The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (
-   Royal Chit Chat (
-   -   The Paparazzi (

TheTruth 03-02-2008 01:42 PM

The Paparazzi
I've been questioning myself on different "types" of photographers and if there were some more fair play than others. Do you think a paparazzo can be fair or decent with a Royal ? And is it your belief that not all paparazzi are bad or ruthless ?

This thread is to talk about the gutter press in general so feel free to express your views on it.

Furienna 03-13-2008 09:09 AM

The problem with the paparazzi is that some celebrities can't get any privacy. Of course it's okay to take photographs, when people want to show themselves. But in order to get their stories, tabloids have often gone too far.

Lumutqueen 09-05-2009 06:26 AM

I think the royal need paparazzi and the paps need royalty. :smile:
It's always gunna be that way. :flowers:

Furienna 09-05-2009 08:56 AM

No, no celebrities need the treatment, that many of them get. They don't highly exaggerated, or even totally false, stories written about them. They don't need to be chased. They don't need bad photographs of them being shown.

Marsel 09-05-2009 10:21 AM

I wouldn’t say they are bad at all, not most of them at any rate.
They are just doing their job: if we didn’t want to see the pictures of Royals / celebrities every day, then they wouldn’t go out of their skins to acquire them.

Furienna 09-05-2009 11:08 AM

But there are obviously paparazzi, who don't respect other people's privacy, just so they can get some pictures.

Nathalie Cox 09-05-2009 11:54 AM

Well, paparazzi do they jobs. The problem is that many times they cross the line of privacy and of course nobody likes that. I wouldn't like to be followed by them day and night, so...

Marsel 09-05-2009 12:35 PM


Originally Posted by Furienna
But there are obviously paparazzi, who don't respect other people's privacy, just so they can get some pictures.

Well, technically, all of us who view the pictures of Royals taken during non-official events and engagements do not respect their privacy as well. :wink:

Furienna 09-05-2009 01:37 PM

Well, at least we didn't take those pictures. And most of us don't ask for them.

Lumutqueen 09-05-2009 02:19 PM


Originally Posted by Marsel (Post 987880)
Well, technically, all of us who view the pictures of Royals taken during non-official events and engagements do not respect their privacy as well. :wink:

You are quite right, if we didn't get those "illegal" pictures we wouldn't know anything about the royals. :flowers:

TheTruth 09-06-2009 08:05 AM


Originally Posted by Furienna (Post 987895)
Well, at least we didn't take those pictures. And most of us don't ask for them.

I would agree if people didn't buy tabloids. When you accept to give a few coins to see these pictures, you're willingly funding paparazzi so that they can still do their "job". And when you see the amount of money they get to do itů:whistling:. But there's another threat for celebrities and royals these days: people themselves who, with their cellphone, manage to film or take pictures and then sell them to tabloids.

Mademoiselle Lilo 09-06-2009 10:49 AM

well,alot of ppl love to see Paparzzi's photos,so i guess they are doing the durty part here,however they sometimes or most of time cross the lines and don't respect the other privacy.

RubyPrincess168 09-07-2009 03:24 AM

The only times I don't approve of paparazzi photos is when boundries are crossed (like the pap who jumped a fence to get into Halle Berry's backyard to take the "first" pics of her newborn baby), or the subject's life is put in danger (such as chasing or blocking vehicles, similar to what happened with Princess Diana). I believe in Freedom of the Press, but they don't have to be obnoxious to do their job. If they kept to a respectable distance and treated their targets a little nicer, the subjects might be a little more accomodating. As long as there is still royalty in the world, there is going to be a fascination with them, and paparazzi will take pictures of what they feel the public wants to see.

Furienna 09-07-2009 04:10 AM

Yeah, but the important thing is, that they show some respect to the celebrites, of which they take photos, and too many of them don't.

Iluvbertie 09-07-2009 04:33 AM

I believe that the paparazzi exist because people insist on buying the pictures that they take therefore they are making a living off the voyeurism of the general public.

I don't blame the paparazzi for chasing the celebrities etc as the demand for the photos was created by the general public. I blame the ordinary people who pay the money for the photos - indirectly through buying the magazines etc. Personally I don't care what a celebrity/royal does in their private life. I am perfectly happy seeing photos taken while they are on official duty and all others shouldn't be taken or sold but unfortunately most people aren't happy with that and thus they create a demand for photos so the paparazzi take the photos and, because of the money they get for the 'exclusive' photo they go to extraordinary lengths to get it to fill the demand of ordinary people who somehow believe that they have a right to the intimate details of people's lives, rather than just the official or public side of their lives.

MARG 09-07-2009 04:42 AM

I am hard pushed to decide which is worse. The sleazy photographer who infiltrated George Clooney's property and used a telephoto lens to take photos of a 13 year old girl dressing . . . . . .

or . . . . . .

The slimey editor that printed them?

or . . . . . .

The people motivated to purchase said publication?

RubyPrincess168 09-07-2009 05:20 AM

I'd say the photographer if he trespassed on GC's property to take the photo. The editor may not have known the lengths the photographer went to to get the photo, and the consumer may have bought the publication for a different reason not knowing the photos were in there.

MARG 09-07-2009 07:26 AM

:previous: I have to admit that to me the Editor is supposed to be the last bastion of what is right. Regardless of where a photo is taken a 13 year old girl is a child and photo's of a child in various stages of undress are, at best, voyeuristic and at worst Kiddy-porn, so that leaves the purchasers of said publications more than a little suspect wouldn't you say?

sjetajiem 09-07-2009 10:46 AM

It is all about money.
And it is all about satisfying the needs of voyeurs.
A lot of people, think that they have the RIGHT to see celebrity in private-pics.
One example: the very private family Guillermo at New York, that happens to be related to the dutch royal family wanted to keep their wedding private.
As soon as people knew that they would marry, they asked for photoshoots, as if the Guillermo's were royals on a public duty and that they, the people, were officially invited at the wedding.
Without pics they would have been very frustrated.
The summer of 2008, when the crownprincely family of Denmark staid in Australia at the house of princess Mary's sister, privatly, paps were filming/taking pics at the front door of her sister's house and some stood even in her garden asking questions and shouting at nephews and nieces.
Personally I find that "stalking private people"

But as long as people ask for private moment- photos and are willing to pay for it, there will be paps.
As long as they get a lot of money for it they will cross the border.
The gain is far more attractive than the fine!

queenofthelight 09-07-2009 01:06 PM

I think each member from this thread is right in his/her own way.
The main thing is that people follow the rules of nonintervention of the private life.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises