The Breakdown of Paparazzi Work Research Paper

Nowadays, the fact that paparazzi (journalists who make their money on revealing personal details about the lives of celebrities) often do not allow the subjects of their “journalistic investigation” to enjoy even moderate levels of privacy, is being usually discussed in terms of “decline of morals”, associated with realities of post-industrial living. The celebrities themselves often express their contempt with paparazzi, as people that are being absolutely deprived of any morality, despite the fact that it is exactly the celebrities’ immoral lifestyles that prompt paparazzi to indulge in sneaking up on “rich and famous”, with cameras in their hands. The editorial “Why Paparazzi are Wrong”, which is available on the website of CNN Entertainment, contains an interview with Ben Afleck’s representative Ken Sunshine, who, while expressing his attitude towards the paparazzi, said the following: “They’re (paparazzi) totally out of control. It is crazy to have packs of people, whose full-time job, is to get the most embarrassing photo they can of a celebrity… Can you imagine driving up or down the Hollywood Hills and having a team of desperate lunatics, one behind you, one in front of you, who are cutting you off purposely” (CNN, 2006). Yet, the most horrible thing about the phenomenon of paparazzi is not that they sometimes spoil the mood of movie stars, but the fact that more and more ordinary citizens appear to grow increasingly incapable of distinguishing between real news, in regards to the economy, politics, and science, and the “news” about celebrities dying from drug overdoses. In its turn, this points out the fact that American society is becoming increasingly marginalized, due to the policy of “multiculturalism” being jammed down citizens’ throats by hook-nosed “experts” on tolerance.

In the last century, before ancient Rome was being completely sacked by barbarians, its citizens consisted of crowds of degenerates, who were only preoccupied with indulgence in perverse sex and with attending gladiators’ fights. These people used to purposelessly roam among Rome’s great buildings, built by their ancestors, without being able to understand how this was possible, in the first place. At this time, there was only one way for Roman Emperors to win public support – by continuing to stage ever-more graphic and bloodier gladiator shows. Only a direct onslaught on citizens’ senses could revitalize them for a while. The degenerate Romans in 5^th century A.D., preoccupied with “celebration of diversity”, were simply incapable of paying attention to the news of social or political importance, unless they sensed that such news somehow related to entertainment. We all know what happened to Rome, as result – it was being sacked by barbarians, who despite their lack of cultural refinement possessed plenty of biological vitality. Nowadays, there are many objective reasons to suggest that America (and the whole Western world, in general) is simply following the footsteps of spiritually corrupted Romans, with the growing popularity of “celebrities’ news” being simply a symptom that “there is something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark”. In his article “The New Journalism: We Are All Paparazzi”, Juan Cebrian suggests that in recent years, the whole concept of journalism has undergone a dramatic transformation: “Until recently, investigative journalists did most of the muscle-flexing. But as tabloid publications and broadcast media – television “magazines” and talk radio – began to capture major segments of the market, they all committed abominable excesses… What does all this say about journalism today? There was a time when we journalists could devote our time to writing about what was happening. But now it seems things happen exclusively for journalists to be able to write about them” (Cebrian, p. 38). We can only agree with the author – nowadays, the ability of a particular event to win public attention, does not relate to event’s actual relevance, but exclusively to its “entertained” properties. For example, in 1994, two million Hutu tribe members in Rwanda were being murdered by Tutsi tribesmen, within a matter of few weeks. However, today only very few Americans are aware of this event as such that had taken place, despite the fact, everybody seems to be an “expert” on how many times a day does Angelina Jolie has sex with Brad Pitt. The overwhelming majority of Barak Obama’s voters had preferred him to Senator McCain, not because of the objective appeal of his political program, but because Obama is rather good at playing basketball. In other words, the rise of tabloid journalism, closely associated with paparazzi, simply reflects the process of American citizens being intellectually marginalized to the extent, when many of them are now being simply not capable of utilizing their sense of rationality, within a context of assessing the objective reality. As Anastasia Mott Austin had rightly pointed out in her article “Why Are We So Obsessed with Celebrities?”: “Come on, admit it. Unless you’ve been pushing up daisies for the last several months, you know all about what has been happening with Paris Hilton. It’s nothing to be ashamed of – in fact, coverage of the trials and tribulations of Ms. Hilton has been inescapable. One literally cannot get away from the coverage of her life, seen in American news outlets as the most important news of the day, trumping trade relations, looming nuclear tensions between countries, political drama, you name it” (Austin, 2007). The same can be said about the citizens of other Western countries, who think that there is nothing wrong with gossips about celebrities gradually acquiring a status of “front page material”, even in respectable newspapers and magazines.

Therefore, only the people not overburdened with intelligence can seriously suggest that passing laws against paparazzi as “immoral individuals”, can somehow lessen their professional zeal, because “moralists” do not understand that it is not paparazzi’s “inner wickedness”, which prompts them to stock celebrities, but the fact that one photo of a movie star taking a piss, for example, can be sold for as much as $50.000. And the reason why such photos can be sold for that much is that there is a demand for them. And the reason why there is such a demand, in the first place, is because, just as it was the case in the time of Rome’s decline, more and more citizens in Western countries are now being deprived of their existential idealism, by being subjected to the ideological poison of neo-Liberalism. In her article “Laws do Little to Block Paparazzi”, Maria Puente provides us with insight into the sheer absurdity of so-called “anti-paparazzi laws”: “Los Angeles city councilman has proposed a “bubble” law, which would create a “personal safety” zone between celebrities and the media. The Screen Actors Guild is backing it. Publishers can be expected to balk. Paparazzi are likely to shrug. One clear conundrum: how to define “celebrity”?” (Puente, 2008). Despite the fact, that paparazzi’s behavior often does appear as being particularly despicable – they are simply doing their job. If anybody deserves to be treated with respect the least, it would be the celebrities, because their popularity and their million dollars’ salaries do not correspond to their objective value as individuals. The typical engineer at one of America’s nuclear power plants, receives $150.000 – $200.000 a year, whereas the movie stars often get paid this amount of money within a matter of half an hour, by allowing Playboy’s or Playgirl’s photographers to take snapshots of their bare asses. Yet, it is not the celebrities, but such engineers, who provide conditions for people in this country to enjoy a civilized living. Whatever “intolerant” it might sound – celebrities are best described as social parasites; therefore, they are the least qualified to discuss what is “moral” and what is “immoral”, especially while talking on the subject of paparazzi executing their professional duties. In his article “The Paparazzi Plague”, Berton Woodward is making a good point when he says: “There is a limit where someone should just say ‘stop’. But on the other hand, I don’t see why people try to run away from the paparazzi. At a certain point, they should just let themselves be photographed and move on” (Woodward, p. 40). The relationship between celebs and paparazzi does not appear to be overly complicated – whereas celebrities parasitize on society, paparazzi parasitize on celebrities.

Nowadays, it becomes a statement of good taste, on the part of celebrities, to travel to Africa and to hug “hungry children of Somalia” in front of the cameras, while complaining about the “world’s injustices”, during the course of the process. Some of them go as far as adopting some of these children, just like Angelina Jolie, for whom the adoption of children from different countries of the Third World became a hobby – she collects them while striving to pose as “moral figure”. Paparazzi, on the other hand, make their money on bringing the self-proclaimed “spokesmen for tolerance” down to Earth, by revealing their fame as being purely accidental – after all, celebs do indulge in sex, they do get drunk, and they do get high on drugs, just like their fans. This is the foremost reason why movie stars hate paparazzi with utter passion, and not because paparazzi violate their privacy. Therefore, despite our contempt to both – celebrities and paparazzi, we will refrain from descending to “soccer moms’” level of argumentation, who after having spilled rivers of tears; over the fate of “poor princess Diane”, continue to buy magazines with private photos of a late princess even today, while never getting tired of whining about “paparazzi’s evilness”. In our point of view, the very existence of celebrities, who enjoy the status of semi-Gods, and the paparazzi, who often act like a lowly maggot, while trying to obtain the desired photos, simply indicates the simple fact that it is a matter of very short time, before Western countries would be deprived of the remains of their former power, while eventually becoming a “prize” for the hordes of barbarians from Third World.

Bibliography

1. Adams, Heather “Should Paparazzi Laws Be Tougher?”. 2008. Associated Content. Web.
2. Austin, Anastasia “Why Are We So Obsessed with Celebrities?”. 2007. Buzzle.Com.
3. Blankstein, Andrew “Malibu Gives Paparazzi Starr Treatment”. 2008. Los Angeles Times. Web.
4. Cebrian, Juan “The New Journalism: We are all Paparazzi”. New Perspectives Quarterly. (15)5.1998. p. 38.
5. Gibbon, Edward “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. London, UK: Penguin Classics, 2001.
6. Puente, Maria “Laws do Little to Block Paparazzi”.2008. USA Today. Web.
7. Why Paparazzi are Wrong. 2006. CNN.Com. Entertainment. Web.
8. Woodward, Berton “The Paparazzi Plague”. Maclean’s, (110)5. (1997). p. 40.