By Jim Knowles - Paparazzo

Are there bad, or worse, paparazzi? Cops? Lawyers? Politicians? Realtors? Accountants? Doctors? Postal Employees? Of course.

Are there bad, or worse, paparazzi? Cops? Lawyers? Politicians? Realtors? Accountants? Doctors? Postal Employees? Of course.

I wonder how many people know that the LAPD and the LACS refuse to allow paparazzi to apply for each of these agency's press credentials - both of which require criminal background checks, fingerprints, identification photos and a considerable amount of verifiable personal information? One would think law enforcement officers and officials would welcome the ability to "know at a glance" which paparazzi are serious professionals and which are rogue borderline (if not full on) criminals. To me, this seems to be a very big part of the problem. Too many paparazzi agencies are populated by completely non-professional behaving photographers. Let's face it - were a paparazzo holding a press credential identifying him / her to the police, warts and all, that paparazzo just might be a little less inclined to step over the line, more likely to behave a bit more professionally, and much less likely to commit crimes in the process of doing their job.

But there is so much more to this issue, not the least of which is how celebrities are so often given special treatment - by EVERYONE!

It is absolutely fascinating to me, as a professional paparazzo for over 20 years, a photojournalist for over 30 years, and former member of the White House Press Corps - that people (especially celebrities) continue to blame the paparazzi for all this dangerous high speed vehicle chasing of celebs.

Even the so called "mainstream / legitimate" press get it wrong when the stories they do about the paparazzi are so often done from a point of view that never includes their own newspaper, magazine or television news program as part of the "media" that covers celebrities. As if the First Amendment only applies to their own multi-million/billion dollar money-making "legitimate" news gathering organization. One would also think these large news organizations would recognize that if the legal system is going to start "cracking down" on paparazzi for covering what is undeniably the biggest story in the world (as measured by public interest, not necessarily by actual importance), they themselves may be next, after all, many of the largest media companies in the world are the very same companies that buy paparazzi photographs and videos.

It would be good to know one simple indisputable fact:
The paparazzi just want pictures of celebrities because the media buys them and the public wants to see what celebrities are doing in their "real" lives.

There is a huge, vast, growing world-wide market for pictures of celebrities. It began long ago. Indeed, before even, the invention of the camera - at that time it was hand drawn caricatures of the celebs of the day - politicians. This insatiable appetite for information and pictures of celebrities was not created by the paparazzi (who are clearly perceived by most to be the bottom of the media totem pole). It might be argued that it was created by some of the media. Some sociologists and psychologists might even point out it has to do with some sort of societal disorder brought about by watching too much television or some-such.

My opinion is - it is just good old human nature. No elaborate explanation necessary. Famous people attract a lot of attention. Duh.

Ask most wait-persons in Los Angeles (and New York - heck, anywhere really) if they would be willing to "put up with" the paparazzi if they were to be suddenly discovered and become famous. I sincerely doubt you'll find many wanna-bees who would tell you they would be anything but grateful for such a break and would be perfectly happy to be photographed for a few seconds or minutes when they are out in public. Before someone becomes famous they simply have no reality or understanding on what it's like to be famous. Then again, maybe they do and think they will enjoy it or be able to control it. Ha.

Fame has always had its downside. Tough.

I know most people are intelligent enough to understand this - because most people watch TV and one of the most popular things to watch on TV is the "entertainment news". Anyone who has done so has seen just how much integrity our legal system has when it comes to the treatment of celebs who commit real crimes. Crimes that would have had much more grave consequences for you or me than those administered to the celebrities convicted of the same or worse unlawful act.

Some of the other most popular things to watch on TV are called shows and movies, which are of course, popularized by famous people called actors. Lots of people have favorite actors. Just as they do favorite athletes and favorite writers and favorite other sorts of famous people. Some people are more fanatical than others about the favoritism they exhibit towards their favorite famous people. Often known as fans, they seem to be quite interested, albeit to various degrees, in their favorite famous person/s lives. Nuff said.

Please just give some of this a bit of thought. Whether it be Britney Spears speeding down a city street at 110 miles per hour or Princess Di and her boyfriend encouraging and/ or allowing their driver to speed as fast as 126 miles per hour in a 35 MPH zone in an attempt "lose the paparazzi" could possibly be said to be partly to blame for their own trouble - trouble they rarely actually are blamed for by anyone, let alone Law Enforcement officials, the Media, or the public.

What's with all this crazy driving in the first place? Why do the police allow the celebs to get away with it over and over and over? Of course! the paparazzi are breaking the same law and those who do should be cited the same as anyone else. Oh, right-right-right . . . it's the paparazzi's fault.