Like it or not, we are being watched. Every move, every phone call, every online interaction or transaction we make, you can be sure that someone is paying a certain amount of attention to it. If you recall, there was a case in Singapore where a man was charged with indecent exposure for walking around naked in the privacy of his own home. Which leads to my next question: how much detail of our personal lives can we expose?
So how would you deem a person who makes a living, and enjoys, invading someone else’s privacy? Despicable? The paparazzi are photographers who take candid photographs of celebrities. This means that the paparazzi usually shadow the celebrity in public, while they are doing their private activities (‘Paparazzi’, 2007).
Imagine a swarm of cameras going off when you accidentally expose a little of your bum-crack while bending over to comfort your child after she a fall. And the next thing you know, a private moment between parent and child is plastered all over newspaper and magazine tabloids. To make it worse, there are tabloid websites to reach interested parties where the magazines and newspapers cannot. www.perezhilton.com is an example of such a website. On February 19, 2007, www.perezhilton.com served over 4.75 million visitors in a 24-hour period. This was credited to the article of pop icon Britney Spears shaving her head and admitting herself in to rehab (‘Perez Hilton’, 2007). The author of the blog, Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., posts gossip items on a variety of celebrities. His posts are usually delivered with an irreverent, tongue-in-cheek and sometimes even cruel slant (‘Perez Hilton’, 2007).
A picture of Britney Spears shaving her head found on www.perezhilton.com.
On the other end of the spectrum, the pursuit of the paparazzi may be fatal. Paparazzi photographers had pursued Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed after leaving the Ritz Hotel for Fayed's apartment (“Diana: Princes ‘disgusted’ with paparazzi”, 2006). Moreover, the driver, Henri Paul, was drunk at the time of the accident, as blood test later verified. Henri Paul driving at a high speed, and recklessly, in order to evade the cameras of the paparazzi. This led to the fatal accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris. Even as the paramedics were trying to revive her, the paparazzi took pictures of the Princess slumped in the back seat while a paramedic attempts to fit an oxygen mask over her face (‘Diana, Princess of Wales’, 2007).
Why have celebrities been the targets for such invasion of privacy? According to Daniel Boorstin, celebrities are ‘neither good nor bad’ (Rosen, 2004), regardless whether they were caught on camera having done good or otherwise. This ‘human pseudo-event’ of being ‘morally neutral’ has been ‘fabricated on purpose to satisfy our exaggerated expectations of human greatness’ (Rosen, 2004). It is inevitable that the rest of the human race will be interested to see human greatness fall. If and when these celebrities they slip off their pedestal by getting arrested for drug abuse or picking their nose in public, be sure that the paparazzi will be there, fingers ready to snap.
______________________________________________________________Reference:
Paparazzi
Retrieved on 09/03/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paparazzi
Perez Hilton
Retrieved on 09/03/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_Hilton#.22Outing.22_celebrities
Diana: Princes ‘Disgusted’ With Paparazzi, 2006
Retrieved on 10/03/07
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/14/diana.report.princes/index.html
Diana, Princess of Wales
Retrieved on 10/03/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Diana#Death
The Naked Crowd, J. Rosen, 2004
Retrieved on 10/03/07
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment