The Paparazzi

[TheTruth]

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]

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]

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

 

[Furienna]

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]

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]

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

 

[Nathalie Cox]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[TheTruth]

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 it…. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't trust them. It's the whole package that is bad, not just the pictures taken by intrusive photographers. The stories that accompany the photographs are really tasty and help sell magazines and papers. I confess that my curiosity sometimes gets the better of me and I enjoy (or at least can't resist looking at) some inappropriate photographs. Not necessarily rude pictures but you know the celebrity probably didn't want the picture taken. The scandalous photos are the best.

 

[madeleine victoria]

Actually you can't blame them since it's their job to get pictures of celebrities but sometimes they do cross the line. If someone gets physically hurt, it might be bad. You also can't say that celebrities get emotionally hurt because what we see in the pictures however illegal they maybe are actually their actions (except when it's photoshopped). The fact that you are seen and being chased by the paparazzi is part of the package that your life is somewhat owned by the public. Difficult as it may seem, if you don't want your life to get complicated or hounded by paparazzi, avoid hollywood/celebrity life. If you want to live the life you always dreamed of - that is celebrity status (fame, money and everything else) accept it consequences.

As for the illegal pics, I'm not complaining since if we don' have them we won't be having some pretty good threads here.

 

[TheTruth]

I think I'll have to disagree with a few points you made. First of all, I don't think one can say that celebrities only have the right to be angry at the paparazzi when "physically hurt". I'm writing a law essay on that specific matter and although you can't always blame them for doing their "job", it's exactly the same for celebrities. You can't blame them for leading the hollywood life and sometimes express contempt for these picture-chasers. It's also a job to be an actress or a singer, but unlike paparazzi they are unable to say "ok, it's 7 PM, I'm off the job". They have to deal with their celebrity 24/7 and they can't resign. Being famous hasn't always been about being chased (thanks to people's voyeurism…) and everyone should have the right to choose a career and not suffer from it. Moreover, I'm deeply shocked when I read that their lives "is somewhat owned by the public". Nobody owns anyone. Celebrities are still human beings and they have the right to privacy like everyone.

As for the illegal pics, I'm not complaining since if we don' have them we won't be having some pretty good threads here.

TRF doesn't feed on illegal pictures or speculations. If good threads for you have to be nourished by pictures taken against someone's will, then I do understand why paparazzi and tabloids earn so much.

 

[Furienna]

I disagree too. Paparazzi have done some very terrible things, and celebrities deserve their right to privacy.

 

[RubyPrincess168]

Photographer: Royals entitled to privacy - CNN.com

Hey, at least one of them thinks they should be reined in!

 

[Patra]

IMO we need international Paparazzi laws, as I feel they intrude on basic human rights more than they respect human rights. celebrity or not, what the pap does is downright disgraceful.