Home Politics & Debate
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.

Are the paparazzi going too far?

Former MemberFormer 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.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why does being famous deliberatly, ie being a film star, mean that you have different privacy rights than anyone else?

    That is to say, I don't think being famous gives everyone else the right to intrude into your private life.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My dream is to start a pap the paps business and catch them all doing naughty things!
  • Former MemberFormer 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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As long as people have a lust for celebrity gossip, scandal and nip-slips, there'll be paparazzi.

    Everytime you pick up a copy of Heat, think of those poor celebs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are scum, but then I dont have a much higher opinion of the magazines which print the pictures and by association the people who buy them.

    Just because a certain section of the public are interested does not mean its in the 'public interest'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PussyKatty wrote:
    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.

    Don't you think that it shouldn't be alright for anyone to be harassed?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Everytime you pick up a copy of Heat, think of those poor celebs.

    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 :D

    still bitter that I'm never going to be a princess to anyone other than daddykins ;)

    But yeah, paparazzi are a waste of space.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What is of public interest and what interests the public are two entirely different things.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn't mind looking if someone did get a flash of her boobies, but that doesn't mean the papers should be allowed to hound her at all.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're talking about that cunt Jason Fraser aren't you? :D

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, this topic is a bit "meh" for me.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Watching ITV News last night, I saw a photographer who'd been taking pictures of Kate Middleton outside her home in West London that morning being asked by a ITN reporter, "what do you say to people who call you parasites?". He merely replied "I agree with them.". Maybe he was just being sarcastic, but I think that comment was very telling.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, this topic is a bit "meh" for me.

    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    News International's ban on using paparazzi pictures of Miss Middleton is a touch oppurtunistic, but I think it is the right decision essentially.
    If only they implemented a ban on using paparazzi pictures of anyone...

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If only they implemented a ban on using paparazzi pictures of anyone...

    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.
    If you had your way, The Sun would be an illuminating newspaper full of stories about politics and the environment. Well, no can do. That territory's taken by The Independent. :p

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't even just paparazzi pictures of "famous" people, though, they do it for everyone.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It isn't even just paparazzi pictures of "famous" people, though, they do it for everyone.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It isn't even just paparazzi pictures of "famous" people, though, they do it for everyone.

    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not too fussed about it to be honest. Although I definitely should be a law to protect children from them. It's bullshit what the likes of David Beckham's kids have to go through every day (and it is every day). I don't see how being royalty, or going out with royalty should make any difference whatsoever, but obviously the News of the World and Sun have agreed to stop buying these pictures, because they know that means they'll be first choice for any exclusive interviews that the royals might be partaking in.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    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 :D

    still bitter that I'm never going to be a princess to anyone other than daddykins ;)

    But yeah, paparazzi are a waste of space.
    i don't see what's so interesting about her either - she goes out with a heir to the throne, good for her.

    I do think people should be protected from harm from the papps, they'll do anything to get shots of someone famous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TBH They've been going too far for years but until it affects *you*, then it's not important.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't stress enough how much I agree with the paparazzi.
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, this topic is a bit "meh" for me.

    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.
    Yes but celebrities are paid to entertain on TV/film/music ect not have their privacy violated by a bunch of nosey camerawo/men just to satisfy the first of somebody who has some wierd obsession with how big Lindsey Lohan's thights are getting... It's their private life, they aren't paid to be spied on.

    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...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My original thread however was more about people that aren't seeking the limelight themselves but just happen to be associated with someone who is well known.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not too fussed about it to be honest. Although I definitely should be a law to protect children from them. It's bullshit what the likes of David Beckham's kids have to go through every day (and it is every day).
    :heart:

    You have just earned points with me for looking out after children's wellbeing! :D :thumb:

    Not that you were deliberately trying of course :razz:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think you've really given enough information in your example to codone or codemn the reporters.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes but celebrities are paid to entertain on TV/film/music ect not have their privacy violated by a bunch of nosey camerawo/men just to satisfy the first of somebody who has some wierd obsession with how big Lindsey Lohan's thights are getting... It's their private life, they aren't paid to be spied on.

    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...

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In a lot of cases it isn't a "certain type of celebrity" who attracts it, it is whoever is most newsworthy. I'm sure Miss Middleton knew that this would happen when she started dating Mr Windsor, but why should she have to deal with this shit because she's dating the man she loves?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As much as I hate all this celebrity gossip, I also can't stand this culture where everything has to be approved by a PR person. It's bullshit when a celebrity does an interview and there's some dickhead PR person sat in the corner telling the interviewer what they can and cannot ask. It goes both ways, so they can't complain when some photos are released that don't fit their picture perfect image. And yeah I feel sorry for someone who just happens to be going out with a famous person, but I think it's unavoidable. And equally, plenty of people manage to keep a low profile if they really don't want to be seen. When you hire a PR person and start releasing a fitness video like Coleen Whatsherface, then you really can't complain. But can anyone tell me what Frank Lampard's missus looks like, or John Terry's or any other footballers wife who doesn't want to be famous? Even in the case of someone who was involved in a high profile celebrity story, like Ray Parlours ex-wife, I still couldn't pick out of a line up. When someone is constantly in the papers and magazines over the course of several years, it's almost always because they want to be.
Sign In or Register to comment.