I have heard, and agreed on occasion, that if someone wants to be famous, then they should expect the media to follow them, and try to get "juicy" details. That a celebrity chose that lifestyle and should expect their faults to be broadcast on the news.

But really, isn't that wrong in anyone's eyes?

I have to say what brought this up, because it's upsetting me. How much is the media entitled to? I went grocery shopping today, and had to stand in the checkout line for a bit. One of the magazine covers jumps out at me (it was GLOBE), and do you know what it was a photo of? Gary Coleman laying on his deathbed. Tubes and bloated face and bandages and a sad looking wife leaning in towards him.

WHAT. THE. FUCK!?!?!? I rarely curse but I am just livid. I have changed my tune. The media should have no rights to private information and photographs when they stoop this low. Give an inch and they take a mile, and are getting more aggressive in their tactics. When is it enough? When is the line being crossed?

I personally believe that more celebrities should go the way of Britney(no not go trainwreck) and attack or even run over the paparazzi, personally I would. Celebrities do have a right to privacy, things like what you saw, MJ autopsy photos, etc are in the territory of too far. The death of Princess Di should've been the wake up call for the paparazzi and those that feed on tabloids, but alas it wasn't and things have only gotten worse.

Yeah, it's not really fair that they're expected to share everything with the public. People today can become famous for all kinds of things. They don't necessarily want to be famous; they're just doing what they're doing and it happens. That doesn't give the public the right to harass them and make their lives miserable.

Firstly, that's disgusting that a magazine would print that just for entertainment value. I find that really morbid. It's very similar to when papers got hold of the photographs of Michael Jackson's death bed in the exact state it was in when he died. It's revolting and IMO is extremely disrespectful.

To the original Q: I think that anyone who has a job which puts them in the public eye has got to expect that the public will take an interest in their personal lives (as Cheryl Cole said, "when you're famous there is no such thing as a private life"), and because the media caters to public interests it is only natural that they will report personal information about these people. However, I definitely think there are limits. The media generally seems to have little respect or regard for people's feelings; all they are interested in is getting a good story. A large part of the problem lies - I think - in the fact that most journalists need to try and make a name for themselves, and the best way of doing this is to get these stories.

I admire the celebs who don't talk about their personal lives because why should they have to? At the same time, if a celeb likes having the world know lots of intimate details about them then that's fine too. Each person should have a say in what factual information is revealed about them.

I think that if we were serious about wanting celebrities to have privacy we'd have less of them and invest much less money in it. I also think that anyone who assaults anyone or breaks laws for any reason, whether it's a celebrity or a journalist, should face the full consequences of that choice.

Some better laws to protect celebs would be usefull. No stalking them in their homes or taking pics there. Not at funerals. Etc.

No the media has no right to infringe on the privacy of anyone whether they're celebrities, or public officials.

Actually, it was his bitch of a "wife" that sold those photos to the tabloids and is trying to cash in on his death as much as she can (and she probably is responsible for his death as well). But that's a whole 'nother story.

I wouldn't lay the blame on the paparazzi or the tabloids. They are doing their jobs and legally earning for a living. As long as the public is interested in crotch shots and other "scandals" this will always be a good business. So there's two options to combat this:

a) to make these kinds of privacy invasions illegal - you get arrested for constantly stalking someone with a camera and no newspaper is allowed to post photos of someone without their consent.
b) make the public more intelligent and thus not care about stupid shit (will never be possible)

Last edited by jooxis : 15th Jun 2010 at 01:15 PM.

This is not unlike the debate I started the other week about politicians and their private lives, and I can see both sides here. If you're 'signing up' for fame and fortune, then you do so knowing that there is going to be a certain invasion of your privacy. A lot of people (myself included) really couldn't give a toss about who is dating whom, or what the latest Hollywood scandal is, or whatever, but as long as there are large numbers of people out there who are interested in that sort of news (if, of course, one can consider it news...) you're going to have the paparazzi and the tabloids publishing it. And you're also going to have people making a buck out of it.

But at the same time, everyone is entitled to a certain level of privacy whether you're in the public eye or not. The sort of thing that Fraggle has referred to here to me is downright wrong no matter how you look at it, and I think any sort of illness/breakdown/family tragedy/etc. should fall into the same category. There's such a thing as basic respect and basic human decency, and I think that a certain element of the population forget that at times. Just my two cents

Respect and decency don't go a long way if you're talking about putting food on your table though, and that's what we're talking about - people's professions. Add in things like "if we make this illegal for extreme cases, are we also installing a chilling effect on the regular press or even harming our democracy by giving people the tools to promote censorship" and I'm gonna come down on the "well, that's unfortunate but there's not much I want to do about it" side of the argument every time.

You'll note there are celebrities that have maintained their privacy fairly well over the years while still being celebrities and presenting themselves and not showing up on front pages showing off that the wear no underwear. Just being boring and not driving intoxicated, sleeping around, beating people up or throwing punches at journalists seems to go pretty far. And yeah, I know the rest of us get to do those things without having a camera in our face all the time, but it's the sort of thing that promotes gossip even if people aren't investing money in you to watch you do something on television or a movie screen.

Paparazzi suck. If you have no other way to make a living besides being what is essentially a stalker, then you're kind of a loser and I feel sorry for you.

Take your camera, build some skills, and become a real photographer... not a parasite.

My friend's job is to design and create internet ad pop-ups and those are a nuisance for thousands of people. It's legal, so as long as the job exists, there will be people to fill the position.

And the nosy public is the reason why paparazzi's exist. I would suggest tougher legal measures and ban it altogether. But until that ever happens, people are really just doing their jobs (however sleazy they may be).

Last edited by jooxis : 15th Jun 2010 at 07:28 PM.

people are people.

you take away the glory, you take away the obsessive need to monitor their every move.

ever see how people who ARENT famous, regard the famous?
i heard things after MJ died like, " i never expected it to happen ".
...really? you NEVER expected MJ to die, because hes rich/famous/loved by all??

the problem is not so much the paparazzi and the tabloids. its the people who encourage, endorse, and enable their invasiveness.

I think of it this way, people wanted to act because they enjoyed the work and were good at it. The media followed suit after it became a well known, enjoyable form of entertainment. No one ever asked to have their garbage gone through and their pictures dissected for cellulite.

That's something I never understood.
Why is it somehow okay for "Extra" to spread rumors or reveal personal information about people, when it's not okay for your annoying neighbor Carol to do so?

I never got the whole "celebrity" culture. Why do I care that Justin Beiber held hands with some chick at the beach? Why do I care about Justin Beiber? Even if I did like his music, I don't give two shits about his personal life good or bad- and it's none of my business.

I don't even get why people want to be celebrities, but that's another story.

My response here is pretty much the same as my response in the other thread regarding privacy: I don't think that there is any right and fair way to prevent these sorts of things through legal action, so the best anyone can do is avoid things that will put them in the spotlight. Sometimes unavoidable things will happen, like illnesses and death, but, as terrible as it is for those things to be paraded through the tabloids, how can you draw the line on what paparazzi can photograph in a non-arbitrary way? And how does this censorship affect other types of media? If taking a photograph of a dying celebrity crosses the line, does reporting on their final days cross the line as well? I think that people should be more respectful of the privacy of others, but you can't prevent people from looking on when something happens in a public place. When anyone leaves their home, they enter the public eye. Anything you do can be viewed by another, if another happens to be around. People just happen to be more aware of what celebrities do in public.

On the topic of photographing dying celebrities: consider the example of autopsy videos. The person being autopsied is your average person. You are seeing all the gory details of their appearance at death and general physical details that they might have found embarrassing for others to see while they were still alive. If an autopsy video was made of a celebrity, would it suddenly be wrong for this to be publicly available? Just because people would pay more attention to it, does it mean that it is any more personal than if it happened to your average Joe?

I think that the problem is simply that people show more interest in personal details when it involves a celebrity. There are plenty of personal details of your average person available, but those things aren't regarded with the same level of interest. I will make the distinction that the type of interest may be the problem (in the autopsy video example, the autopsy of the average person would typically be examined for medical or forensic purposes, while some may view the celebrity's autopsy with a morbid sort of fascination), but that delves into the concept of thoughtcrime and I don't believe that thoughtcrime is or should be criminal. Further, you don't know that there isn't someone out there viewing autopsy videos of your average person with a sort of morbid fascination.

I'm rambling a bit now, but my point essentially is that it is impossible to really protect privacy through the law because every interaction we have with others, whether direct or indirect, is, in some sense, a breach of privacy.

Re your autopsy question: I guess you mean videos for educational purposes? In which case the person made the conscious decision to donate their body to medical science. If a celeb decides to do this then I don't really see a problem with it because it's what they wanted, and presumably they would know what this entails.

Screw the media, they get paid to make celebrity lives hell.
People in the media = Wish they were famous, but they just can't be.

Heh, if I was a celeb and was going through a tough time and paparazzi just came up in my face I'd probably break all their cams and mics and then throw the pieces at them.

years ago [in answer to a similar thread] I said I'd no objections to the cameras being out in force at any red carpet 'do', where the celebs are on display, but that photos of them going shopping, eating in restaurants, playing with their kids etc etc etc should be off limits completely.

If I was in charge it would be illegal to take photos of celebs going about their day to day lives.

Yeah... I don't really understand the whole legality aspect of the paparazzi, anyway. What's the deal with photographers having to get the regular, average-Joe people in their photos to sign a release before the photo is made public? Why isn't that courtesy afforded to celebrities? By law, shouldn't it be?

Which would mean someone accidentally snapping a photo of a celebrity in the background of a picture shopping would be committing a crime. What would be the penalties? Are we talking a fine here or jail time? If it's a fine then you'd have to make it strong enough to penalize people who could make money on the thing over the cost of the fine. If it's jail time, see above - welcome to the world of "Jimmy is in prison because he caught Madonna picking her nose while snapping pictures of his gf on the beach." Then there's more critical issues: What constitutes a celebrity anyways? I've got tons of friends in the IMDB that no, maybe even me these days, would recognize on the street. How "famous" do you have to be to be a celebrity, or do you want to install fines for taking pictures of anyone going about their day to day lives? Or perhaps jail time? Maybe you want this sort of thing established by a license to proclaim yourself a celebrity, what happens when someone's "celebrity" status happens overnight? The police officer rescues someone or is indicted in a crime, can we take pictures of him or not?

I'm just saying that these sorts of issues everyone's jumping up and down about could have chilling and censorship effects beyond what you all seem to be focusing on. If the intent is to prevent or discourage people from taking photos or videos AT ALL, then a lot of everyone's notions here make sense. We'd kill off all the news channels except for people talking about things that happened, according to them, and we'd never really have any clue what anyone prominent for any reasons looked like. We could have stings on Facebook to incarcerate teenagers who didn't get express written permission (if that's an option) to take pictures of their friends. Surveillance on your own property, if it's also a public place, could be criminal. How far do you want to go to protect privacy if it means censorship and/or inviting law enforcement into the business of the press?

Celebrities and Politicans are public figures so there for more people want to see them at their worst than they would a regular person. If your neighbor walked out of the car with no panties only the people who know him/her would be interested nor would a book dedicated to trashing your ex would sell as well.

I find it rather silly that there is fifty pictures of celebrity at Starbucks their probably waiting for a "money shot". Curtain pictures like someone on the toilet or in the hospital for example should be kept private. Things like who a celebrity is dating or who's gay I don't give a shit about.

Last edited by Rectos Dominos : 17th Jun 2010 at 04:54 AM.

Oh stop, my sides, you're hilarious!!!!

There is a big difference between accidentally catching someone in the corner of a pic, and deliberately stalking them with a zoom lens to take pics of them falling over, eating, sneezing, shopping, taking their kids to school.

Or selling the pictures and publishing them.

Show me in the legal code where the law takes into account "accidentally breaking the law" and says it isn't breaking the law, mmmkay?

If you make something a crime, it's a crime. Period. If you put fines and penalties for things that can happen accidentally, there will be people who will invoke those penalties and use them in ways that will be no accident.

Even if there's no intent to invoke those new laws in practice the new laws will probably increase liability risk. That, in the least, would mean higher insurance rates for professional photographers of any flavor, specifically news journalists.

But hey, you think it's so funny... how about you write me up some proposed legislation that would demonstrate exactly how it's different, would make a definite difference in how paparazzi operate, wasn't already covered with other laws, and wouldn't end up having a chilling effect on news photography. I'm interested, and you obviously think you've got a handle on all the issues more than I do. Knock yourself out.