Are the Paparazzi Becoming Too Dangerous?
An article that appeared in 'The Circuit' Magazine.2009.
By Hans Van Beuge & Elijah Shaw
NABA Members.
Celebrity worship seems to be the fastest growing religion in the world. In our secular society it seems the need for traditional worship has been displaced and replaced with an obsession for idolizing celebrities.
Publications, TV programs and internet sites such as People, The Star, The National Enquirer, The Globe, US Weekly, OK!, In Touch, Entertainment Tonight, The Insider, Access Hollywood, TMZ, Hollywood. TV, Splash and about another 1,200 celebrity news sites in the US alone, all feed our insatiable addiction for celebrity culture.
And if keeping with the religious allegory then the apostles of celebrity worship -- ones that fuel this aggressive, global, billion dollar industry-- are the Paparazzi; The freelance photographers who relentlessly and intrusively pursue the famous, record their every move, and supply the avalanche of banal and insignificant details to the media outlets.
Roaming worldwide, the paparazzi have had few legal restraints imposed upon them. They justify their often-illegal activities by citing the rights of freedom of the press and free speech. Rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States by the First Amendment as well as similar laws (or lack thereof) in other nations.
The paparazzi first gained notoriety in those La Dolce Vita days (the term paparazzi originated in this famous Fellini film) of the late 1950’s when Italian snappers were racing around Rome’s Via Veneto on Lambretta motor scooters, photographing the rich and famous.
These early paparazzi soon discovered that provoking a celebrity and having a colleague take a photo of the celebrity’s reaction was worth more money than the traditionally posed glamour shots. The concept of the more invasive paparazzi photographers replacing the old school photojournalists soon followed in the US, UK and France.
In 1997 the authorities and the general public finally realized how out of control the paparazzi had become. Although cleared of culpability, the paparazzi were clearly complicit in the fatal car accident that caused the death of Princess Diana. This incident also affected the public perception of protection agents and divided members of our community on how it could have been prevented.
As Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer, poignantly expressed the day after her death,” I always believed the press would kill her in the end, but not even I could imagine they’d take such a direct hand in her death, as seems to be the case. It would appear that every proprietor and editor of every publication that has paid for intrusive and exploitative photographs of her, encouraging greedy and ruthless individuals to risk everything in pursuit of Diana’s image, has blood on his hands to-day.”
After Princess Diana’s death, limited laws protecting the rights to privacy for individuals were enacted in France and Germany. The tabloids and the paparazzi avoided controversy for a while at least until the outcry over Diana’s death passed.
However, over the past few years a new breed of aggressive and intrusive paparazzo has evolved, and they are responsible for escalating the degree of danger into the duel between celebrities and those who photograph them for profit.
Technology, competition, profits and a lack of industry regulation are the reasons why the paparazzi started to behave like something out of the Wild West.
With the new generation of digital cameras and video recorders literally any one can take a professional shot. The photographic skills of the older generation of paparazzi became redundant.
In the past few years the number of paparazzi has increased enormously. Los Angeles for instance had a couple of dozen consistently working paparazzi about five years ago. Now there are be over two hundred. The tabloids are willing to pay six figure pay-offs for a “unique” shot. By “unique” they mean something that portrays the celebrity negatively such as having a car accident, appearing drunk, overweight, angry, unattractive or disheveled.
The lucrative money resulted in an increase in the numbers chasing the big payday, which in turn made it more competitive. To succeed now as a paparazzi you need to be far more aggressive, not just in pursuing your subject but in also in beating the competition. With no licensing or accreditation necessary to operate, we have seen an increase in the number of people with violent criminal records working as paparazzi.
In the US one particular paparazzi agency is named after an L.A. street gang the owner of the agency belonged to as a teenager. He trains other ‘reformed’ gang members in the business. Other agencies use foreigners working on questionable visas. Photographers are hired less for their camera skills than their ability to navigate the rough-and-tumble of the celebrity chase.
A much more accurate term to describe the newer breed of paparazzi is ‘stalkerazzi’. They usually work in teams and will stay hunting their celebrity targets 24/7. Often driving rental cars, obscuring their license plates or using aliases to hide their identities or connections to the big agencies that control much of the market, these stalkerazzi are willing to run red lights or force celebrities off the road to get a photo, with a total disregard for public safety.
It seems as if the lesson of Princess Diana’s death has been forgotten.
The vehicular pursuit of celebrities, which are called ‘follows’ often devolve into dangerous high speed convoys and are certainly the most reprehensible activity the paparazzi commit. Follows become especially dangerous when competing teams are after the same quarry. Often there can be up to thirty SUV’s (the vehicle of choice) involved, all jockeying for the best position. The desire to get the money shot leads to a flagrant disregard for any road rules including speed limits, red lights and driving on the wrong side of the street. When they have followed their target to the destination, they generally discard their vehicles on the roadway and swarm all over the target vehicle ‘hosing’ down the target with cameras on full auto. The rights of passage are denied to both the target and any passers by and they will frequently start fighting amongst themselves like sharks in a feeding frenzy.
When this ‘hosing’ is done at night in conjunction with a camera flash, the effect is like having 30 Surefire flashlights shined in your eyes. It’s painful and you completely lose your night vision and it is obviously extremely dangerous to the driver, passengers and any other vehicle or person near the vehicle they have surrounded.
(The term ‘hosing’ is one the paparazzi proudly use and is deliberately meant to convey the sense of indignity and helplessness a naked prisoner feels when they are hit by a high-pressure hose.)
Recently in Los Angles, the paparazzi have been involved in several car accidents with celebrities including Nicole Ritchie, Brad Pitt and the late Michael Jackson’s family whilst on the ‘follow’. They were also implicated in providing information to a gang that was burglarizing celebrity’s homes and one paparazzo got into a punch up with Mike Tyson at LAX after he was harassing Tyson’s family.
Meanwhile in Italy, the owner of paparazzi agency was put on trial for blackmailing politicians and celebrities with the photos his agency took.
It’s obvious that the Paparazzi industry is completely incapable of self-regulation or establishing an effective code of ethics. Authorities need to enact legislation to protect the safety and privacy of both the public and famous individuals from their irresponsible behavior. The question of how to balance freedom of the press versus the basic right to a reasonable degree of privacy needs to be addressed and defined.
There needs to be a clearer definition of what is ‘newsworthy’ and what is just intrusive gossip. Virtually all paparazzi photographs and video are of high profile people doing very mundane, everyday activities – taking the children to the park, shopping, eating, walking or driving. None of which could be reasonably defined as newsworthy or having social value.
Last month, California Governor Schwarzenegger signed a new law, Assembly Bill 524, to discourage paparazzi misconduct by allowing tabloid or other publishers to be sued for using images or sound recordings that they knew were obtained violently or illegally.
California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who proposed the new law, was quoted as saying, "Out-of-control paparazzi are an increasing threat, not only to the celebrities they stalk but to the public at large if they happen to get in their way."
The following are quotes from the text of the new law:
“The Legislature finds and declares all of the following,
*Individuals and their families have been harassed and endangered by being persistantly followed or chased in a manner that puts them in a reasonable fear of bodily injury,and in danger of serious bodily injury or even death, by photographers, videographers, and audio recorders attempting to capture images or other reproductions of their private lives for commercial purposes.
*The ligitimate privacy interests of individuals and their families have been violated by photographers, videographers, and audio recorders who physically tresspass in order to capture images or other reproductions of their private lives for commercial purposes…
*Such harassment and tresspass threaten not only professional public persons and their families, but also private persons and families for whom personal tragedies or circumstances beyond their control create media interest.
*There is no right, under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution, to persistently follow or chase another in a manner that creates a reasonable fear of bodily injury, to trespass, or to constructively trespass through the use of intrusive visual or auditory enhancement devices.
*The right to privacy and respect for private lives of individuals and their families must be balanced against the right of the media to gather and report news.
The right of a free press to report details of an individual’s private life must be weighed against the rights of the individual to enjoy liberty and privacy.
Opponents of the bill say that it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the law does not target the content of free speech; rather, it targets the conduct used to gather information when performed in an illegal manner.
This law is certainly a positive step in curtailing the illegal and intruisive activities of the paparazzi. One that with positive support might lead other States and indeed Nations to enact similar legislation.
The drafting of legislation, or establishing legal precedent as to a persons legal right to where their likeness can be used is the most effective way to curtail the power of the paparazzi.This already exists in commercial law where the right to use someones likeness for commercial purpose must be granted by that individual.
Tabloids only publish photo’s of famous individuals in their magazines so they can sell them for monetary gain so commercial law should be applicable.
Legislation needs to ensure that:
*No photos or videos of children should be taken or broadcasted without the written consent of the parent.
*No photos or videos of individuals clearly participating in a non newsworthy private matter such as a vacation, exercise, eating, at school, at home, at a funeral or wedding should be taken or broadcast without the written consent of the individual involved.
*There should be ‘no go’ areas for paparazzi around certain instititutions where reasonable privacy should be expected. This would include but not be limited to schools, hospitals, cemeteries,residences and places of worship.
Other methods that could be implemented to bring the paparazzi under control include forcing them to be licenced by reputable agencies with uniform standards and Codes of Conduct in the State or Country they are operating in.The Code of Conduct should be enforceable by law or a public entity.
To be accredited would entail having a background check to ensure no serious criminal convictions, proof of proper legal documentation and insurance to cover public liability.
They should also have to wear official accredition/licence whilst working and provide such identification to any member of the public when requested and all vehicle’s they are in whilst working must have number plates attached.
Ironically, providing services that protect famous individuals from aggressive media intrusions and protecting them from the pathalogically fixated individuals whose fantasies are fueled by their products,is a major source of revenue for those of us in the private protection sector.
With that said, many an encounter with the paparazzi,-- and the actions taken from security personel to shield the VIP has resulted in even more negative attention being produced for said celebrity.
A YouTube search for “… versus paparazzi” will yeild you a laundry list of videos, with over half of them invoving close protection staff who often use approaches that, were they off camera, might just be a control tactic, but under the harsh glare of the photo lenze or edited down to a 20 second clip make the bodyguard look thugish and unprofessioinal.
Bad press and public perception aside, what happens when the protection agent has comitted all his resources to “paparazzi watch” on behalf of his client, when our mandate should be protection of the client from any and all threats? Does that narrow our focus so much that at the moment of truth our attention is on a money hungry cameraman that we miss the knife of the assalant in the crowd? One hopes the answer is no, but unfortunatlly the current state of affairs the likelyhood of that increases exponentially.
In the end, security professionals have a duty of care for our clients and in a broader sense, the public. Advocating restrictions being placed on the way the paparazzi industry operates to ensure public safety and a more civilised society helps stengthen our circle of client protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment