The Swarm of Paparazzi

Invading their privacy is not an smart thing to do. Their privacy is their own, we should not be in their business. If the paparazzi invading the celebrity privacy, they have the right to report a lawsuit against the person or entity that intruded.The celebrities has the right to have their privacy. Use the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution: The person has the right to the people to be secure in their business and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, etc. They might expose something that is important to that person. Then that is public disclosure to embarrassing or important

A single photograph - how it is captured, the angle in which it was shot, the context behind it - can alter the perception of reality. One image, if executed maliciously, can create such an intense pernicious effect on the individual photographed, that it can cause undue effects on their reputation, or even psychological state. Celebrities often find themselves victimized by the paparazzi in this way, and breakdowns due to a negative appearance in the spotlight have become prevalent in modern day socialite culture. Today, with everything just a click away, it is surprisingly easy to find intimate details of a celebrity’s life, and even easier to find incriminating photos with falsified headlines. The paparazzi has a negative connotation in society, and has generated an aversive effect on celebrities, because they have fabricated images with negative portrayals of celebrities, impeded on a celebrity’s right to privacy, and appropriated a celebrity’s fame in order achieve material that is deemed as newsworthy.

Their print journalist counterparts, who are afforded not only the luxury of editing, but also a few column inches within which to develop their perception of the story fall into a different category all together. A photojournalist must ascertain the defining image of a news event as it is happening and capture it on film. If he or she is doing the job correctly, a reader can get a very good idea of what happened without even reading the accompanying article. There is no luxury of editing in photojournalism, the moment is either captured forever, or it isn't. If a fantastic shot is missed, it is gone forever.

once said that if you did not like what the paparazzi had to say, then you

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”

The media covering our everyday lives all over has opened up numerous different ways to get yourself entertained. This, in conjunction, is bound to create celebrities. And even though some people are in it just for the money and fame, other ones are actually working for a genuinely good cause.

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 camera was made to capture an event, moment, or person in time and share it with others in the future. Photos hold memories and if altered lose the truth of the moment when viewed by the future. Photographs are a main source of information and credibility and need to be completely honest and less biased than traditional news stories. Technology today allows altered photographs to be passed off as truth. This causes consumers to lose trust in public sources and spreads misinformation to the public.

Aaron Quinn, in his article, called Accepting Manipulation or Manipulating what is Acceptable? He indicates the declining of public trust in photojournalism due to the obscurity of journalists’ integrity to provide accurate news to the public. He also indicates the existence of two moral dilemmas in photojournalism profession: post- shoot manipulation and the dependence on a machine to make a decision rather than a human being, as well as the ethical problems that come with the two moral dilemmas such as inconsistency, lack of integrity, and inaccuracy. He also presents two important questions to discuss. The first question at stake is what are the proper ethical guidelines of post- shoot photo manipulation? The second question at stake is

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

Celebrities’ every move is being watched and followed by the media. They have no room to make mistakes like every other human being, but when they do, the whole world is there to judge them harshly. In my opinion, they are put under too much pressure causing them to fall under bad influences. When that happens, kids want to be like them and follow their example, although they know these celebrities are not making wise decisions.

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.

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