Are The Paparazzi Justified?
Tabloids, Gossip Blogs, Harassment and Celebrity Exploitiation.
The paparazzi have become a permanent staple of the celebrity lifestyle. The question is; do they have a right to do what they do?
Gracing the cover of US Weekly is a picture of Britney Spears apparently at her “worst.” Taken from a high rise location with a super-zoom camera lens, the photograph shows Britney with no makeup, ratty clothing, and 15 extra pounds on a once infamous body. A supermarket regular stands in line at the checkout counter and is instantly bombarded by a massive display of paparazzi tabloids. Despite all restraint, their eyes inevitably wander to the photograph next to the eye catching headline, “Binge Drinking, Eating Disorders and Depression Claim Britney Spears.” Curiosity forces the person to pick up the magazine, and place it into their shopping cart. Tomorrow, the same scenario will happen to another celebrity.
“You make them stars, we make them real” is the slogan of popular paparazzi editorial TMZ.com. This is how the paparazzi have come to justify their existence. The 1st Amendment has become their failsafe and their way of saying, “Hey, we’re just doing our jobs.” But where does the American Constitution's 1st Amendment regarding freedom of the press policy end and harassment begin?
It has been reported that big name paparazzi agencies such as x17 “do their jobs” by assigning a certain number of photographers to trail a particular celebrity on a 24/7 basis. Studies from high-tech security agencies such as Nastec International have shown that some agencies will even put out a bounty for a certain kind of photograph. These bounties can range anywhere from $50 to $1,000,000 depending on the celebrity and the type of photograph. As reported by Sun Media, pictures of Britney Spears currently have the highest bounties and have been rumored to generate an average of $20,000 per month for each individual photographer. Is setting a bounty for a certain type of photograph the same as exercising U.S. 1st Amendment freedom of the press rights?
But are celebrities asking for it? In some cases, the paparazzi seem to be justified based on the fact that certain celebrities seem to be willing to do anything and everything to ensure that they are photographed on a daily basis. It has been rumored that Britney Spears organizes exclusive deals with certain paparazzi agencies. These deals will grant the paparazzi exclusive access to her “private misfortunes” through the use of photos, video, etc. In exchange, Britney gets a cut of the selling price of her intentional exploitation. In this particular case, are the paparazzi just doing their jobs?
In the case of the late, Princess Diana it has been speculated that the paparazzi are willing to go to great lengths to get the ultimate photograph. Every tabloid wants to have the first photographs of the scandals of the rich and famous. After all, the bigger the scandal, the more money the tabloids make.
Do the paparazzi have a right to do what they do? The truth of the matter is that there wouldn’t be any paparazzi if there wasn’t a demand for them. As long as the public keeps buying their magazines and visiting their websites, they are going to continue exploiting the private lives of celebrities. And celebrities will continue to use the paparazzi as an extra source of revenue as well as an extra way of drawing attention to themselves without doing any excess work. The paparazzi will never go away as long as they keep making money. So if the time comes when the world demands a change, we will all know how to make it happen. Just don’t look.
