Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:22 PM
Sat Nov 21
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
FameShame11/17/09
*looks for mustachioed disguise* #paparazzi
11/17/09
11/17/09
FameShameIt's like when the kid I used to babysit came to tell me that she stuffed 7 whole rolls of toilet paper down the toilet. While impressive, I ain't clapping kid. #paparazzi
11/17/09
11/17/09
FameShame11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Also, I don't think it was a waste of time. It definitely killed some time and was interesting to read, despite the ludicrous theories. #paparazzi
11/17/09
11/17/09
They make for an interesting read, but they can't all be true... otherwise Kennedy was killed at least three times by my count.
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
FameShame11/17/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
10/29/09
If the original ice cream owners were constantly in the news being run down on the street, mobbed, and harassed so that the intermediary could steal that brand ice cream to sell it to me, it's my responsiblity to not buy it or to make sure that it's not that particular brand. I know this site likes these pictures, but the "How could we possibly know?? What would you feel like if it was you?!" angle reeks of self-absolution. You (tabloids, etc.) know for a fact that you're part of the problem, now you have to decide if the money you make from perpetuating the problem is worth paying the fines.
People have been killed by the paparazzi. For what? So we can get pictures of who people we don't know are currently dating? What they're wearing? We don't let people that sell fake bags off the hook on this site, even though it's their livelihood, so why should media organizations that benefit from this bad behavior get a pass? It ain't ice cream, people. #paparazzi
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
I'll start with the rights of the press side. Basically, the press has to have the right to photograph, write, interview, etc, so that issues, topics, etc, can be displayed from multiple points of view and that news can be circulated to the general public, without the fear of retribution by the government. If you start putting limits on the press, then you walk into the territory of some non-democratic countries where an outlet has to be careful of what they say for fear of what the government will do to them.
With this right comes HUGE responsibility of the press; what to say, what not to say, how far to take things, etc. Is/isn't it ok to press a politician to the breaking point when questioning them about an affair, accepting bribes, not paying taxes, etc? Is/isn't it ok to press a young girl to the breaking point about an assault on her, her helping her parents rob people, her beating the snot out of another girl, etc?
I think there is a difference between respectable "press" and someone who spends $800 dollars on a camera so they can stalk celebrities, take photos, and sell them to a trash rag for hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars. I would FERVENTLY hope someone who considers themself to be part of the press to have some intellect and know the difference between right or wrong and know approximately where that line is (they are human). In my view, the paparazzi are... a blemish to good journalism. I know some people love this stuff, but I can live without seeing unimportant people ("celebrities") in pictures without makeup, trying to leave a club, or just any and everywhere in their day to day lives. I know there is no way to differentiate between press and paparazzi, but I think the world of journalism should do more to self-police and stop these unsavory people from trashing the general image of journalism.
As far as personal rights go; I think you should be able to walk down the street without being mobbed by a group of people. I think its wrong that you try to leave a location, but can't because your vehicle is surrounded by people to the point you can't move without hurting someone. I think you should be able to take a flight without having to run to your gate to avoid people asking you stupid questions and taking pictures with which to critique every inch of your life later. I think you should be able to leave your home without fearing for the safety of you, your children, and your loved ones.
Do famous people/celebrities agree to a certain loss of anonymity when they become famous? Sure, I'll relent you that. I'll even admit some "stars" thrive on being in the spotlight, being followed by the paparazzi, and having their entire lives played out for all to see. But some don't, and thats where the problem lies. Some "stars" just want to do their job and all that goes along with it, and then just go home and be a regular joe. They don't want to have to sneak around everywhere. They don't want to have a store close just so they can go shopping. They just want to live a normal life, like you and me.
Is there a middle ground here? I think so. I think most "celebrities" would consent to the fact that they have given up some anonymity to do what they do. I also think that the journalism industry can do lots more to stop the unsavory practices of the paparazzi. Does this require the government getting involved? Not at all. Until both sides take responsibility though, who else will straighten out this mess? #paparazzi
10/29/09
I do agree that, to an extent, being a public figure requires relinquishing some privacy, but there has to be a line, and the above crossed it big time for me. #paparazzi
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/30/09