What do you reckon? I found it hard to come to a decision here.
When were asked this very question in the lecture, my immediate reaction was 'obviously not'. But then after greater thought, the idea that the press were just practising a form of stalking seemed more and more plausible.
Even more disturbing, i realised that because the public, (myself, very much included here), seem so celeb obsessed and buy the latest magazines that tell us what our favourite stars are up to, we must be part of the problem? If we continue to buy and read these magazines, then we cannot very well argue that the paparazzi are really awful to those who they take pictures of.
Truth is however, that when i re evaluated the idea, i remembered that celebrities need the press to survive. Although the may very well moan about photographers, the fact remains that they would be nowhere without them. They rely on the exposure that even just one photograph gives them. If they weren't being photographed and followed, then there would certainly be complaints, and really and truly, would there be any one famous, if we didnt know all about them??
It is true that some photographers do go over the top, just to get a shot of that certain somebody, but i don't believe that they can really be called stalkers, when the cleberities themselves have voluntarily put themselves in that position.
A most recent story that made me laugh was that of Britney Spears and her beau, Adnan Ghalib - a celebrity gossip photographer.
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2008/01/britney-spears-adnan-ghalib-shack-up-in-palm-springs/
When were asked this very question in the lecture, my immediate reaction was 'obviously not'. But then after greater thought, the idea that the press were just practising a form of stalking seemed more and more plausible.
Even more disturbing, i realised that because the public, (myself, very much included here), seem so celeb obsessed and buy the latest magazines that tell us what our favourite stars are up to, we must be part of the problem? If we continue to buy and read these magazines, then we cannot very well argue that the paparazzi are really awful to those who they take pictures of.
Truth is however, that when i re evaluated the idea, i remembered that celebrities need the press to survive. Although the may very well moan about photographers, the fact remains that they would be nowhere without them. They rely on the exposure that even just one photograph gives them. If they weren't being photographed and followed, then there would certainly be complaints, and really and truly, would there be any one famous, if we didnt know all about them??
It is true that some photographers do go over the top, just to get a shot of that certain somebody, but i don't believe that they can really be called stalkers, when the cleberities themselves have voluntarily put themselves in that position.
A most recent story that made me laugh was that of Britney Spears and her beau, Adnan Ghalib - a celebrity gossip photographer.
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2008/01/britney-spears-adnan-ghalib-shack-up-in-palm-springs/
No comments:
Post a Comment