Synthesis Paper - Papparazzi

Consequently, by conducting these actions, we are taking away their first amendment right. The value of the first amendment right is really grandiose and perhaps the most crucial right to have. For instance, the first amendment right has shaped the U.S.A to be distinctive from other countries. The first amendment gave everyone, not just common people, the entitlement to freely express themselves. However, with social media watching and judging their every move, it's hard to be a part of everyday life. Even going to the supermarket might have to require a distortion for the media. It's as though celebrities are being trapped in a prison. This is unjust because they never signed a contract agreeing to surrender their lives for the public. It's as if we are making people , who give up their privacy, like robots and force these "robots" to be on top of a cliff overlooking embarrassment and fear. All these people ever asked was to be open to public about his or her talent, not giving up their invaluable privacy. According to (Source A), it states,"It seems somewhat unfair to say that because a person's gift lies in acting, basketball, or singing, rather than, for example, engineering, architecture, or computer science, that he or she has somehow " chosen " to give up all of his or

Everyone who is interested in pop culture and the entertainment industry knows who the paparazzi are. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the term paparazzi is defined as “a free lance photographer who aggressively pursues celebrities for the purpose of taking candid photographs.” The term actually came from a film from the 1960’s called ‘La Dolce Vita’, directed by Federico Fellini. A character in the film was a news photographer named Paparazzo. Paparazzi target celebrities and public figures that are in the spotlight. In recent years, the paparazzi have taken their job of snapping photos to another extent. They will go to any length to get the shot of a celebrity, even if

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.

It has been heard time and time again, stars fighting back at the photographers and demanding an end to the invasion of their privacy. On one end, it is simple to understand. Stars’ lives are displayed to the public nearly every moment they step outside of their private homes. At that point they are exposed to the world for everyone to judge and to have their lives controlled by their

In a time of need, Allen was swarmed with pictures instead of help. Celebrities should not have to accept this invasion as a part of their careers, and many are starting to speak up about the issue. John Mayer, in a testimony at a Paparazzi Task Force Meeting in 2008, brought this

People were not exposed to barrage of news about celebrities a couple of decades ago. Mass media is becoming more garden because of rapid progress on technology day by day. Thereby, people are substantially interested in the private life of celebrities, and some of them are obsessed with celebrities. They desire to know everything about them. For instance, who is dating with whom, where they are shopping, or what they wear. In a word public have an endless hunger for more information. However, the public doesn't have the right to know about every single detail of celebrities' private lives due to several reasons.

Who does that? I guess the paparazzi annoy him too much that he doesn’t even bother to reply to

Vitalii Sediuk is a Ukrainian journalist who is well known for harassing American celebrities but excuses it by labeling it a prank. He is able to do this by using his old, press credentials from his former employer, Ukrainian TV channel 1+1 (Pocklington). His first prank was in 2011; Sediuk pranked Madonna at the Venice Film Festival by giving her hydrangeas, knowing that she didn’t like (Pocklington). Even though this prank is simple and harmless, Sediuk’s stunts leaned more towards disruptions and harassments than just joking around as a journalist. The media has painted him as a harmless joker, despite his charge of battery and assault after an incident with Brad Pitt in 2014 (Pockington). This false image created of Sediuk could be considered as “Double Talk;” where they replace the words “harassment” or “disorder” with something that is not as strong such as “prank.” Throughout this paper, I will discuss the negative connotations from these pranks as well as why the media should label them for what they really are.

Currently, there is a noticeable interest of the media for the lives of celebrities, who include politicians, sports people and TV and music stars. Although it is acceptable a larger exposure of their lives in newspapers, magazines and TV shows than of an ordinary citizen, I believe that there are some arguments that support the idea that these public personalities also deserve a minimum level of privacy.

According to Source C, Celebrities are the “role models” that encourage the American Society with their “free, on-the-go, non-constrained” lives. However, there has been an increase in incidents where celebrities abuse their powers, willingly lying to the public about their past accidents. Although it seems unfair to go against one’s privacy and freedom the public should have the right to know the truth about a celebrity they respect. Therefore, I challenge the claim that supports the idea of celebrities having the the same right to privacy as other citizens.

The new breed of journalism grew by leaps and bounds after the Watergate scandal first broke in Washington, DC (Petersen's, 57). At first the paparazzi were an annoying group of photographers who were persistent when trying to get the perfect shot of a celebrity so they could sell the image for large

First of all, let us define who the paparazzi are and what they do for a living. A paparazzo is a photographer who takes pictures of athletes, actors, celebrities, politicians etc… on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, paparazzi’s tend to chase celebrities wherever they go. Whether it was to the Academy Awards, shopping at a mall, or even going to the gym. Nowadays the paparazzi are going way beyond the limits and are becoming more likely bizarre. They are competing against each other and are trying to have the best exposed pictures of celebrities they could get at any cost. They don’t care if they hurt or stress celebrities. They simply want to be the best.

The lives of celebrities are constantly being exposed by the paparazzi on a daily basis. These celebrities fearing that their privacy has been invaded often threaten legal action against the media personnel or engage in physical violence. However, the paparazzi often faced no punishment or charges for their behavior. The first amendment right guarantees the freedom of speech which the paparazzi use to justify their behavior of invading the personal lives of these popular individuals. The current privacy laws enforced are Intrusion upon seclusion, Appropriation of Name or Likeness, Publicity of private Facts and false light often aid these celebrities in a private setting, but fails to protect them in public, leaving them defenseless. Lastly, the defensives frequently used by the media are newsgathering and newsworthiness which releases them of much of the charges brought against them.

There was Ashley Tisdale who used her dog to hide her face from cameras, also Justin Bieber who used a mask to hide his face. In addition to those celebrities, Katy Perry used a large stuffed donut to hide her face, and Shia Labeouf used a brown paper sack to hide his face. Kanye West has tried walking with his head down to avoid the camera being able to see his face, and ended up bumping his head and causing a huge knot on his forehead. The media often creates a frenzy around famous people regardless of their desire for privacy, as such there should be regulations that ensure the paparazzi, reporters, and fans limitations.

People however should at least try to be conscious that nobody was made perfect and everyone should just learn how to accept one another. Aside from this, celebrities are entitled to everything they please because what is done in their personal lives are supposed to be private. Celebrities do not attempt to portray their lifestyle in order to get the media instead they are pleading for their privacy. Michael Jackson, Privacy “You keep on stalking me, Invading my privacy, Won’t you just let me be, Cause your cameras can’t control, The minds of those who know, That you’ll even sell your soul, Just to get your story sold, I need my privacy.”(Michael Jackson, 2011). Frequently celebrities are not able to take a stroll in the park without being constantly hounded by the paparazzi. General public sometimes think that it is easy to live like celebrities just because they make more money than the average person. But rarely do they think about what sacrifices needed to be made such as giving up their own privacy because no matter what they do, there is no way for them to obtain it. Having an idol or a person one admires in the celebrity word is acceptable and can be considered a norm but to what extend should people follow what is seen. This is where rationality, religious believe and cultural believe comes to play a role. Followers or supporters should have a clear conscience as to what is right and wrong according to one’s