An Essay About Paparazzi

This is an argumentative essay I wrote about the evils of paparazzi. As much as I support what I say, this is mainly an example of a different way in which I can write. My grade was wonderful and I was very pleased with myself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Katelyn

17 December 2009

Professor Mark Thompson

English 1010 First-Year Composition (CA1)

Essay 3

 

Paparazzi

When you hear the word "paparazzi," what is your immediate thought? A camera? A flash? My first few thoughts are loud voices, blinding lights, people running to get away, and to put it all in one word, chaos. Paparazzi are, by definition, freelance photographers that take candid pictures of celebrities for publication. They are a sinister group of people that are known for obtaining such photographs by any means possible, whether it is by harassment, endangering others, or causing fear.

If that seems like an extreme accusation to you, then I invite you to first take a look at the origin of the word "paparazzi." The word itself means "buzzing insects." Freelance photographers were taking pictures of the famous before they were called paparazzi in the 1960's. The term was first used in La Dolce Vita, "The Sweet Life," by Italian film-maker Federico Fellini. It came from a character in the film called Paparazzo. "'
Paparazzo suggests to me a buzzing insect, hovering, darting, stinging.'" Fellini said about his use of the name in the film (Celant). The character was based on photographer Tazio Secchiaroli who became famous after he captured embarrassing photos of three celebrities in one night, therefore changing the industry from taking promotional pictures to seeking candid shots (Valdes). After that, the name became widespread all over the world for the hunter photographers.

It is interesting to see the system of their profession. Robert Valdes writes an informative article for Discovery's company How Stuff Works. He explains how paparazzi each have their own network of people that keep tabs on celebrities and inform them of their whereabouts. These people sometimes include those that work with celebrities and are called informers. Valdes says how autographers are also used to corner a person of interest, giving the paparazzo an opportunity for a picture. Both the signature and the photos are sold for prices that can range from a hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on the amount of fame the celebrity possesses, the quality of the picture and so forth.

"By Any Means Necessary" (Valdes)

For the past nearly fifty years, paparazzi have been a natural part of "Hollywood" society. They are as expected as they are dreaded by most stars around the world. The paparazzi have a well known principle for their line of work: "Get a shot by any means necessary" (Valdes). "'There is just something weird about a human being whose livelihood, quote unquote, means living in the trees outside a celebrity's house.'" said publicist Ken Sunshine in an interview with "CNN Presents" regarding paparazzi for part of a documentary they were creating titled "Chasing Angelina: Paparazzi and Celebrity Obsession." Other than the use of stealth, many of these photographers have gone to absurd extremes in order to get a photo.

One of the most seen tactics used by the paparazzi is harassment. Harassment is to subject a person persistently and wrongfully to annoying, offensive, or troubling behavior, which is exactly what they do. They purposely try to provoke a public figure to react or certain way for a "good" photo or to give in to a signature. Jennifer Garner and her daughter had been followed by paparazzi a whole day in pursuit of a photograph in May of this year (Anything Hollywood). In 1998, Arnold Schwarzenegger's car was surrounded by photographers as him and his wife tried to pick up their child from school and could not safely move forward (KTLA.com). A video taken by paparazzi shows Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart being pushed in front of a diner while being repeatedly and obnoxiously asked for a signature and then chased into their hotel last month (Gossip Cop). Several people responded to this video saying things like: It's just wrong when anyone is being pushed for a signature. These are only a few examples of the ways celebrities are harassed by paparazzi every day.

Another tactic freelance photographers use that affects the most people at one time is vehicular pursuit. There have been a shocking number of incidents where several cars have chased one car that contained a public figure, ignoring all sorts of traffic laws in the process. In 2005, Nicole Kidman says how she was brought to tears from fear of getting into an accident while she was pursued by paparazzi that were running red lights and had jumped over a median in Australia (Reuters). Also, in the past few months Brad Pitt, Nicole Ritchie, Lindsay Lohan, LeAnn Rimes, and Brittany Spears were all rear-ended by photographers and most of them suffered minor injuries (Celebrity Health & Fitness). These incidents have generally been low on consequences, but there have been times where someone has paid the highest price. In 2008, a decade after the incident in question, it was concluded after a thorough and lengthy investigation that the death of Princess Dianna and her companion was caused by her driver driving recklessly in attempt to escape paparazzi which is considered to be a form of manslaughter (Jordan). A celebrity being rear-ended has been becoming a frighteningly frequent incident lately and there is always the risk of it turning into a horrible accident like with Princess Dianna. This behavior is unquestionably life threatening.

Am I In Danger?

With all of these things happening to stars every day that are obvious, there is an aspect that most people do not realize. John Mayer, in a testimony at a Paparazzi Task Force Meeting in 2008, brings this perspective into the light. He states: "A scenario: It's two o'clock in the morning and you're driving home from a friend's house. You notice there is a vehicle behind you that has no license plate and that has been following you for the last 15 minutes. The driver is so brazen that he or she has even taken to ignoring red lights just to stay behind you. As you begin to turn onto a small neighborhood street just blocks from where you live, you now realize this person has definite intentions of engaging you at your house. The question I ask you is: Are you in danger? The answer is YES. Not 'depends if you're on TV.' It doesn't matter what you do for a living, and it doesn't matter that there might turn out to be a digital camera on the passenger seat. You are IN danger. Danger is defined as the possibility of suffering harm or injury. And without knowing who is following you, you do not know why you are being followed, which brings about a very real possibility for suffering harm or injury." With this description, one cannot help but to be reminded of a serial killer or rapist following its prey. There is no way to make it sound any less horrible. The way in which these people work causes them to more than likely not tell you who they are, therefore making themselves a threat to a celebrity or anyone else that they are pursuing, but they believe they have a certain right to do it.

Right to Know

The paparazzo's first line of defense is nothing unfamiliar in this democratic country. Their battle cry is the freedom of press, speech, and we, as a people, have a "right to know." We have a right to know who these people are that we hold in high regards. This entitles them to pursue any subject of interest especially those that are legally deemed to be public figures. A public figure, according to How Stuff Works' Robert Valdes, is "[a] person who has achieved fame or notoriety or who has voluntarily become involved in a public controversy." Celebrities naturally fall under this category and as a result, are subject to the loophole in the law of right of privacy. This right is "[t]he right of a person and the person's property to be free from unwarranted public scrutiny
or exposure," but the loophole is that those that are public figures are subject to a lack of privacy to some degree, which gives the paparazzi the rights to do what they do (Valdes). It is legal at its base and as long as it's in a public place even if there are those who break other laws to gain what they are seeking, but not all do. "… it doesn't happen [paparazzi living in trees outside celebs' houses]. I have a thousand magazines in the next room. And if you can show me one picture that's been taken inside someone's house or of children playing inside their yard, it simply doesn't [happen]." says Frank Griffin, a freelance photographer and co-owner of a paparazzi agency, when speaking with CNN in the paparazzo's defense.

Other arguments they have made is that celebrities have subjected themselves to it and often accept it. Griffin stated: "…I've never had a situation where the talent gets upset. ... Instead of being aggressive or argumentative, you say, 'Look, I'm really sorry if I've upset you. My name is Frank. I'm part of what you do for a living and I'm really sorry.' And I think a lot of them accept it. ..." He goes on to talk about an encounter he had with Julia Roberts: "…I followed her one day and she stopped and she walked over to me and she said, 'I'm gonna go and pick my niece up.' This is a good few years ago. And I said, 'Look, I'll do a deal.' I said, 'Next time you're with Matthew you've got to do a picture for me and I'll leave you alone with your niece.' And she did, and I didn't. ..." Griffin also gives us one last thing to consider: "Let's face it. If a lot of the celebrities were given the choice earlier in their career when they're quite young and before they start out and they say, 'Look, here's a piece of paper. I'll give you a million dollars a week for your TV show. But it means that there's gonna be a photographer outside your house five days out of seven, possibly more if you're successful. If you're making $2 million a week, they're gonna be outside your door seven days a week.' So what would you rather do? Wouldn't you want to sign this form and take the $2 million a week and have the photographers? Or do you want to work in a bank for the rest of your life? And I know. Which would they do? I'm quite sure they'd accept that. That's not making excuses for what I do, but I think many of them would accept the limelight in return for their paycheck."

And?

As true as these statements are there is nothing backing them that makes them morally right. Yes, by law, we all have a "right to know," but since when has the private life of an actor, actress, or musician determined the fate of others' lives? I strongly feel that that right is strictly meant for governmental issues such as what the government is planning to do with our money or what kind of person is leading our country versus what kind of person is pretending to be someone else for our entertainment. There is nothing fair about how celebrities are subjected to having less rights of privacy than "ordinary people." To me it just represents the most extreme lack of respect for people that we actually hold in high regards. If they are a form of royalty in our society, why are we not treating them as such? Why are they being chased down like some rare breed of animals that we need to analyze by torture? Even if not all paparazzi go to extremes and break the law for a photo, there are some that do and that is enough to be dangerous to everyone. Celebrities should not have to accept this invasion as a part of their careers. They should not have to make deals with paparazzi to be left alone. As much as they might have known or expected it does not mean it should still be happening. "It's very easy to say 'Oh, who cares just deal with it. Why does it matter if you get a photo? You just live your life. Then that's just the way your life is, accept it.' But I mean…you can't live your life…there is no way that you can. If you have fifty cameras there, that's not living a life, that's posing for photographs." said Robert Pattinson, a current actor, recently in an interview with Entertainment Tonight.

Currently, there are laws in place that are attempting to solve the problem or control the issue. Fines may be issued to paparazzi that obtained a photo by invading a celebrity's right to privacy. Recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an amendment to that law that allows celebrities to sue companies that use photos that they know were obtained wrongly (KTLA.com). Despite these efforts, neither end is completely satisfied. Paparazzi want to pursue their careers and are continuing to break laws and celebrities often cannot go out in public without difficulty. My first concern is to give public figures a degree of peace and as much as I would like to see paparazzi practice abolished, I know that it is not completely fair or the best thing for everyone. I am proposing some options that could potentially work for both groups.

First and foremost is the issue of paparazzi breaking the law. Even though the ones that are doing this are being arrested and are given other consequences, it still seems to be happening. It appears that possibly the only way to get through to those individuals is by no longer allowing them to take photos of celebrities once they have violated the law, but since it is their livelihood something else can be done. They can be given a form of warning along with the other fines and or jail time they receive as a result of the crime. This warning could come in the form of a document that they would have the option to sign or agree to that if they break the law again then their license would be taken away. They would also be given options or help to start another career if it does come to that.

Another document could be formed to help with the other issues. Paparazzi would be allowed to pursue those that agree to it. Celebrities would be given the option to consent to being pursued by the paparazzi as long as it is legal and those that do not wish to can have ways of restricting the paparazzi, but not discontinuing them completely. This gives the paparazzi the choice of still taking photos of celebrities, but they would only be allowed a certain amount of photographs, a certain distance at which they could be near the person, or other such restrictions.

What seems to happen by our sort of awe with these celebrities is that we forget one crucial thing. They are people just like us. They just have different talents, different careers just like every single living person. That should not mean that they are subject to being chased anytime they go into a restaurant or department store. The paparazzi are completely out of control. Harassment or putting others in danger is not acceptable and something must be done.

And something is being done, but not by whom you would have expected. Fans of celebrities, the would-be consumers of paparazzi products, are taking a stand against this behavior. Pattinson Online, a Robert Pattinson fan-site that has been active for four years now, started a project July of this year. Project Fangirl Leaders Against Needless Stalking, or Project F.L.A.N.S. as it is more commonly called, had decided to encourage fans to take a stand after "…[becoming] increasingly dissatisfied with how the media AND the fans have treated Rob – this project is the culmination of years of frustration and desire to see the fans educated on how to protect Rob's safety and sanity!" (Project F.L.A.N.S.). Many other fan-sites have joined in on this project including a blog called Thinking of Rob. On the fourth of December this year an incident where Robert Pattinson was mercilessly followed and photographed by paparazzi regardless of clear signs that he wanted to be left alone, Thinking of Rob started a campaign against this sort of atrocity. The next day, together with Pattinson Online and Project F.L.A.N.S., they shouted out to fans to send in pictures of themselves with their hands in front of their faces as a sign of protest. The response was instantaneous. Within 48 hours they had received over 1,200 photographs from fans all over the world with comments of their retaliation against the paparazzi, which I was proud to personally be a part of and continue to support. They are still receiving photos and several videos have been made and they have gained over a hundred collaborating sites. The result was so immense that they needed to create an entire new site dedicated to this event. It is titled their shout: He Doesn't Want This. Neither Do We. Even though it took something happening to a favorite actor of this group, they mean it to apply to any and all celebrities, because no one deserves to be treated that way. This project continues in the hope that it will continue to gain support and eventually, if it has not already, get the paparazzi's attention and give them a hint on what the fans want to be done.

 
 

Works Cited

 

Anything Hollywood. "Jennifer Garner Says Daughter Violet Harassed by Paparazzi." Anything Hollywood. N.p., 13 May 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. <http://anythinghollywood.com/‌2009/‌05/‌jennifer-garner-says-daughter-violet-harassed-by-paparazzi/>.

Celant, Germano. "The Shooting Begins: How it All Started." Paparazzi History. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/‌projects/‌Spring99/‌Johnson/‌page1.htm>.

Celebrity Health & Fitness, Admin. "Brad Pitt Motorcyle Wreck Latest in Celeb-Paparazzi Crashes (Video)." Celebrity Health & Fitness. N.p., 24 Oct. 2009. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. <http://www.celebrityhealthfitness.com/‌?page_id=532>.

CNN Access. "In Defense of Paparazzi." CNN.com. N.p., 13 May 2006. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://www.cnn.com/‌2006/‌SHOWBIZ/‌Movies/‌05/‌09/‌griffin.access/‌index.html>.

- - -. "Why Paparazzi Are Wrong." CNN.com. N.p., 16 May 2006. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://www.cnn.com/‌2006/‌SHOWBIZ/‌Movies/‌05/‌09/‌sunshine.access/‌index.html>.

ET. "Rob Pattinson on 'New Moon': I'm Afraid of Commitment Like Edward." ETonline.com. Entertainment Tonight, 9 Nov. 2009. Web. 9 Nov. 2009. <http://www.etonline.com/‌news/‌2009/‌11/‌80628/‌index.html>.

Jordan, Mary. "Paparazzi and Driver Found Negligent in Princess Diana's Death." The Washington Post. N.p., 8 Apr. 2008. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/‌wp-dyn/‌content/‌article/‌2008/‌04/‌07/‌AR2008040702743.html>.

KTLA. "Schwarzenneger Signs New Anit-Paparazzi Law." KTLA.com. N.p., 12 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://www.ktla.com/‌news/‌landing/‌ktla-paparazzi-law,0,3679358.story>.

Mayer, John. "Testimony from John Mayer, Singer/‌Songwriter, at the July 31st." Ci.la.ca.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://www.ci.la.ca.us/‌council/‌cd3/‌cd3press/‌cd3cd3press14254887_07312008.pdf>.

Pattinson Online. "Welcome!" Project F.L.A.N.S. Wordpress, 5 July 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://www.robert-pattinson.co.uk/‌project/‌2009/‌07/‌07/‌welcome/>.

Reuters. "Kidman Says Scared of Crash in Paparazzi Car Chase." Canada.com. N.p., 20 Nov. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. <http://www.canada.com/‌topics/‌entertainment/‌story.html?id=6180728f-0ae2-4b3b-bb54-0100a65c8b64>.

"Robert Pattinson & Kristen Stewart Have Dinner." Gossip Cop. N.p., 4 Oct. 2009. Web. 15 Oct. 2009. <http://www.gossipcop.magnify.net/‌video/‌Robert-Pattinson-Kristen-Stew-7>.

Thinking of Rob. "Paps: The Fans Fight Back "He Doesn't Want This, Neither Do We"." He Doesn't Want This. Neither Do We. Wordpress, 9 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://hedoesntwantthis.wordpress.com/‌2009/‌12/‌09/‌paps-the-fans-fight-back-%e2%80%9che-doesn%e2%80%99t-want-this-neither-do-we%e2%80%9d/>.

Valdes, Robert. "How Paparazzi Work." Howstuffworks. Discovery, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. <http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/‌paparazzi.htm/‌printable>.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be my suggestion to try and not support the paparazzi's actions in any way, but not buying or reading the tabloids or non-legit magazines. Along with not visiting such gossip sights and the like. If you have a different opinion on this subject, I don't mean offend or impose an opinion, merely to inform. Thank you. 

Comments?