If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Are the paparazzi going too far?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm
What do you think?
Do new laws have to be introduced to stop people being harassed by the press, especially the photographers
I think something does need to be done, certainly for those people that do not seek fame for themselves but may be involved with someone who is famous. For example someone non famous who dates or marries someone famous, or their children.
What do you think?
Do new laws have to be introduced to stop people being harassed by the press, especially the photographers
I think something does need to be done, certainly for those people that do not seek fame for themselves but may be involved with someone who is famous. For example someone non famous who dates or marries someone famous, or their children.
0
Comments
That is to say, I don't think being famous gives everyone else the right to intrude into your private life.
Well don't they then become 'famous' themselves?
I don't think there should be a special law for famous people, ordinary people can be harassed by photographers as well if they have done something newsworthy.
They're all waiting for Kate to get drunk and swear or flash her pants or something.
Everytime you pick up a copy of Heat, think of those poor celebs.
Just because a certain section of the public are interested does not mean its in the 'public interest'.
Don't you think that it shouldn't be alright for anyone to be harassed?
My heart bleeds. Least they can dry their eyes with a fifty eh.
Is all this hoo-hah started because of that Kate Middleton? She seems boring as fuck and I wouldn't be interested in watching her fall over pissed or flashing her lady-bits as she steps out of a chauffeur-driven car anyway. I bet all her knickers are Sloggis
still bitter that I'm never going to be a princess to anyone other than daddykins
But yeah, paparazzi are a waste of space.
A singer leaving a club slightly worse for wear, or a celebrity sunbathing topless on a beach in Barbados are nobody's fucking concern. Paparazzi and the newspapers & magazines that publish their pictures are the lowest form of scum and deserve to have their noses punched very hard and broken into many pieces every time they hang around a nightclub or hide behind a bush with a fotolens stalking people.
Further to VinylVicky's wishes, I'd go further and pay photographers to camp outside the homes of the editors of the S*n, Screws, Daily Mail, Heat et all and follow them 24 hours a day for an entire year. Snap them when they're looking fat and ugly as they lay on a beach. Snap them as they come out of a restaurant looking drunk. Snap them when they sneeze, trip on the street or have a bad hair day. Perhaps after a whole year of that the cunts will begin to understand their own actions.
It's interesting though that the paparazzi don't like it when its done to them. One of the most abusive and threatening paps had his home address and telephone number printed in Private Eye, along with snaps of him buying milk, etc. He couldn't wait to reach for his lawyers.
He's the king of long distance fotolens images with no concern whatsoever for anyone- even if they are in their own private land. And then he went absolutely apeshit when Private Eye published an official portrait of him.
It truly is too incredible for words.
If your famous, you're probably rich, and you're probably rich because you're famous. If you chose a celebrity life style then you accecpt the rough with the smooth.
The individual photographers shouldn't be blamed - most of them are probably just trying to earn their crust - the blame lies higher up at the top of media organisations desperate to get a big story to sell tomorrow's newspaper. News International's ban on using paparazzi pictures of Miss Middleton is a touch oppurtunistic, but I think it is the right decision essentially.
However, I think there are some celebrities out there who deliberately use the media to get exposure - in some cases, a lot of exposure of flesh. Jodie Marsh, for instance, turns up at an event, wearing just a belt over her ample boobs. Does anyone seriously think she was wearing that for comfort? Yes, the press do go overboard from time to time, but there are some "celebs" out there who have no one but themselves to blame for negative publicity.
OK take for example Mel Gibson.
He's married with something like 6 kids
Do you know what his wife even looks like?
I've no idea myself, she doesn't seem to seek press attention or go with Mel to a lot of these celeb parties.
Same with Julia Roberts husband, pretty much an ordinary guy that just happened to marry someone really famous.. would it be ok for him to be constantly stalked for photos when he's not seeking the attention?
The reason these photographers go after the snaps is because they can be worth a fortune, but at the end of the chain someone - a newspaper, magazine, tv company has to be willing to pay for these shots, if you control them then you dry up the market for such photos and such people die off.
In the aftermath of the death of Diana, every single newspaper, including Associated Newspapers and News International titles, promised never again to use paparazzi images. As Private Eye has reported comprehensively, it didn't take long for all of them to break their promise and start buying and using such pictures again.
I doubt the said organisations even remember saying anything of the kind. Even if the newspapers did put a "moratorium" on using paparazzi pictures, it would make little difference. Sales would fall for the tabloids, and sales of "celebrity" magazines would rocket overnight.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I've no idea what Mel Gibson's wife looks like. I don't buy [insert celebrity rag here] so i've no idea whether she's of any interest to the paparazzi. If you're telling me that she isn't, and that even avid Heat fans have no idea what she looks like, then i suspect that's for one (or more) good reasons.
I think celebrities make a rod for their own back a lot of the time. Fame isn't something you can turn on and off, and the more allusive they become the more the paparrazi want to snap them, especially if it's doing something silly/rude/normal.
If i were famous and getting sick of the paparazzi then I'd flood the market with pictures of myself. Hell, i'd even sell picture of myself on the shitter if i though some dumb-ass was going to pay top dollar for it.
Back when I was working as a criminal clerk my clients were regularly getting doorstepped by the local rag, and it was a fucking disgrace what they did. Especially as some of our clients were acquitted yet still were getting harrassed by the rag.
Do you mean having their pic taken outside court?
The newspaper group I work for only tends to do that with kerb crawlers as they're working with the police on a big detterent campaign.
I don't think you've really given enough information in your example to codone or codemn the reporters.
I'm sure that the paparazzi go to some ridiculous lengths to get photos of people, but i'm also sure that plenty of it is self-inflicted, and could be avoided if the target applied some rational thought to the situation.
I do think people should be protected from harm from the papps, they'll do anything to get shots of someone famous.
The print media are scum IMHO, and I think that you will struggle to find anyone in the NHS who thinks otherwise. I guarantee you that they will have been donning white coats at Hillingdon last week just so that they could get some information about the coach crash victims.
Though, I found it quite interesting to read an article with Lindsay Lohan admitting that if the paparazzi at times don't wait for her outside a club, then she wonders if anyone cares anymore. Likewise, her whole entourage make sure to call up certain photographers as she enters clubs to make sure she gets publicity.
It is worrying, that the new generation of celebrities actually come rely on the paparazzi in such a fashion.
I mean, I understand the concept of PR and exposure, but to go as far as admitting that having acertain amount of photographers taking your picture of you, gives you a sense of worth, that's just sad.
If people get kicks from perverse voyeurism, why don't they stick to watching Big Brother? If they like to intrude on other people's lives then why not watch soap operahs?
I mean leave them alone...
You have just earned points with me for looking out after children's wellbeing! :thumb:
Not that you were deliberately trying of course :razz:
I obviously can't give too much information, but the harrassment went beyond having their photo taken outside the Crown Court- one client in particular had a delightful photo taken of them at 6.30am on a Saturday in their dressing gown as they brought the milk in from the front door step, and the local rag was still on their doorstep five hours later.
Not all the harrassed clients were guilty either. But the local paper in that city (it isn't Newcastle) are filth anyway.
I’m not condoning it, but I do find it hard to find sympathy for a lot of these celebrities that are being hassled. They’ll earn more for one film than I’ll earn in a life time, and more for one T.V. appearance than I’ll earn in a year. The paparazzi are just one part of the whole whirl-of-fame that sees celebrities being paid obscene amounts of money for often displaying very little talent, or a lot of flesh.
It’s a certain type of celebrity that attracts the hardcore paparazzi, and I have little interest if their “problems” are some dude hiding their bushes waiting to take their picture on the way to pick up the morning paper. They enjoy a life-style out of the comprehension of us mere proles. Still, it must really hard dealing with the paparazzi while choking down some caviar and Champagne.
On the flip side, however, I believe that there should be laws passed to protect the children of celebrities.
I fail to see how having money should mean that you don't have any privacy. Just because you work in the public sphere it does not mean that your entire life should be open for public dissection.