Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>What do some of the pros on the LUG think of the proposal to protect >celebrities from these vermin... I'm a photojournalist who occasionally finds himself in situations that he'd rather not be photographing, but as a professional--and as an employee--ends up photographing anyway. Usually it's a funeral, and I'd rather not impose myself on others' grief, but I put on a suit coat and tie, and try to be discreet, or at the least sensitive. I have been in paparazzi-like situations before, tracking down a celebrity who was in our city. Again, I made the best of it, was polite, did my job, and left. I'll admit, since I work for a newspaper and not for myself, the demands placed upon me are somewhat different, and there's usually no need to trail a subject until he disappears behind closed doors or private property. As we are learning the paparazzi are probably not to blame for this tragic accident, but made an convenient and immediate target for the world's grief and sorrow. I agree with others' assessments: The subjects of paparazzi usually court the attention when it serves their purpose, and then are outraged when their purposes are not being served. Walter Cronkite said yesterday that any attempts to curb paparazzi (in the U.S. anyway) would be a step on a slippery slope to placing unconstitutional limits on the press. In the end, if there were no market for this type of photo, there would be no paparazzi. Anyone who reads a tabloid, buys People magazine, watches "tabloid" television, or reads the celebrity gossip in his local newspaper ensures the continued existence of paparazzi. - -Jack Milton http://www.agate.net/~jmilton/index.html