That Christie Brinkley is a publicity whore is one way to explain why she demanded her divorce proceedings be open to the media, despite protests from soon-to-be ex-husband Peter Cook and the attorney representing her children Sailer, 10, and Jack, 13. Or, you know, she finds so egregious Cook’s violations of their marriage — the $3k/month on porn; the posting of his own nude photos on websites for swingers; his sleeping with Diana Bianchi, an 18-year-old employee at his architecture firm, then paying her $300k to keep quiet — that she wants them made a matter of public record, where Cook can be humiliated for all to see. Including her kids’ Google searches.

Nevermind that Brinkley is being described in open court by her husband’s attorney as a woman who, “for goodness sake,” is “on her fourth husband” and that everybody’s time is being wasted because of the “the self-indulgent wrath of a woman scorned.”

It could be argued Brinkley is going for the sympathy vote, hoping the tabloid press — and even CNN and Fox News, who will of course be breathlessly reporting from the trial — will be nice to her so she can win the trial, at least in the court of public opinion. Except what are the chances of that happening?

The press loves to paint a woman as a vindictive wench, even if her husband may epitomize true scum. Need evidence?

Just look at what People magazine, the most likely of the tabloids to treat Brinkley with a modicum of respect, chose to headline their article — filed under “Nasty Breakups and Divorces: — as: “Peter Cook on Brinkley: ‘Shrek Was More Believable.’”

And with that, it’s clear which way the tide is already turning … and what type of shape Brinkley will be in by the time the dollar figure for alimony is set.

On that note, we’re done for the day, taking off a smidge early to get our Independence Day celebration going.

Read more at: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/jossip/~3/326073277/.