Brittany Joyal
“Paparazzi”: the
word itself dates back to the 1960s film La
Dolce Vita which features a photographer by the name of Paparazzo. Derived
from an Italian word describing a “buzzing, hovering, darting, and stinging
insect” (Gloudeman), the name of this character denotes a deeper, more
suggestive meaning behind the tendencies of celebrity photographers.
Paparazzi are notorious
for going to any length to capture the “money shot”. Many may imply that with
fame comes sacrifice and therefore dealing with the intrusiveness of paparazzi
is simply a part of the package deal for celebs. However, when it comes to
celebrities’ children, who arguably didn’t choose the life of fame, does the
same notion apply? Stars like Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell, and others have taken
a stand to fight against paparazzi harassment of their children, and several
publications are jumping on the bandwagon in support.
An article in
the Los Angeles Times addresses the
mentality of consumers when it comes to celebrity culture by stating, “Too many
consumers display a twisted sense of entitlement when it comes to gawking at
celebrities’ lives. From celebrity breakups to makeups, manicures to
miscarriages, we demand unfettered access to the private lives of our
celebrities. The paparazzi are the embodiment of that public demand” (Rohwer). After
having enough of paparazzi pursuits of their children Shepard and Bell took to
Twitter and launched an anti-harassment campaign using the hashtags #pedorazzi
and #NoKidsPolicy. A few months prior Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry also
spoke out during a hearing in support of a bill aimed to protect celebrity
children from paparazzi harassment.
The stars spoke and the publications
listened. In an Editor’s Letter released by People
Magazine,
editorial director Jess Cagle stated, “The editors at PEOPLE have
always been careful when dealing
with photos of kids, but in the past few
months our sensitivity has been significantly heightened, and
our editorial
practices have changed accordingly” (Cagle). People Magazine is not the only
publication putting a stop to the publishing
of unauthorized photos of celebritys’ kids. Adweek
acknowledges Entertainment Tonight, Just
Jared, and Perez Hilton as others
joining the movement
and states, “The bans are, in part, a response to a
campaign started last month by actors Kristen Bell
and Dax Shepard” (Bazilian).
How is this
going to change celebrity gossip? Anne Hellen Petersen of Pacific Standard forecasts a reversion to Classic Hollywood; in
other words “heavily edited publicity when the studios and the gossip press
collaborated to produce squeaky clean, highly palatable images for every star”
(Petersen). This is a stark difference to the celebrity publicity we are accustom
to today; society thrives off the drama of celebrity life and if publications
begin to team up with celebrities to regulate images we will loose the escapism
aspect of celebrity culture altogether. Petersen also states:
The boycott
suggests just how dependent many of these outlets have become on celebrity
cooperation: ET, People, Just Jared, and E! may have had some measure of
altruistic intentions, but the real fear is losing access to not only Bell and
Shepherd, but the phalanx of celebrities, with and without children, who
support them.To these outlets, celebrities aren’t people, per se, but content
sources—and without them, they lose the thing that distinguishes them not only
from TMZ and Us Weekly, but the ever-proliferating number of (free) options for
celebrity content online (Petersen).
If celebrities’
demands regarding this situation are being met now, who’s to say they won’t up
the ante a few years down the road and boycott all paparazzi photographs? Do
you think the no-kids paparazzi policy could change the nature of celebrity
gossip?
Celebrities may now also
have something much bigger (or to be proportionally correct, smaller) to worry
about: drones. Drones, “small, unmanned, radio-controlled aircraft flying
long-lens cameras and video recorders” (Sheridan) have infiltrated the lives of
celebrities and their children quickly and easily oftentimes making appearances
in backyards of private estates.
Originally these small
fixed-winged machines were previously most well known for their role in
warfare. More recently however, large corporations like Google have tested them
as a delivery device for Amazon, and divorce lawyers are looking to use them to
keep tabs on cheating spouses. In the lives of celebrities, we can thank drones
for pictures of Tina Turner’s wedding, Anne Hathaway’s wedding reception, and
Miley Cyrus’ backyard garden.
According to an article in
the Daily Mail these gatecrashers are
“readily available high street stores and online, thousands have been sold in
Britain alone, with sophisticated ‘spy camera’ machines available for less than
£300” (Sheridan). So what exactly can be done to remedy this issue? According
to the International Business Times,
“California lawmakers have passed a new privacy law that will make it illegal
for members of the paparazzi to use drones to take celebrity photographs”
(Stone).
As Rohwer states
in her article entitled "Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard's Scheme to Sideline
Aggressive Paparazzi", “Celebrity gossip is big business, and media
companies have a financial interest in getting page views or selling magazines,
regardless of how unsavory their practices. Our obsession with celebrity gossip
has made companies…very rich” (Rohwer). Whose responsibility is it to protect
celebrity children from paparazzi: the celebrity parent, or law enforcement? Do
you think publications in support of the no-kids paparazzi policy (i.e. People Magazine) will lose audiences?
Works Cited
Bazilian, Emma.
"People Magazine Is Joining Entertainment Tonight in Banning Paparazzi
Photos of Celeb Kids." AdWeek. AdWeek, 25 Feb. 2014. Web.
Cagle, Jess.
"Why PEOPLE Does Not Support Paparazzi Who Target Celebs' Kids."
PEOPLE.com. PEOPLE, 2014. Web.
Rohwer, Susan.
"Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard's Scheme to Sideline Aggressive
Paparazzi." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 5 Mar. 2014. Web.
Celeb's Kids
Mobbed by Paparazzi. YouTube-Celeb's Kids Mobbed by Paparazzi. CNN, n.d. Web.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpg4nKd3JJA>.
Gloudeman,
Nikki. "Point, Click, Flash: A Quick and Dirty History of the
Paparazzi." Ravishly. N.p., 26 May 2104. Web.
Petersen, Anne H. "How
the No-Kids Paparazzi Policy Could Change Celebrity Gossip." Pacific
Standard. Pacific Standard Magazine, 2 Apr. 2014. Web.
Sheridan, Peter.
"Attack of the Drones: Hollywood Celebrities Are Besieged by Paparazzi
Spies in the Sky. Worried? You Should Be... Because They'll Soon Be a Regular
Fixture over YOUR Home." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 08 Sept.
2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
Stone, Jeff.
"California Passes New Paparazzi Drone Law To Protect Celebrity
Children." International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web.
Great job Brittany. I fully agree that it is not right that the Paparazzi follow children of celebrities so closely. In some ways I guess that is part of the sacrifice that the parents take as being apart of the business, but the question remains is it right and moral for the paparazzi to do so. If you ask me I would say no. I think that there should be more guidelines set in place to help stop kids from harassment from the paparazzi. I feel like it could harm them emotionally and put more pressure on their lives that they do not need. If they themselves want to peruse a career in the arts and entertainment field that is different, but I don’t think that as bystanders and offspring of celebrities they should face the same treatment. When thinking long term I really don’t think that if there is a no-kids paparazzi policy set in place that it would change the nature of gossip. I think that it would just be more moral. I belief that celebrities who are in the business themselves will always have paparazzi photographs whether they want them or not. There may be more guidelines set in place in the future on locations that they can be taken, distance from the celebrity, etc., but I don’t think they would be outright abolished.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is great the celebrities like Shepard and Kristen Bell are standing up against the Paparazzi for protection for their children and other children who grow up under the spotlight of their parents. I think their approach of using twitter hashtags of #pedorazzi and #NoKIdsPolicy was brilliant in the way it spread news and awareness quickly online (Rohwer). Stars like Bell are threatening to stop going to celebrity gossip magazines with authorized content if they continued taking and using unauthorized photos. I think it is good that they are stepping up for themselves and protecting their children the best that they can..
In 2013 Jerry Brown signed anti-paparazzi law to help protect children of celebrities. For anyone who violates this are subject to up to one year in jail and a possible $10,000 in fines. (McGreevy). According to the article, the bill is “overly broad, vague and infringes upon legitimate and protected forms of speech expression”(McGreevy). Although I think that this is great it makes me wonder how strict the guidelines actually are in the law because amount of seemingly snipped photos of celebrities and their children there are online and in publications.
In all honesty I don’t care if taking pictures and videos of celebtiry kids is all about making money or not. Protecting children from paparazzi is important. I think that it should be both a balance of the parents responsibility as well as laws should be set in place with other parameters because as of now it is a little out of hand. It will be interesting to see how it changes within the next 10 years and whether or not it gets worse or stays the same.
Works Cited
McGreevy, Patrick. "Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Law Protecting Children of Public Figures," Los Angeles Times 24 Sept. 2013. Web.
Rohwer, Susan. "Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard's Scheme to Sideline Aggressive Paparazzi," Los Angeles Times 5 March 2014. Web.
Lindsay Goldstein
ReplyDeleteThe #NoKidsPolicy was perhaps one of the most important – and also most surprising – movement to come out of Hollywood in the last couple of years. As you mention, paparazzi have always been a problem for celebrities and the lengths at which they will go to have gotten increasingly more dangerous and out of control. Bruce Jenner’s recent fatal car crash, for example, was supposedly caused, at least in part, by speeding paparazzi. Whether this is actually true or was just an excuse that Jenner made to put the blame on someone else, it’s not an unrealistic scenario by any means. There wasn’t really a line, though, when it came to celebrity’s children, who were often photographed at schools (endangering the other students as well), going to doctor appointments or even throwing temper tantrums on the streets. You make a really important point when you write that these young children did not choose this lifestyle for themselves and really, neither did their parents. In today’s society, it’s not enough to simply follow an actor, musician or artist when they’re working or at a pubic appearance, which is part of their job description. Unfortunately, their jobs and time in the spotlight have become 24/7, negatively impacting and even putting their families and children in danger.
While the #NoKidsPolicy was highly publicized and highly successful at first, I’ve noticed that it has started to slow down and almost disappear. Sights that once signed the pledge and agreed to ban photographs of celebrity children have become more lax about their policies if it means having a story or article that will drive traffic, even if it features a celebrity child. I believe that these publications joined the movement to simply “take a stand” and gain attention for doing so, but when the media stopped talking about it, they too stopped participating. This, of course, seems to be a very small majority of sites, as many still have stayed true to the campaign, but it was still surprising to me how quickly the shift happened.
A recent example of this is HollywoodLife.com, an entertainment website that features tabloid-y news from all over Hollywood. During the holidays, they posted a grainy photograph of Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher’s holiday card, which featured photos of their new baby, Wyatt. It was obvious that the images or the card itself were not for public consumption as even the headline wrote the pictures were “leaked”, but HollywoodLife chose to post the photo because they knew people wanted to see what one of the most-talked about celebrity babies of 2014 looked like so it would draw traffic. While the site never signed on to the #NoKidsPolicy, sharing the image was against everything that the campaign stands for and was a blatant disregard for privacy. To this extent, while I think that the campaign has already changed celebrity gossip for the better, I don’t think that it’s done nearly enough or that it’s going to stick. I also think that as long as some celebrities choose to constantly post photos of their children on social media or bring their kids into the spotlight, there will be no boundary.
Lindsay Goldstein, continued
ReplyDeleteThe problem really is that, like you said, photos like the one that HollywoodLife released are what the public wants. As Susan Rohwer writes in the Los Angeles Times article “Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard’s Scheme to Sideline Aggressive Paparazzi” “Too many consumers display a twisted sense of entitlement when it comes to gawking at celebrities’ lives,” (1). Until the public stops demanding these pictures, the paparazzi will continue to take them. That was a major point of the #NoKidsPolicy and one of the most important that celebrities like Bell and Shepard were trying to make. ET Executive Producers Linda Bell Blue, DJ Petroro and Co-Executive Producer Linda Fuller said in a statement, “It is our sincere hope that having ET take a leadership position on this issue sends a clear message to the photographers taking these shots, that this behavior will not be tolerated or supported,” (“ET Joins Kristen Bell in Fight with Paparazzi” 1). This idea that if magazines and publications stop buying photographs of celebrity kids then the paparazzi will stop taking them was essential in the campaign and a huge reason that I believe we have seen a decrease in the amount of published photos of children. While the problem is far from over, Hollywood is definitely on the right track, especially with the help of Bell and Shepard.
Works Cited:
“ET Joins Kristen Bell in Fight with Paparazzi.” ETOnline. 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
Rogers, Christopher. “Ashton Kutcher & Mila Kunis’s Baby Pics Leaked: Meet Wyatt Kutcher.” HollywoodLife.com. 8 Jan. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
Rohwer, Susan. “Kristen Bell and Dax Shephard’s Scheme to Sideline Aggressive Paparazzi.” Los Angeles Times. 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2015
Jessica Betsy
ReplyDeleteWhether we notice it or not, we are constantly consuming celebrity news each and every day. We could be reading a magazine, following E! News on Twitter, watching the Ellen DeGeneres show at four o’clock on NBC, scrolling through Perez Hilton online, following a celeb on Instagram or even tuning into watch TMZ and truthfully, we truly do not even realize how much celebrity gossip we are actually exposed to since it is ingrained into our daily lives. Though one thing is for sure, in order for us to see and hear what is happening in the lives of celebrities, there are these people in the world who have a profession, what many refer to as paparazzi, and they follow these well-known people that many of us love and aspire to be. Paparazzi allow us to escape from our own reality and live vicariously through photos and videos of celebrities. However, one thing certainly does need to change, which is how children of celebs are treated by the paparazzi.
Celebrities are just normal people, just like you and me. Though they are much more well-known and put on a pedestal due to their profession such as being a musician, actor, model, athlete or even a politician. And because of this, many times paparazzi get carried away and harass not only the celebrity, but as well as their children for the best photo or video possible knowing that we as consumers will eat it up since we love gawking at celebrities and obsessing over their lives. However, the paparazzi need to realize that kids of celebrities are just kids and ultimately did not choose the life their parents chose.
Jessica Betsy, continued
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no reason why children of celebrities should be treated any differently than any other child whose parents are not in the limelight. No paparazzi should be following these kids when they are outside playing with friends at a playground or let alone, anywhere. It’s just not fair to them, nor is it right. And because of this, many celebs are speaking out and standing up against the paparazzi such as Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell, Jennifer Gardner and Halle Berry, like Brittany mentioned. Luckily, there was an anti-paparazzi bill that was passed, which protects the children’s privacy. According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, Senator Kevin de Leon stated, “Kids shouldn’t be tabloid fodder nor the target of ongoing harassment,” adding his bill "will give children, no matter who their parent is, protection from harassers who go to extremes to turn a buck” (McGreevy). And actually, Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry made sure to speak up to let others know that the bill was truly needed. Another article from the Los Angeles Times, stated, “Nearly crying, Garner described how paparazzi aggressively follow her and her children” and the article continued to add that even Halle Berry said that “the constant presence of photographers yelling and taking pictures has made her young daughter afraid to go to school” (Rohwer).
Though in many situations, people could care less and will continue to keep on doing what they are doing, just like in this situation since many paparazzi and media companies are money driven. However, how far is too far? Brittany you said that “society thrives off the drama of celebrity life and if publications begin to team up with celebrities to regulate images we will loose the escapism aspect of celebrity culture altogether” and I couldn’t agree more. Therefore, the paparazzi need to start making wiser decisions so both sides of the situation are pleased. Why? Well because if they continue to harass celebrities’ kids, sooner or later there could be a potential ban of all paparazzi photos and videos, which would only make matters worse. In other words, the paparazzi and these media companies would be losing millions and we as consumers would not be happy campers since we have quite the obsession for celebrity gossip.
Works Cited
McGreevy, Patrick. "Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Law Protecting Children of Public Figures," Los Angeles Times 24 Sept. 2013. Web.
Rohwer, Susan. "Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard's Scheme to Sideline Aggressive Paparazzi," Los Angeles Times 5 March 2014. Web.
One of my favorite type of law, privacy law is never referred to in the Constitution directly. Made clear by Supreme Court rulings over time a person’s right to privacy is latent in the Constitution. States have been pushed to make their own shield laws to further protect the individual’s right to privacy.
ReplyDeleteThe right of publicity which many of these celebrities use to make money automatically dissolves their right to privacy. The tabloids can appropriate the celebrities name for money, they can disclose information and can take pictures in any public space. What seems to be in question is the right of the celebrity’s kids to live a normal life. The LA Times writes, “Kids shouldn’t be tabloid fodder nor the target of ongoing harassment,” de Leon said, adding his bill "will give children, no matter who their parent is, protection from harassers who go to extremes to turn a buck” (McGreevy). This is ridiculous. Not only do they share the same last name as the famous parent, which is exactly what of the right of publicity protects- the name. They also are being supported by the parents. When the parents fill out tax work, they include their kids in the form. When the kids go to college they will be paid for by the parent. When the parent dies they will supported by the estate that holds that famous name. Get out of here! These kids aren’t normal and they shouldn’t be treated as normal as long as their under their parents support.
This is going to change celebrity gossip dramatically. Let’s draw it out, the parent is with her kid 50% of the time that will theoretically double the time that the paparazzi will have to work. When the photographer inevitably breaks the law because he wants to go home, the paper will get sued. The newspapers are going have to spend money on nicer lawyers, more informed photographers and it’s going to take more time to get pictures. The price will be passed on to the 16-50 year old woman who buy the magazines. Why? So the Hollywood lawyers can sue for something.
Now “ethically conscious gossip news organizations” will try and rebrand the whole industry and try and get to the front of the line in a PR campaign. "We are proud to support Kristen Bell and other celebrities in their efforts to protect their children from intrusive paparazzi," said ET Executive Producers Linda Bell Blue, DJ Petroro and Co-Executive Producer Linda Fuller." It is our sincere hope that having ET take a leadership position on this issue sends a clear message to the photographers taking these shots, that this behavior will not be tolerated or supported." (Cagel) This is a Joke! Celebrities are the worst thing to happen in America since crooked lawyers. Make your money, give it to your kids and let the paparazzi take pictures. If you’re going to fight the paparazzi do it on the grounds of assault, not privacy, it’s quite hypocritical of the Hollywood community.
Cagel, Jess. "Why PEOPLE Does Not Support Paparazzi Who Target Celebs' Kids," People 25 Feb. 2014. Web."ET Joins Kristen Bell in Fight with Paparazzi," 20 Feb. 2014. Web.
McGreevy, Patrick. "Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Law Protecting Children of Public Figures," Los Angeles Times 24 Sept. 2013. Web.