In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Dojo's Blog
Celebrities: Paparazzi Fodder!
What do David Caruso, Tiger Woods, Nancy Pelosi, Seal and Heidi Klum have in common? All are well known, with instant recognition, throughout the world. Are these and other performers, politicians, athletes, required to make themselves available at the whim of the public or the media? Do they "owe" this perpetual access to those who pay to see their act, vote for them, cheer on their team?
Think of the absurdity of this. You and a friend have just had a wonderful night out, away from kids, spouses, work, family concerns. Just the two of you, enjoying the evening and each other. You emerge from the restaurant and are immediately accosted by men and women with cameras, flashes, microphones, questioning why you were there, who you're with, where you're going; demanding you stop for pictures and make a statement. What would you do? How would you react?
We know what we would do and it wouldn't be pretty. If our attempts at humor and a plea for privacy didn't do the trick, we have no doubt we would raise eyebrows and tempers with either a few not-so-well chosen expletives or we'd be back in the restaurant looking for a police escort; possibly both. There is a God who would guide us into research, out of the public eye.
What makes the high profile individual less entitled to go about his or her business, unfettered by an unconscionable media or public? Their celebrity, their notoriety? "You owe it to the people who made you rich or famous or ??". Where is the rationale in such a statement? Does the Walton family owe their private lives to everyone who shops at Wal-Mart? Do we have free access to Donald Pliner because we wear his shoes? Or Steve Wynn or Peter Loftin because we drop a ton of money at their establishments?
Seal made front page entertainment news in the past 24 hours for calling paparazzi "scum" when he and his wife, Heidi Klum, had mikes and cameras shoved in their faces exiting a restaurant. Naturally, the paps retaliation came by way of a video of the episode (link below).
http://www.theinsideronline.com/news/2008/03/16707/index.html
http://dojodabbles.blogspot.com/
For those who routinely read our independent blog, this is a reprint.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2008 9:44 AM
|
That may be the case with some celebrities but then you have the other celebrities that call the paparazzi themselves. Without the paparazzi, some celebrities would not be around, maybe not a bad thing!
You should watch a coupe episodes of DIRT. It would really make you think twice about the relationship celebs have with the paparazzi!
|
|
Mar 24, 2008 11:15 AM
|
|
We fully acknowledge that many celebrities use the paparazzi to their advantage. We would find it difficult to avoid that particular temptation ourselves, given the paps propensity for headline grabbing shots and statements. Our take, as previously noted, is extremely subjective. That's our disclaimer and we're sticking to it.
|
|
Mar 24, 2008 11:38 AM
|
|
I suppose, different celebrities, different exposure. Maybe, some celebrities do seek out the paparazzi--but that raises the question, why would you do that? For the most part, I believe, many celebrities shun this type of coverage. I think the paparazzi today--TMZ, Defamer, National Enquirer, and the bottom feeders on the Internet are out of control. These are not journalistic endeavors, these are living cockroaches, who prey on people to make a buck. Privacy laws are a joke--anything goes. I wish stricter, stronger laws would be enforced before an innocent bystander ends up paying the ultimate price.
|
|
Mar 24, 2008 3:49 PM
|
|
I don't understand the assumption that those who make a living in front of the camera WANT to be seen and snapped all the time or why people justify their gossipy urges with "the actor or sports figure OWES it to the public". Why? The actor or athlete OWES the public their best performance; that's all. What a way to make a living - legalized window peeping!
|
|
Mar 25, 2008 9:48 AM
|
|
|
