A Pap Speaks...

ronnus

ronnus

Messages
968
Name
Ron
Edit My Images
No
Interesting article (well, I thought so...), but why on earth has commenting been banned "for legal reasons"?! :shrug:

Also I wonder which £800 camera he's talking about, assume that doesn't include glass! :thinking:
 
love this idiotic comment

You hear all these celebrities complaining about being chased, but the fact is if they don't try and get away then photographers don't need to chase them. Simple.
Click to expand...

ummmm or....

If the paps weren't trying to get their photos at every cost then they wouldn't have to run away. Simple
 
Honest truth.. I stopped reading when I got to this....

I wish we could go back to the days before digital cameras when it was just film. Back then you needed to be a proper photographer
Click to expand...
 
I did get a sense of "back against the wall" in the article...

However I do agree that the D-list, celebrity-worshipping, I-want-to-be-famous-except-when-it's-inconvenient-for-me culture has a lot to answer for, and if people want to see this rubbish in the press, someone will give it to them :)
 
As i have said,it very easy to just to blame the paps,its also the clebs culture,that some of us have fallen into,its seem we all want our 15min of fame :(
 
In the same way, if I got too bogged down with ethical conundrums every time it came to picturing people such as the Dowlers I'd have to quit.

It's our job to take pictures of the top stories of the day, whoever they may be. It's the moral decision of the newspaper editors whether they print them or not.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he is trying to absolve himself of any responsibility. :shrug: Because of a lack of ethics, or moral code, we are getting these phone tappings, paparazzi harassing people and god knows what else. If everyone further down the line does not take responsibility for their own actions, then some nasty things can happen. I think we all know where 'I was only following orders' can lead. :eek:

I think he is right in that any limits on what they can takes pictures of could hinder pics of people getting bribes etc, but reporting law breaking is in the public's interest, harassing someone when they are going shopping is not imho. Worse still harassing grieving families is in nobodies interest apart from the newspaper's need to sell newspapers to ghoulish readers, who shouldn't be pandered to. Just because there is a market for something, doesn't mean that it is justification to get the pictures, or the story, at any cost. :nono:
 
I've always wanted to "pap the paps", let them know what its like when someone is in their face and business all the time.

I bet they would kick off and claim harassment then, but its ok if its a 'celeb' :(
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I bet they would kick off and claim harassment then, but its ok if its a 'celeb' :(
Click to expand...

when a pap took on the role of pap it was clearly defined what he would be doing and what the pitfalls are..

when a celeb became a celeb they knew exactly what would happen and what the pitfalls are.. yet still became a celeb

if celebs dont like it theres plenty of jobs going where you dont get papped..

far too much crying about celebs and not enough reality in this thread IMHO :)
 
KIPAX said:
when a pap took on the role of pap it was clearly defined what he would be doing and what the pitfalls are..

when a celeb became a celeb they knew exactly what would happen and what the pitfalls are.. yet still became a celeb

if celebs dont like it theres plenty of jobs going where you dont get papped..

far too much crying about celebs and not enough reality in this thread IMHO :)
Click to expand...

you make out like a celeb signs a contract to get paid to be a "celeb". Not all celeb's want to be famous - they just want to do a particular job which in turn can cause them to become that way.

If I chose to be an actor and picked independent films to act in. It wouldn't be my choice to be famous - but if the film broke into international success and fame followed then it did so not for my own choice but due to the success of my talent.
 
So you if you became celeb you would feel it was ok to have every aspect of your live invaded? even if you were just jogging? popping the shop for some milk?

I could understand if it was the "important" stuff, but its not, it's everything, and I do feel sorry for the celebs.

By you logic, traffic wardens should expect to be verbally and physically attacked because, by taking the role they know everyone hates them. :(
 
joescrivens said:
you make out like a celeb signs a contract to get paid to be a "celeb". Not all celeb's want to be famous - they just want to do a particular job which in turn can cause them to become that way.

If I chose to be an actor and picked independent films to act in. It wouldn't be my choice to be famous - but if the film broke into international success and fame followed then it did so not for my own choice but due to the success of my talent.
Click to expand...

your being serious arnt you? look at trhe people being papped.. are you seriously suggesting they had no idea it would happen.. no desire even... ? I would agree they dont like it.. hate it maybe.. but lets not pretend they didnt know it could happen or was a possibility... yet forward they went...

give over :)
 
Harvey_nikon said:
So you if you became celeb you would feel it was ok to have every aspect of your live invaded? :(
Click to expand...

in photographs.. i would have enough about me to know it was going to happen... why? would you be tatally unaware that it could happen.. suprised even... oh gosh.. i am a celebraty.. why is that man taking my picture?


sheesh :) real world people.... real world :)
 
Harvey_nikon said:
By you logic, traffic wardens should expect to be verbally and physically attacked because, by taking the role they know everyone hates them. :(
Click to expand...

go on then.. if you became a traffic warden what would you expect... chocolates? would anyoine with an ounce of brains not know what to expect?

not saying its right..........but for crying out loud what fluffy pink world do you live in ?
 
KIPAX said:
your being serious arnt you? look at trhe people being papped.. are you seriously suggesting they had no idea it would happen.. no desire even... ? I would agree they dont like it.. hate it maybe.. but lets not pretend they didnt know it could happen or was a possibility... yet forward they went...

give over :)
Click to expand...

by your explanation anything negative about any profession should just be accepted then, because they knew about it beforehand, instead of trying to improve it. They should stop moaning about it and either accept the conditions or get another profession. Not try and improve the quality of whatever profession they are in.

:cuckoo:
 
KIPAX said:
your being serious arnt you? look at trhe people being papped.. are you seriously suggesting they had no idea it would happen.. no desire even... ? I would agree they dont like it.. hate it maybe.. but lets not pretend they didnt know it could happen or was a possibility... yet forward they went...

give over :)
Click to expand...
Actually, many of the people the press have harassed, are not celebrities at all

They go after anything that is newsworthy, and apparently anything associated with anything that is newsworthy
 
KIPAX said:
in photographs.. i would have enough about me to know it was going to happen... why? would you be tatally unaware that it could happen.. suprised even... oh gosh.. i am a celebraty.. why is that man taking my picture?


sheesh :) real world people.... real world :)
Click to expand...


The McCanns? Chris Jefferies (Joanna Yate's landlord) or others thrust into the news?

There's some really nasty stuff coming out of McMullan at the moment.
 
Well, I've probably been captured by the state paparazzi on their surveillance cameras umpteen times - which is another subject - and I expect I've been 'caught' in a lot of other photographs when I just happened to be in the background in various places, but I've never been been pursued for my 'celebrity' or 'news' value. I don't expect to be, and I don't think I would like it.

I don't really have any time for the paparazzi. Most of their photographs have little or no news value, of people who don't interest me very much at all. I don't get any sort of kick out of photographs of drunken people stumbling out of clubs, doing their impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights as the flash guns go off, or running the gauntlet to get to their car. The McCanns? Their daughter is missing, and may well be dead. Various allegations have been made. Politicians accused of corruption or adultery? So what? These will take their course. How do paparazzi shots add anything to them?

The real pity is the public's appetite for this sort of thing. The paparazzi are just supplying a demand, in a distasteful way IMHO. How do you control it? I don't know, short of legal sanctions.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I've always wanted to "pap the paps", let them know what its like when someone is in their face and business all the time.

I bet they would kick off and claim harassment then, but its ok if its a 'celeb' :(
Click to expand...

Sorry but the clue is in the word celeb,it's daft to put the all the blame on the paps,if people did not buy the mags/papers their would be no Market.

If you dance with the devil,you don't always get to pick the tune :)
 
Byker28i said:
The McCanns? Chris Jefferies (Joanna Yate's landlord) or others thrust into the news?

There's some really nasty stuff coming out of McMullan at the moment.
Click to expand...

In adgeement here with you,poor Miller Dowler having her phone hacked,when she was dead :(

But once again we have fallen into the poor celeb trap,oh why are we so obsessed with celebs :shake:
 
Harvey_nikon said:
So you if you became celeb you would feel it was ok to have every aspect of your live invaded? even if you were just jogging? popping the shop for some milk?

I could understand if it was the "important" stuff, but its not, it's everything, and I do feel sorry for the celebs.
Click to expand...

You'll notice though that many more famous people don't get hounded by the paparazzi and those that do, in general, are the ones that seek them out when it suits for some free publicity.

As simonblue says, you dance with the devil.....
 
KIPAX said:
go on then.. if you became a traffic warden what would you expect... chocolates? would anyoine with an ounce of brains not know what to expect?

not saying its right..........but for crying out loud what fluffy pink world do you live in ?
Click to expand...

I am confused as to why you think I said that they shouldn't expect it, I never said that, my initial post was "how would they feel if it was the other way around!"

My point about the traffic wardens is that just because its a hazard of the job, it doesn't mean that it's right.

I am fully aware exactly how ****ed up the world is, I've experienced a lot of it first hand, however, if we all have your attitude of "they should expect it" how will things ever change?

The main people I blame are the sad people that buy crappy magazines like Heat and seem to actually care that some Z-lister is boinking some other Z-lister.
 
Last edited:
I agree with what the pap is trying to say tbh - don't confuse phone hacking or unethical reporting with photographs.

Using long telephotos and taking pictures in what is meant to be a private situation (fergie and toe-sucking...) is quite wrong. But a normal pic taken in a public street shouldn't be censored.
 
I am not a great lover of our "celebrity culture" and if OK and all the other magazines of that ilk were to close tomorrow I would not shed a tear. I believe everybody should be able to go to the shops or have a day at the zoo etc without the media following them about. I include in that the Rooney's and Beckham's of this world.

I think the whole thing is a bit chicken & egg. Everyone appeared to hate the News of the world, but it was still the worlds biggest selling paper.
 
they are after all catering to the masses...
 
sturisoma said:
I agree with what the pap is trying to say tbh - don't confuse phone hacking or unethical reporting with photographs.

Using long telephotos and taking pictures in what is meant to be a private situation (fergie and toe-sucking...) is quite wrong. But a normal pic taken in a public street shouldn't be censored.
Click to expand...

IMO there should be self censorship, if I was a picture editor I would be asking whether a picture:
Had any photographic merit
Helped to illustrate a news* story
Was gathered in a way that didn't breach the rights of the subject**

If not, then why would anyone publish it? Frankly the great British public should be blaming their own desire for these stories, But whilst the broadsheet readers are disgusted at these antics, tabloid readers are hiding their guilt behind the so called celebs desire for fame. It's wrong, it's immoral and the readers need to acknowledge their part in the wrong done for their titillation.

* I don't consider a story about any so called celeb newsworthy simply because it contains a famous name

** people deserve to be allowed to go about their lives without being harassed by photographers.
 
I've never quite understood photographers shooting at arms length through darkened windows in prison vans, what do they hope to get aprt from a reflection of the flashgun in the glass. I can't recall ever having seen a shot published.
 
Phil V said:
IMO there should be self censorship, if I was a picture editor I would be asking whether a picture:
Had any photographic merit
Helped to illustrate a news* story
Was gathered in a way that didn't breach the rights of the subject**
Click to expand...

You forgot to add whether trying to get the picture put the subject, or innocent bystanders, in danger. :shrug: Something that apparently some paps don't consider because they are just doing the job they've been asked to do.

And the celebs, well they can expect to be chased because they are famous aren't they! :bonk:

If you invite the press into your home, then don't be surprised if they want to keep looking once you've asked them to leave. You can however, and indeed should be able to, be famous and not court or expect intrusions into your personal life. If you trade on the work and not your personal life or lifestyle, then the personal life is nobody else's business imo.
 
artyman said:
I've never quite understood photographers shooting at arms length through darkened windows in prison vans, what do they hope to get aprt from a reflection of the flashgun in the glass. I can't recall ever having seen a shot published.
Click to expand...

Julian Assange in a prison van, as published in quite a few papers....

article-1292401718700-0C7C45E0000005DC-372621_304x244.jpg
 
redhed17 said:
You forgot to add whether trying to get the picture put the subject, or innocent bystanders, in danger. :shrug: Something that apparently some paps don't consider because they are just doing the job they've been asked to do.

And the celebs, well they can expect to be chased because they are famous aren't they! :bonk:

If you invite the press into your home, then don't be surprised if they want to keep looking once you've asked them to leave. You can however, and indeed should be able to, be famous and not court or expect intrusions into your personal life. If you trade on the work and not your personal life or lifestyle, then the personal life is nobody else's business imo.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd covered it here, not like me to be overly brief:):
Phil V said:
Was gathered in a way that didn't breach the rights of the subject**
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top