Influence of Paparazzi on Society

The question of paparazzi threatening privacy and First Amendment rights is often to situational to argue in a conventional manner, but certainly there are many facets of the issue which can be addressed in a quite straightforward manner. Celebrities who feel they have the right to privacy in public places often muddy the waters of this issue. Oddly enough, those celebrities who have chosen to speak out against what they feel are violations of their privacy most always begin their campaigns with a large press conference. In other words, they gather together those people they wish to not only suppress but also berate in hopes that these people will use their positions and skills to

In today’s world, every little thing celebrities do become a headline. The media publish exclusives and people tend to soak them up. Why? Simply put, it sells. There is an audience that wants to read and see such material, so the media are happy to comply. However, while some argue that celebrities have a private life that should remain so, the media does not have a right to publish their every personal detail. However, when it comes to actions that have been taken and could still potentially harm the safety of others, then the public has a right to know.

The boundary between publicity rights and the First Amendment rights is the main legal issue being called into question in this case. There has been a struggle to clearly articulate where the line separating publicity and free speech lies. Arguments can be made on both sides and many famous cases have come about from this issue, most of them going in favor of the first amendment. There is a definite conflict between a celebrity’s right of publicity and the public’s right to free expression represented in the

Sometimes a person doesn't choose to be famous: he or she is just living their life and then - BOOM! - fame follows for whatever reason. Not every actor, singer, dancer, writer craves fame; most simply want to express their creativity. Wanting to entertain or express your art shouldn't come with the excessive price of a goodbye to privacy. Paparazzi shouldn't be able to freely telephoto lens you while you are in your backyard or in the bathroom without some type of consequence. If someone did that to you, you would probably think it’s extremely creepy and get police intervention. Celebrities, on the other hand, are seen as bad, unhappy, or unappreciative jerks if they request their right to privacy. It's a very interesting reversal, and even more so that we continue to pay audience when it seems so wrong in our own “normal”

Looking towards the media with regards to the spectacle and particularly the spectacle in relation to celebrities, I find that when the spectacle focuses around celebrities, they usuaually focus on their rise and falls of being a star. Celebrities are everywhere, and the public strive on them, whether they are a good influence or bad influence. The public is attracted to anything celebrity related, they want to be consumed by the gossip. Therefore, I choose to do my media review on Amanda Bynes on the Showbiz Tonight show clip.

Celebrity gossip spreads easily via social media platforms like instagram, Snapchat,YouTube, and Facebook, or gossip blogs, websites,radio stations, or TV shows. Depending upon the type of gossip, then it sets an image of the celebrity themselves for us as a society, who may or may not be followers. Just about everyone has a favorite celebrity whom they obsess over. After reading Deborah Kingś article The impact Celebrities have on Our Lives, she claims that as a society we are obsessed with celebrities and the gossip surrounding them. Collin Palmer, a high school sophomore, challenges Kingś claim, since he feels that celebrity nature is a part of human nature. Palmers argument states that it is healthy to be obsessed with celebrities; however i feel that celebrity obsession is healthy in moderation, because everyone likes the way a celebrity lives & acts.

All humans with work and perseverance can choose their own path of life. Indeed, there are more difficult events to overcome for some. Being a celebrity seems like a dream but if you really think about it, what is the celebrity reality life like? I guess, it is an extraordinary feeling to have the audience scream your name and admire you, but what about their personal life being exposed by social media with no consent? We now have access to information whenever we want to, this has caused an impact for celebrities who are starting their career or end up destroying their lives because of negative comments, substance abuse, and loss of believe in themselves. “While most Americans don’t have a media horde following them every time they set foot outside the house — and possibly even photographers crawling through the bushes when they’re home — celebrities’ privacy is being eclipsed by the same technologies that are eating away at everyone’s ability to be left alone: long-lens

After reading “Privacy” by William Prosser, I find myself questioning whether the existence of “legitimate public curiosity about the personality of celebrities” is reason enough for the press to release trivial, exaggerated information about public figures’ lives (416). While I understand that with fame comes a dedicated fan base, it does not seem logical to conclude that consequently, because these fans are fascinated by celebrities’ lives, the press should have access to stars’ less publicized information. As Prosser points out, there is “an enormous amount of petty gossip” published so that newspapers can profit off of irrelevant, sensationalized stories that appeal to the public’s unquenchable thirst to live vicariously through stories

However, the article does explore an opposing angle of citizen journalism in-depth where risks of phony photography are high. Undoubtedly, the business of news reporting will always exist, but does citizen journalism hinder the legitimacy of news by providing raw-footage rather than footage that is edited for accuracy? Has photojournalism turned into a commodity due to the ease at which photos and videos can now be captured? Or are we living in a digital age where citizens don’t require news channels to content curate anymore because raw-footage will be accessed through social media platforms anyway? These are questions that can only be answered with a deeper insight into the emergence of citizen-centered

It is obvious that celebrity news is an outlet that sells, as seen by the numerous tabloids and entertainment shows. The public has an interest in what is going on in the lives of these rich and glamorous people. This brings on a form of mediated voyeurism, which can be defined as, “the consumption of revealing images and information about others’ real and unguarded lives, not always for the purpose of entertainment but frequently at the expense of privacy and discourse, through the means of the mass media” (Calvert, 2000). Basically saying that the public has a need to see these famous people and learn about their lives, even at the risk of invading their privacy. The tabloids simply exploit the public’s desire to learn these things, regardless of the ethical issues of invading a human being’s privacy. They know people will buy it and that they will make money.

Have you ever wondered what influences us to behave the way we do? Look a certain way? Or even looked for an explanation to what causes us to apply a certain perspective regarding personal and controversial issues? One of the answers to these questions may revolve around the influence we absorb from celebrities. A definitive term for celebrity is an iconic figure to a category or group who has achieved success in one or multiple aspects of their lives. As a result, these individuals have drawn in publicity and fame. Over the years with the advances in media and other forms of communication, celebrities have become topics of discussion worldwide, rather if it’s at school, with colleagues or at the dinner table, it is fair to say that

Celebrities are everywhere in the news, the latest gossip appears in the weekly magazines without fail. Whether they be an actor, athlete, dancer, designer, model, singer or just rich; there is someone out there who is watching that person like a hawk, not letting a single breath go unnoticed. Such is the life of the rich and famous, under the incessant gaze of journalists and the paparazzi. Lives that many people take a great interest in and admire to the point where others would liken this great interest and admiration to a cult-like worship of celebrities. This is a brief description of what I think to be celebrity culture.

The infamous paparazzi, known for intruding on a celebrity’s private life and giving society the sweet and juicy details on who is dating who and what one celebrity insulted the other. It’s stressful for the paparazzi, considering how dangerous it can be to get this info. But do they go too far in their tactics? And what, (if any) restrictions should be created to prevent violations in celebrities personal rights? Should the paparazzi have the ability to legally talk about a celebrity's recent break up or weight gain without their permission?

The American paparazzi have been described by celebrities and the news media as scum-of-the-Earth—mean, intrusive scavengers who feast upon other people’s misery (Saltzman par. 4). Imagine taking a walk with your friends in a secluded hiking trail. You are trying to enjoy the peace and serenity that the beautiful day brings; however, as fortune has it, you are a celebrity. Along with your fame come people gazing and staring at you, and fans asking for pictures or autographs. Ultimately, causing a scene wherever you go. Yet today, you found some time alone to enjoy a few moments of solitude, or so you thought. Far off in the distance, you see a determined photographer ready to complete his quest of getting some shots that will turn a nice profit for him. The seconds get shorter and the photographer closes in on his victim: You. His camera flashes in your face and the flickering lights hurt your eyes. The photographer, or more appropriately, the paparazzi was just taking pictures in a public place so were they really breaking any laws? It has been proven that paparazzi tactics of hunting icons have led to trespassing, behavior constituting assault, and invasion of their targeted celebrity’s privacy (McNamura 14). The paparazzi have gotten out of hand, and their antagonistic behavior, intended or not, should be restricted.

Celebrities have a right to have their own privacy, and the paparazzi had better not be allowed to restrict their lives. Furthermore, photographers and journalists must not be permitted to make news that can influence celebrities' success adversely. The rights of celebrities for privacy have always been abused, so they need to defend their rights, despite their profession. Though they are public figures, this does not mean that the publish of every detail of their private lives is justifiable. It is legitimate to take pictures when they are at the stage or on the red carpet, yet most cases they must be left alone. However, the media always inclines to release both sensational and negative news to public. The latest pattern is the Chris Brown and Rihanna domestic abuse scandal ("Chris Brown and Rihanna: A Dangerous Relationship" 1). This really influenced Chris