Okay - the celebs were unable to get enough public sympathy with their whining about paparazzi invading their privacy in public. Oxymoron anyone? So now they want to get rid of the paparazzi by having them investigated for felony criminal conspiracy. Sound scary? Paparazzi scum. Murderers of Princess Di. Hated wielders of long lenses who go around intentionally ramming into innocent little teenage celebrity girls? Stalkerazzi who are constantly in-the-face of every A-list celebrity? The celebrities want these horrible paparazzi scum stopped!
What do the celebrities want? What they really want is a law that will prevent a specific group of photographers from taking their pictures in public.
It is just a picture
How did this criminal investigation come about? Why now? What happened to create such vitriol and negative fervor towards these celebrity photographers labeled paparazzi?
Reading the most recent articles in major newspapers and wire services, we are led to believe it was a frightful incident with Reese Witherspoon where she was penned inside her car whilst several paps surrounded her and banged into her car in an attempt to take her picture. Then there was the most recent incident where Lohan was allegedly intentionally rammed by a pap who was arrested at the scene and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Yes, a paparazzo did indeed crash into Lindsay Lohan's SL65 Mercedes convertible recently. And most likely the paparazzo in question was driving really fast as he was behind Lindsay near the Beverly Center shopping mall when the accident happened. Little miss Lohan is 18 years old driving one of the most powerful cars in the world. She claims she was trying to make a U-turn to get to a policeman after having seen his black and white vehicle on the opposite side of the roadway. Though I was not there I would venture a guess Ms. Lohan had applied a great gob of big Mercedes brakes and whipped her steering wheel to the left thus beginning her U-turn. Then most likely what happened was that the paparazzo in question also applied his mini-van brakes, which are vastly inferior to those in the Mercedes. He undoubtedly believed he was going to hit her vehicle from behind and probably swerved to the left in an attempt to avoid hitting the rear end of Lindsay's car. But as she powered her sports car through the illegal U-turn she was making she actually turned her vehicle directly broadside in front of the paparazzo's car. Bang.
Where I come from that is a car accident. Caused by bad driving and speeding. Let the insurance companies and the courts decide who was at fault. Though the paparazzo was arrested, the original police reports on the evening of the accident stated no one was injured. But since then there have been numerous reports that celebrity Lindsay Lohan was indeed injured. But what I don't see in the media are any reports or diagrams of how the accident occurred. Maybe everyone in the media was busy working on the Michael Jackson trial that day?
Oh, and the paparazzo who scratched Reese Witherspoon's car? It happened AFTER she'd gone into her gym. He was parking his vehicle, a small rental, and did indeed scratch the paint on her rear fender in doing so. But she was not there when it happened. What did he do then? He went inside the gym, gave his name, driver's license, insurance and contact info to the receptionist and explained what happened. He was told it would be passed on to Ms. Witherspoon. Thank you very much.
What happened to the privacy issue? Didn't work, that's what. The fact is, none of us have a right to privacy in public. Okay, the celebrities don't like having their pictures made surreptitiously. Hmmm.
So - all of a sudden the LAPD have a special task force set up to investigate the paparazzi?
Don't be fooled dear reader!
Were you to have access to the photographic archives (which I'm fairly certain you can have with little effort) of the various paparazzi photo-agencies, you would see dozens, if not hundreds, of situations caught on the paparazzi's film showing celebrities videotaping the paparazzi. This has been going on for months. Why and what are the celebs shooting / filming and for how long have they been doing so?
So what's going on here? Perhaps these celebrites all got video cameras for Christmas and are still having fun with iMovie? I don't think so.
More likely what the celebrities did was call one another, call their lawyers, get together with the Gubernator and the LAPD and come up with a plan to get rid of the paparazzi. Or at least, come up with a plan to help them come up with a plan to pass a law that will get rid of the paparazzi.
Just who is conspiring to do what to whom?
What do the celebrities want? They want to find a way to stop the paparazzi from taking their pictures. That is the bottom line. They want to be famous and all that means. And believe me, that means A LOT. AND they want to be NORMAL. And they want to control everything about their public image. But that's not all they want to control. These celebrities also want to control the media. Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves for the way you've allowed yourselves to be manipulated by these celebrities whining, not to mention the way you've covered (or covered up) how the celebrities were able to manipulate the police and district attorney's office. This could very well be one of the most important issues affecting the press in decades. And dear reader, doubt thee not - the great state of California's Governor is on the celebrity's side of this issue!
Oh, you think these famous public figures just want to be safe, to be free from harassment? Free from endangerment whilst with their children, that sort of thing? This sounds so reasonable. Who's going to question the veracity of such a simple request? Who cannot understand the sanctity of such a sympathetic desire as wanting one's family to be safe?
I will question it if you won't. Celebrities want to be safe from having their picture taken? Uh, you want to explain that? They want to be safe from bad driving? Well, okay. Me too. But who's doing all this dangerous bad driving in the first place? Has anyone given this a bit of thought? Or are you all simply quoting the LAPD P.R. officers and the DA's P.R. person?
In some states the police are called public safety officers. Their stated purpose is to protect and serve - THE PUBLIC. I'm fairly certain, even with the advent of Homeland Security and all the anti-terrorist task forces out there, public safety is also one of the main goals of the LAPD.
So what's all this criminal conspiracy investigation of the paparazzi about?
Traffic and trespass laws, which are broken, are misdemeanors. Conspiracy is a felony. That's part of the explanation for all this hubbub.
But another part of it is that the words CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION put the fear of God into some people and in others it means GUILTY AS CHARGED - HANG EM HIGH. In the court of public opinion, the paparazzi have long been guilty of murdering Princess Di. Now the so called legitimate press is running story after story (NY TIMES/ LA TIMES/ AP) about the criminal investigation of the paparazzi in Los Angeles. Without taking time to really look into the story, I might add. I know everyone is overloaded out there, but HELLO! If you don't pay attention you're going to lose a lot of the basic freedoms of our so called free press. And you KNOW there are plenty of people out there who would dearly LOVE to see that happen!
The paparazzi. They take pictures. Of celebrities. In public. Where is the criminal conspiracy here? What is the criminal activity?
Speeding? Let's look at that a little later. Running stop signs and lights? Later. Crashing cars? Later. What about the safety of your children and mine? The public's safety in general?
And who the heck are the paparazzi?
There is a new book out that I've heard explains the paparazzi fairly well. I'm just about to start reading it. I know the author - by profession - he's a former picture editor at LIFE magazine. I used to meet with him in his office in NYC in the TIME LIFE building back when he was photo editor of LIFE. But there is no real LIFE Magazine now. His name is Peter Howe and I've heard he interviewed quite a few paparazzi whilst researching his book titled, PAPARAZZI. He states in his book some paparazzi are smart and rich and some are borderline psychos. Probably a few dunces as well.
So some paparazzi are good, some are smart, some are nut-cases and some are dumb. Sounds just like cops, dentists, teachers, district attorneys, and celebrities.
But WHAT EXACTLY do paparazzi do that angers the celebs so much?"
The truth is they don't like having their pictures made whilst they are in public. But what they are saying is that they don't like being chased by packs of paparazzi in cars at high speed. They've been able to get the attention of the police and the district attorney's office. The media has allowed this paparazzi issue to sound as if Hollywood has this wild band of shooters just willy nilly going around breaking laws right and left as if this were the wild west.
But we have laws against stalking. We have laws against speeding and running stop signs and lights, etc... The celebs would have you believe the paparazzi are CAUSING the celebs to speed and run stop signs and lights. The celebrities would like you to believe these paparazzi are following them 24 hours a day. Just does not happen. The actual photography lasts for seconds or often fractions of a second. Waiting to get a picture can take hours or even days. But the celebrities know it is only when magazines (all over the world) are interested in doing a story on a particular celeb that the paparazzi will be around a bit more that week. Like Jamie Fox recently said, Hey, it's only a few seconds - small price to pay. Or Orlando Bloom, If my fellow celebrities don't like the paparazzi, they can stay inside and behave.
Have any of you stopped to think about this? Is there some inalienable right to drive like a maniac given only to celebrities? Is not wanting your picture taken justification for driving double or triple the speed limit, running stop signs and red lights? If you're a public figure why should you bother expecting to live a completely anonymous lifestyle? Further, why should you expect to have the power to be able to manipulate the media and the police just because you don't like to have your picture made whilst shopping?
Don't get me wrong. No one, especially the paparazzi, should be allowed to speed and or drive recklessly. For any reason. The paparazzi are following the celebs because the celebs go to great lengths to prevent them from getting pictures. Including wearing disguises, hats, blocking pictures with purses, bags, jackets, turning their backs, using umbrellas, etc... The celebrities just do not like having their pictures taken without being able to control the circumstances. This is the bottom line. If the celebs were to show a bit more gratitude by means of simply ignoring the paparazzi, there would be no problem! The paparazzi would get their pictures, and the magazines would be able to keep the public's appetite for pictures and news of the celeb's lives satiated. But if the celebs don't want to be photographed, then don't come out in public. Is that a drag? I don't know. I'm not famous. But I'll bet Hollywood and NYC are full of young gorgeous talented waitresses and waiters and such who'd gladly give up what they perceive as being a life of obscurity and monotony for fame and fortune in exchange for a few seconds of attention by the paparazzi every week for the rest of their lives.
It is just a picture!
And remember, when they are following a celebrity, the paparazzi are BEHIND the celeb. So if crazy driving is happening, are only the paparazzi to blame? Is having your picture made justification for driving as if you're being chased by Bin Laden?
Is it wrong for paparazzi to chase celebs? You bet. In my opinion it is wrong to break the law period.
Speeding, running stop signs, lights, etc... is not at all cool. It endangers others. And not just celebrities, but you and me.
So if the celebs want to speed, run stop signs and red lights, and drive recklessly - I say let them go. Call 911. Record them on video. Make a citizen’s arrest. And let the paparazzi photograph the celebrities being hooked up down at the local precinct when they're charged with manslaughter. Let's see their high powered lawyers get them off of running over some kid in the street because they didn't want their picture taken.
Do the photo agencies who employ these paparazzi need to take some responsibility? One would expect at the very least each agency might have written policy to give to each photographer stating the rules of doing their job. But then again, if someone with a drivers license breaks a traffic law, they alone are responsible.
What about the magazines that buy these pictures? Should they be held responsible for any and all so called criminal activity by the paparazzi?
Oh please. Most of the magazines are based in NYC. The editors at these magazines have no way of knowing for certain what might have happened in Los Angeles in the process of a paparazzi getting a picture. And I've never had any photo or magazine editor even so much as hint that they want me to break any law in getting a picture, regardless of how big the story. In fact, before accepting any assignment from any magazine I always explain to the editor hiring me for that day that I will not break any law just to get a picture. They always absolutely agree - it is not worth it. Period.
It is just a picture.
But this paparazzi issue seems to be a huge thorn in the celebrity's side. And clearly the police are indeed concerned with the safety of the public. So what can be done?
Right now, even though I am a former member of the White House Press Corps and once had 24 access through the front (and rear) gates of the White House as well as the State Department, The Senate and House in our Nation's Capitol building, the Dept. of Defense etc..., I cannot get a press pass from the LAPD. Why? Because I'm not considered a member of the legitimate press. What? You mean like CNN? FOX News? TIME? NEWSWEEK? Please - I've worked for all the legitimate press magazines in America. Often these magazines run as many stories about celebrities as do the so called gossip magazines.
The stated reason for this exclusion? The LAPD doesn't want these awful paparazzi getting in their way at some crime scene (as if the paparazzi would care about real news). LAPD simply says the celebrity press is not legitimate and refuses to issue them press passes.
Yet I, as a paparazzi, am perfectly willing to go downtown and be fingerprinted (after all the Secret Service has me and my particulars on-file) and photographed so that, should the occasion arise, the police would know at the very least I'm just a dude who takes pictures of celebrities. One less real bad guy to worry about. It seems to me that if the LAPD are willing to go such lengths as to run a covert criminal conspiracy investigation on the paparazzi, they would welcome the paparazzi to come on down and be fingerprinted, background checked, and photographed. After all, as most members of the legitimate press already know, a police press pass doesn't get you any real privileges anymore anyway. It simply identifies you to the police as being the enemy.
I say give the paparazzi press passes. Give them a background check. Now the police can concentrate on people breaking the law and the paparazzi can just go out take pictures. And if we see any celebrities breaking the law, we'll get it on film. Copies to the DA's office.
Thanks to Photographer Jim Knowles aka ZXING for a take from the other side. . You can send Jim Love Letters at paparazzo1 @ gmail.com . (without spaces)
( Hopefully Jim will send me some of his pictures for thebosh) . We Love the paparazzi at thebosh
|
