Media responsible photographers bad name

[David H. Bebbington]

Some people may be interested in this for background:
Dead Link Removed
and may also be interested in googling "Jason Fraser", a British pap who has crossed the line (just) and become a legit "by permission" celebrity photographer while I believe still running a pap agency. JF is far from the worst in terms of behavior but a very informative example in terms of what can be achieved in monetary terms through pap activities.

 

[Daniel_OB]

David B.
How many times you snapped someone on street without asking? Is it taking someone’s picture while one is in his own privacy. Have you ever took a fish out of water sport sake. I am not saying you bad, and I am sure you are not, but I just do not understand why you are accusing paps, and how many people knows just anything about them.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[David H. Bebbington]

David B.
How many times you snapped someone on street without asking? Is it taking someone’s picture while one is in his own privacy. Have you ever took a fish out of water sport sake. I am not saying you bad, and I am sure you are not, but I just do not understand why you are accusing paps, and how many people knows just anything about them.

www.Leica-R.com

Daniel, I am sure you are a nice guy, but you are making a mistake if you think everyone else is. The term "paparazzi" may be a little vague, but I am using it quite precisely to mean the sub-species of celebrity photographer who will deliberately physically obstruct his subjects, even attempt to block their way, swear at them, deliberately obstruct or even ram their vehicles, and all to get a picture which is "different" insofar as the subject is in a rage and appears to be trying to "attack" (actually defend him/herself from) the photographer. Do you understand now why I am saying what I am saying?

Regards,

david

 

[Ed Sukach]

I have *no idea* where "spot news" ends and "papparazzi" starts.

If you will remember, during the aftermath of the Diana tragedy, a certain top movie star embarked on a massive verbal anti-papparazzi campaign - which resulted in a boycott from ALL papparazzi. They simply REFUSED to perform any of these nasty deeds toward him. That meant that a MAJOR source of publicity was GONE! His PR people panicked. They increased the "insider tips" (yes, Virginia, that DOES happen - PR people working hand-in-hand with these "scum") - "He will be at ___ (fill in the blank) next Wednesday at 12:30 pm - with ___ (aspiring new female star)...

Needless to say, Offended Star soon had an impassioned talk with his people, the "anti" campaign ended and things gradually returned to normal.

I can understand the popular conception of papparazzi ... that the are ALL - INVARIABLY - mean, evil people picking on helpless - and hapless celebrities. That image is sort of necessary to increase the interest in their work. SOME ARE, indeed deserving of that reputation - lower than whale dung. I would submit that MOST are not. They are simply an essential element in the publicity structure.

I can remember one instance - from a "tip", three or four of us were waiting on a boardwalk to photograph "Rising Young Starlet". She approached, and at the best strategic moment, fell out of the top of her bikini. Shutters fired.
She (indignantly) "You can't do that!! I'll SUE...!" We replied, "Not to worry, I didn't get the shot anyway... film screwed up" ... another, "Me neither, I left the lens cap on" (he was using a SLR). No one, supposedly, "got the shot". She, silent now, went back down the boardwalk, reapproched, and fell out again. Still, no one got the shot.
She finally realized what we were doing after the third attempt, and fall out... and broke out laughing. We, "Starlet" and "Papparazzi" alll went to lunch together.

There are boundaries. I have seen film destroyed (and have done that) because the images would have been too painful to the subjects.

 

[copake_ham]

The paps merely service the media who are the true whores.

News item: NBC outbids ABC for Paris Hilton post-release interview. Will pay $1.0MM to interview the ex-con.

News Item source: The so-called "serious NY Times":

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/arts/television/22paris.html

Well, yes, it is a "serious story". :rolleyes: That's why they put it on page C1 of the Business Section with a teaser paragraph on the A1 front page "Index".

 

[fschifano]

...Note to the loony right: this applies equally to the loony left.

Ain't it the truth!

 

[firecracker]

I still feel, however, that the hallmarks of a pap picture are 1) no legitimate public interest and 2) provocative, possibly violent approach to subjects.

Regards,

David

I agree. But this goes beyond the paparazzi category I believe.

Well, some if not many tourists with their cameras take the same kind of approach on non-celeb people sometimes, like geisha ladies in Kyoto, Japan. The geishas are ordinary people who live there and work for their clients, but because they are part of the tourism attraction, when they go outside (to go to work), they get a tremendous amount of attention from the tourist crowd.

If you're in the area in the early evening, you will see a lot of camera flash going on and wonder who's in the spot getting such a red-carpet treatment, etc, and it's not a Hollywood or any other type of media celeb. And usually when the geisha accompanied with her client(s) is caught with a large crowd, she can't get out of the cab, etc.

You know it's not like every tourist is pursuing a career to be a National Geographc photographer, but certainly, some seem to do that quite aggressively, and when you walk by them, concerning the "public interest" and so on, you go, "What the f--k?" I think we are just too much sometimes...

 

[roteague]

I agree. But this goes beyond the paparazzi category I believe.

Well, some if not many tourists with their cameras take the same kind of approach on non-celeb people sometimes, like geisha ladies in Kyoto, Japan. The geishas are ordinary people who live there and work for their clients, but because they are part of the tourism attraction, when they go outside (to go to work), they get a tremendous amount of attention from the tourist crowd.

If you're in the area in the early evening, you will see a lot of camera flash going on and wonder who's in the spot getting such a red-carpet treatment, etc, and it's not a Hollywood or any other type of media celeb. And usually when the geisha accompanied with her client(s) is caught with a large crowd, she can't get out of the cab, etc.

You know it's not like every tourist is pursuing a career to be a National Geographc photographer, but certainly, some seem to do that quite aggressively, and when you walk by them, concerning the "public interest" and so on, you go, "What the f--k?" I think we are just too much sometimes...

It sounds like what is missing is a little cultural sensitivity. What is considered appropriate in some cultures, can be rude in others. IMO, a good travel photographer should be aware of these things, or find another line of work.

 

[patrickjames]

The paps merely service the media who are the true whores.

The true whores are the people who create a demand for this type of story. Why should anyone care what Paris Hilton does?

 

[Richard Boutwell]

I think everyone who is blaming the paparazzi for the publics' possibly well-founded mistrust of photographers is actually a symptom of the underlying issue.

By photographing someone, especially without their consent, you are "capturing" their image, and therefore possessing a piece of them. I know the question going through my mind would be, "Why do they want my image/What does this person want from me? (admittedly, I AM hot, so it is sort of understandable;-P )"

But in all seriousness, from that moment, they have lost control of a piece of themselves, and I think THAT is the fundamental basis of the mistrust of photographers. The stories of indigenous people fearing that the photographer has stolen their soul is not that far from the point here. That mistrust has just been amplified and transferred to all photographers by the ease of making/capturing pictures.

I was on a website yesterday of an artist who photographs people through car and bus windows as they are stuck in NYC traffic (I can not remember the site, but when I find it again I will post a link to it). But think if it were you being photographed while you were trapped in traffic in a car or bus, and try to convince yourself that it is not about power.

Richard

 

[Roger Hicks]

But think if it were you being photographed while you were trapped in traffic in a car or bus, and try to convince yourself that it is not about power.

Dear Richard,

I don't have to try very hard. Do you?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Unfortunately now the situation is that if it seems you have too nice a camera, more than one camera, a tripod, or anything too photographically beyond a point & shoot camera, then you must be some sort of intrusive surveillance or unethical professional.

Well said.
With paranoia in general building up, you just might be a terrorist, pedophile or pervert. I'd never thought of the paparazzi as fuel for the fire though, interesting.

 

[Andy K]

Unfortunately now the situation is that if it seems you have too nice a camera, more than one camera, a tripod, or anything too photographically beyond a point & shoot camera, then you must be some sort of intrusive surveillance or unethical professional.

Which strikes me as odd. Surely the person skulking around with a small, discreet camera is more suspicious than the one carrying a damn great SLR kit!

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Yeah, Andy K, I don't understand that perception either. I try to be as conspicuous as possible when I am running solo out in public (usually either practice or portfolio images). It works different when it is an arranged shoot in public, with assistants, stylists, models, et al . . . perhaps because the entourage validates the anticipated usage. Maybe even stranger is that when working with a crew, you sometimes have trouble getting the general public out of the way, or out of the images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[copake_ham]

The true whores are the people who create a demand for this type of story. Why should anyone care what Paris Hilton does?

Well, to some extent it is a "chicken v. egg" kind of thing. But about a year ago, Ted Turner 'fessed up that he felt the biggest mistake CNN had done was to start treating celeb PR as "news". It was a slippery slope that led to the "serious media" finding it easier and easier to justify "reporting" the garbage that used to be the province of the supermarket tabloids.

The real "media adultery" occurred a few years ago when one of the networks revealed that it had paid for what was ostensibly a "newsworthy" interview. Never before (at least not admittedly) had a so-called "responsible" news outlet paid a person of interest for an interview.

And now, it's all just business as usual. The fact is that the NY Times reported on how NBC outbid ABC for an interview with Hilton in its business section. Paying for interviews is now such an accepted practice that the media will pay money to an ex-con (who is a kind of bizarre "role model" to many young people). Hilton will not only take the dough, but then use the media outlet to "rehabilitate" her "image" with her "public".

Meanwhile, there's a war in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. People continue to die in the Darfur genocide etc. But that kind of "news" even if it is "free" is just too depressing for the media to report.

 

[gr82bart]

People is the answer.

Cameras are owned by people and well, there's a whole lot of a$$holes out there who own cameras.

That's it.

Regards, Art.