problem with all of these magazines is that they aren’t nearly mean enough. They seem to think that readers want nothing more than to revel in the stars’ WEDDED BLISS and BABY JOY. Um, no. We want close-ups of Britney’s ass acne.

I would read British tabloids for this reason, except that they’re full of people I’ve never heard of. But they really know how to be mean over there. All the articles start out like “FAT SLAG Victoria Beckham was spotted slapping a stranger’s child yesterday . . .” Anyway, Us wins the battle basically on the basis of paper shininess. Also, they have better ‘fashion mistakes’ reportage.

But coming in a close second is

In Touch: C

At $1.99, In Touch is undoubtedly the best buy at the newsstand. It’s a good thing to read on the subway, especially if you’re on your way to taking your spare change to the Commerce Bank because you’re broke. Also, I believe they originated the FACT OR FICTION feature, in which they reiterate a good rumor going around about a celebrity and then the celebrity’s publicist denies it, and we’re supposed to be like, ‘Oh, I guess it must not be true, then.’ This feature is really the most intellectually challenging part of any of these magazines. It makes me think deep thoughts such as, “Why doesn't Elijah Wood just admit that he’s gay, in this day and age? Can he possibly have a good reason? Does just he not want to be made into some sort of symbol? Weird.”

Other than that, it is just a sort of trashier Us Weekly with a just a soupcon more fertility obsession.

The clear loser, of course, is

Star: D-

This has by far the worst production values, and they never have anything you haven’t seen before. They do get a few points for having a feature called Knifestyles of the Rich and Famous. And I must say that their strong point is their coverage of ‘Now Look Who’s Fat.’ But for $3.49 I want more ‘Paris Hilton’s plumber crack’ photojournalism.

Certainly, we face a critical juncture in the history of Trashy News. In the weeks ahead, we can count on stories like ASHLEY PULLS A KAREN CARPENTER and J LO, SHOTGUN BRIDE to be the battleground upon which these formidable weeklies will fight. And maybe, someday, if we’re all lucky, we’ll get to read months and months of insipid headlines about the GODLIKE OFFSPRING OF THE PITTS.

Unless Jennifer is secretly a man.