Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Why Photographers and Journalists crowding around the Famous should Banned. Blog 1


                                  Why there should be law against Photographers and journalists:
                                   1: Affecting their general everyday and holiday lives.


Paparazzi- the word means "Mosquito" in Italian and as the Duke of Edinburgh once said to a nurse in a tropical country; "You have mosquitoes, I have the Press." Although it might have been one of his famous "gaffes" it can be argued that he did have a fair point. Being the consort of Great Britain's monarch, Prince Philip's name is likely to be known worldwide, and he and his family are highly prized targets for the media press, and their scrutiny. Privacy could hardly be afforded. So, many singers, actors, royals, and many more, including members of parliaments and senates, have had enough.



As royals are a prized target, valued "alone-time" is priceless enough to be sorely missed. Yet if they do not have time to relax, and refresh themselves, they are not likely to be able to function and perform their necessary duties. According to Denmark's Queen Margrethe II, "the line between public and private" must not be breached. "We're all perfectly prepared to be seen and do our things, more or less in public, but we do need to have a home-base, which is unassailed, where we can be in peace, and where we can recuperate." She said that although she can understand why the press and the public would like to know how they live their everyday lives, however, "if they saw how we lived everyday, we wouldn't be living the sort of everyday life that people do live, and which everybody needs to have." If everyone needs some peace, along with their children, from the constant media attention, pressures and relaxation time, for themselves, friends and/or family, then it is a terrible thing if they are not respected. Although royals are prepared to have the press present at coronations, weddings, charity balls, and so forth, they are continuously intruded upon in their private and daily lives. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's honeymoon  was a special intimate time, between a husband and wife, like any other honeymoon, or at least it should be. The Australian Woman's Day had intruded during their intimacy and took photographs, after the Duke and Duchess respectfully pleaded for the media and public to respect their privacy on their honeymoon. A French tabloid had also published photographs of a topless Duchess having sunscreen rubbed on her back. They were not the only ones having trouble enjoying their honeymoon. The honeymoon of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill, had been spied upon by the paparazzi, the new wife was outraged. If "you can't work if you aren't able to relax" had been pressed upon by Queen Margrethe, then private times are necessary. The Princess was not conducting her official duties. If every other couple and family had a right not to have their privacy breached, then there should be no law barring royals against such a right. It is understandable, what Queen Margrethe had said, about not being able to perform what the public- and the media themselves- expects them to do. If they do not have some time for themselves, then are hardly able to function. How could they even perform everyday doings, such as walking to the store, driving and picking up the children from school, if they are unable to so in peace, as human beings, in general all need. Any person, whether famed or not, will need some time for themselves and cannot spend their entire lives under scrutiny or pressure, and the fear of being ridiculed for an embarrassing faux pas, that can easily be forgiven- and forgotten- if it was anyone else.



Top Left and Right, Diana Princess of Wales harassed by photographers and journalists, the right photo is taken on the night she was killed. Above Left: Kate Moss, Supermodel trying desperately- and unsuccessfully- to hide from the paparazzi and actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner speak out in court in support of laws that restrain journalists and photographers, especially around their children.


Aside from royals, there are others who need to live in peace from the paparazzi and the constatnt media attention and scrutiny. According to Brad Pitt,  they are struggling to raise children in peace. The actor bluntly stated that he "hated them" and showed no regret, nor did he try to put things delicately. He stated quite freely, that a distinction had to be made "between these people who photograph celebrities at events and people who climb over your walls and wear camouflage and call out your kids names, as you're trying to take them to school, to see if they'll look that way."

However are these photographers and journalists may only be making a living out of  the general public's interests. Phtographers and journalists say that they are not the ones to blame. For all their fans' support of their views, the fans and other interested persons simply increasing the demand for photographs and gossip of "celebrities" and their families, saying also that the "celebrities" themselves also choose to go to places where they knew many people would also go, including paparazzi. Yet it can be pointed out that they, like anyone else at the scene, are their for their own uses, as everyone else present, and have as much right to be there as those peoples.

 As these are not public events or functions, then surely they are able to conduct their own doings in peace. If so then surely they have no ethical right to harass these peoples and therefore laws should be placed against such behaviour.


















Above: Footballer David Beckham, attempts to shield his baby daughter Harper from the media. Harper Beckham had been made famous for the mere fact she was born with famous parents. The  numerous websites, magazine articles and photographs of her, are countless.








  • i'mnotobsessed- Brad Pitt Calls For Stricter Paparazzi Laws- imnotobsessed.com/228/12/03/brad-pitt-calls-for-stricter-paparazzi-laws/
  • ivillage- Celebs Weigh In on Justin Bieber Paparazzo Death: So Who's Right?- www.ivillage.com/justin-bieber-paparazzi-death-miley-cyrus-neil-patrick-harris-weigh/1-a-512598
  • Entertainment Weekly- California passes new anti-paparazzi law, but will it help? (Or at least save Kate Moss?)- popwatch.ew.com/2010/09/02/california-passes-new-anti-paparazzi-law-but-will-it-help-or-at-least-save-kate-moss/
  • DAILY SUNDIAL- Staff Editorial: Paparazzi is not Photojournalism- sundial.csun.edu/2209/10/staff-editorial-paparazzi-is-not-photojournalism/
  • VITAMINW- No Script Here: Celebrity Moms Fighting for Anti-Paparazzi Law-vitaminw.co/news/Halle-Berry-SB606-paparazzi-law


Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Unknown27 September 2013 at 18:07

    I agree with your anti- paparazzi arguments. People do have the rights to have their own private lives and it seems to me that they are getting fustrated and are not affraid to admit it. You wrote that writing a law against the anti-paparazzi, I also agree on this too, but as you wrote people will lose their jobs. I think it will be a tough decision to make the law. Perhaps the paparazzi's can realise what is private and public.
    I 100% support your argument! :)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)