|
|
Paparazzi, Celebrities, and the Media Our society is obsessed with celebrities. This obsession has turned what most photojournalist would consider off limits and into photojournalists who are maniacs, paparazzi. The word paparazzi, comes from the word “paparazzo”, which is Italian for annoying insect. Paparazzi are self-employed freelance photographers who sell their pictures for large amounts of money. These photographers have no respect for the moral and ethical values in photography, and they have earned this title. Some photographers and reporters will go to any means, even illegal actions, to get a picture or story. However, public figures are human beings like everyone else, and the media should give them the right to privacy. The media needs to operate with more respect for both laws and for moral and ethical codes of conduct. There are laws establishing the privacy of an individual, and the media needs to extend these rights to public figures. Problems with the paparazzi is an increasing issue that needs to be stopped because it is ruining people’s lives. Public figures are entitled to their own private lives, and up until two generations ago this was not a problem. President Franklin D. Roosevelt used a wheel chair or braces, but that disability was rarely mentioned and almost never photographed. Many previous presidents were unfaithful to their wives, but the media did not cover these affairs that were common knowledge to the press corps (Knowlton 51). However, the extramarital affairs of President Clinton were widely covered by the media. The ethical code of conduct has fallen apart, and the media has new views of the amount of privacy that should be extended to public figures. According to Steven Knowlton, author of Moral Reasoning for Journalists, “Celebrities of all sorts- musicians, athletes, entertainers, and others- make their living from the public and the public therefore in a sense employs them, just as it employs governors and presidents….”(54). Most journalists figure that celebrities voluntarily surrender their privacy as part of an unwritten contract with the members of society who pay their salaries through purchasing. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled in 1964 Sullivan v. New York Times case, that vulnerability is taken as a price of admission to the public arena.
|
