Should paparazzis be considered stalkers?

[Deleted]

I think so because you're basically following celebrities and take photos of them at every moment you can, letting them have no privacy whatsoever.

What do you think?

[Deleted]

Do you by any chance watch Game Grumps?

Anyways, yeah they're basically glorified stalkers but somehow they get away with it and it's considered socially acceptable. It's pretty dumb when you actually sit down and think about it.

...maybe...

Anywho, I think because they're so socially acceptable, it will be hard to illegalize it. Like gun controll.

[Deleted]

If they were following anyone else but a celebrity around with a camera, hiding in bushes and so on to take pictures of them, how long do you think it would be before they had a restraining order slapped on them?

There's your answer. The whole gutter press celebrity bollocks just needs to die.

[Raiju]

There are people who actually consider paparazzi socially acceptable?

But then again I don't like people taking pictures of me without my permission in general. I guess it's easy to sympathize with celebrities in that position. I just hate how photographers always come across so entitled, as if you should be grateful they took the picture of you.

[semaphore]

Individually, they're not really stalkers as such. They're more like a profession that takes terms stalking celebrities.

That said, paparazzi aren't any better than stalkers in my book. Why not just consider them scum?

[Howard Moon]

If they were following anyone else but a celebrity around with a camera, hiding in bushes and so on to take pictures of them, how long do you think it would be before they had a restraining order slapped on them?

Aren't celebrities also people, though? Why can't they get a restraining order against paparazzis? Honest question. I don't follow the whole celebrity media, so I have no idea how it works.

[Jawless Jones]

i feel they should be considered stalkers, i feel they can be much worse than stalkers due to the fact they're given free reign to hound famous people and its brushed away with "lol shouldnt have become an actor/born into royalty/etc if you wanted privacy"

[Sevyvia]

They pretty much are paid stalkers. I don't give a flying fuck about the lives of celebrities so I imagine I'm less qualified to speak on whether or not we really need this kind of job in the world. But since someone's willing to pay for it and accept the amount of bad will and negative press potentially possible from it, I guess someone thinks we need it.

[Deleted]

Nah. I don't think journalists should be blamed for recognising and meeting a demand in the market. Society at large has a voyeur fetish. People are obsessed with the lives of celebrities and celebrities wilfully volunteer to live their lives in the spotlight. It's hypocritical that stars parade themselves on TV and on red carpets and then throw a shit-fit when somebody snaps a pic of them on holiday at some overpriced resort or private beach.

Dance in the fire, expect to get singed. You want to blame something for the paparazzi blame society and the pop-culture Zeitgeist.

[Deleted]

Of course they are stalkers. You can call turd a poop-a-razzo but it's still plain old turd.

[semaphore]

Aren't celebrities also people, though? Why can't they get a restraining order against paparazzis? Honest question. I don't follow the whole celebrity media, so I have no idea how it works.

I imagine they can if a specific paparazzi step over the line. But where one is restrained, two more appears. There's an endless stream of different paparazzi scums.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 12:22 PM ----------

Nah. I don't think journalists should be blamed for recognising and meeting a demand in the market.

I know journalists aren't held in much respect by most people, but calling paparazzi "journalist" is kind of a bit much.... =/

[Deleted]

I know journalists aren't held in much respect by most people, but calling paparazzi "journalist" is kind of a bit much.... =/

Hehe. "People in the media industry", then.

[Trunksee]

At least in the us, freedom of the press protects them. They are doing it under the guise of news so the arent stalkers.

[Raiju]

Nah. I don't think journalists should be blamed for recognising and meeting a demand in the market. Society at large has a voyeur fetish. People are obsessed with the lives of celebrities and celebrities wilfully volunteer to live their lives in the spotlight. It's hypocritical that stars parade themselves on TV and on red carpets and then throw a shit-fit when somebody snaps a pic of them on holiday at some overpriced resort or private beach.

Dance in the fire, expect to get singed. You want to blame something for the paparazzi blame society and the pop-culture Zeitgeist.

While it's clear that they are meeting demands and are made profitable by people who feed off that entertainment - has anyone *Ever* got into that line of industry non-voluntarily?

I also don't see how it's hypocritical for someone to "parade themselves on TV" (where they agree to be there) and then have a hissy fit when they don't. Just because I am in say, an advertisement doesn't mean I believe people should be allowed to stalk me. Just because my music is successful doesn't mean people should be rewarded for trying to get an indecent picture of me. All hypothetical, I don't make any music at all.

[Letmesleep]

Nah. I don't think journalists should be blamed for recognising and meeting a demand in the market. Society at large has a voyeur fetish. People are obsessed with the lives of celebrities and celebrities wilfully volunteer to live their lives in the spotlight. It's hypocritical that stars parade themselves on TV and on red carpets and then throw a shit-fit when somebody snaps a pic of them on holiday at some overpriced resort or private beach.

Dance in the fire, expect to get singed. You want to blame something for the paparazzi blame society and the pop-culture Zeitgeist.

Eh, I dunno. Don't you think people should be able to do what they love (acting, singing, etc) while still being able to get coffee at Starbucks without being followed by two dozen cameramen? There's no doubt that when you sign up for fame you're taking the whole shitty package, but I don't think people photographing their daily lives is something many of them really enjoy.

[Deleted]

Aren't celebrities also people, though? Why can't they get a restraining order against paparazzis? Honest question. I don't follow the whole celebrity media, so I have no idea how it works.

They can but against invididuals, not paparazzis as a whole. If they start suing each and every mongrel that stalks them, it will take a lifetime to get them all.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't define them as stalkers. They are paid to take a limited "interest" in certain people for certain amounts of time. To me a stalker is someone who obsessively gathers information about another person while often remaining hidden from the person being stalked. Paparazzi are very often in the face of the celebrity and usually only for a fairly short time, depending on the story surrounding the interest.

[Deleted]

I think that if a celebrity asks someone to stop doing something that invades their privacy, and they continue, they should be able to get a restraining order. Paparazzi are trying to make money at the end of the day and celebrities have chosen their careers, but there is a level of privacy and snooping that should be illegal no matter who you are. Taking pictures through a crack in the curtains of a celebrities house to try and get a private moment of them without their make up on, half dressed or interacting with their families for example, as is often seen in the gossip mags here, goes over the line to me.

[Deleted]

While it's clear that they are meeting demands and are made profitable by people who feed off that entertainment - has anyone *Ever* got into that line of industry non-voluntarily?

I also don't see how it's hypocritical for someone to "parade themselves on TV" (where they agree to be there) and then have a hissy fit when they don't. Just because I am in say, an advertisement doesn't mean I believe people should be allowed to stalk me. Just because my music is successful doesn't mean people should be rewarded for trying to get an indecent picture of me. All hypothetical, I don't make any music at all.

Eh, I dunno. Don't you think people should be able to do what they love (acting, singing, etc) while still being able to get coffee at Starbucks without being followed by two dozen cameramen? There's no doubt that when you sign up for fame you're taking the whole shitty package, but I don't think people photographing their daily lives is something many of them really enjoy.

I certainly think that many paparazzi are far too intense. Blocking people from getting in their cars, getting in the way of cars when they are trying to drive etc, but I think it really is just something that everyone who joins the entertainment industry should be aware of and prepared to deal with.
If stars really wanted proper privacy, I find it strange that they would live in areas where paparazzi numbers are so dense, ie. L.A, New York & London. Sure, it might be convenient for their jobs, but they could easily live a little further away for the benefit of being hassled less frequently.

There are plenty of celebrities who are able to remain fairly low-key and out of public eye apart from when they're doing something deliberate, mostly because they stay out of the way and don't do stupid stuff publicly. People are only interested in getting insight into (and paparazzi only look to provide that when) the lives of particular celebrities seem interesting, whether its because they do something scandalous, live extravagantly/excessively or make their romantic/family lives very public themselves (arguing on the Hollywood strip, having their gorgeous Scandinavian wife throw golf clubs at them etc). If celebrities truly want privacy, all they have to do is seem boring, but because so many seem to have massive egos, they apparently find that rather difficult.

[Letmesleep]

I certainly think that many paparazzi are far too intense. Blocking people from getting in their cars, getting in the way of cars when they are trying to drive etc, but I think it really is just something that everyone who joins the entertainment industry should be aware of and prepared to deal with.
If stars really wanted proper privacy, I find it strange that they would live in areas where paparazzi numbers are so dense, ie. L.A, New York & London. Sure, it might be convenient for their jobs, but they could easily live a little further away for the benefit of being hassled less frequently.

There are plenty of celebrities who are able to remain fairly low-key and out of public eye apart from when they're doing something deliberate, mostly because they stay out of the way and don't do stupid stuff publicly. People are only interested in getting insight into (and paparazzi only look to provide that when) the lives of particular celebrities seem interesting, whether its because they do something scandalous, live extravagantly/excessively or make their romantic/family lives very public themselves (arguing on the Hollywood strip, having their gorgeous Scandinavian wife throw golf clubs at them etc). If celebrities truly want privacy, all they have to do is seem boring, but because so many seem to have massive egos, they apparently find that rather difficult.

I think there's definitely times when celebs draw attention to themselves by acting like fools, but then again there's tons of paparazzi shots of celebs in sunglasses, hats, and all sorts of other things they use to disguise themselves. It's pretty clear when people do and don't want attention. It's certainly true that they know what they are getting into, but I'm not really eager to give paparazzi a free pass.

I'm fully aware that society as a whole feeds the paparazzi industry, but I often just feel bad for some celebrities (notice I said some. If you're on the street making a scene because you're plastered out of your mind, you're not getting a pat on the back from me). I don't particularly think a person should have to relocate to get away from cameras. I dunno, I just think it's a sleazy job but not something that is going to change anytime soon.

In any case, it's 5 am here. I'm off to bed. Night, broseph.