Oh I like this! Esp the fictional container, it just zaps the piece to life. I’d love to see an end to the paparazzi. I always tell people this is one reason I never wanna be famous, because you have your whole life blasted into the public sphere for everyone to pick apart. Not my cup of tea — I much prefer my little anonymous life, thank you very much.
It’s interesting too the way you trace the effects such a move might have on the general culture. I agree entirely that we’d be healthier and happier without this celebrity obsession. One problem tho! I’m not sure how meme culture would survive! (le gasp) No but really, if you dig into the particulars, it gets bumpy: laws enforced by fines are essentially only applicable to the poor, altho that could change if the fines levied were not flat but proportional as you suggested in a comment. I think such a change on a legal level could precipitate a cultural shift that would help complete the change, but irl the legal landscape often follows cultural shifts rather than the other way around...
In any case, definitely a cool thought experiment! I’d sign that petition so fast.
Right!? I'm so grateful that there is no such thing as famous writers because it allows me to reach for the moon with my art without consequences. But it would be such a bummer if the thing I was passionate about was singing or acting in this age. 😵💫
I definitely hate what it does to the culture. I think you're right that it would be tricky to implement in practice, but I also agree that if a cultural shift happens along side it it could work. For example, when celebrities petitioned for paparazzi to not photograph their children, there was a legal element, but there was also a cultural element where all the paparazzi agreed that was crossing a line and said they would no longer be photographing the children of celebrities. That has made it horribly taboo to do so!
Oh cool, I didn't know that shift was so substantial, but I'm glad to hear it (I'm not really plugged in to celebrity gossip so I'm blissfully unaware lol)
Hi Elle, this is a very interesting topic. I also wanted to point out that this also happens to anyone online. Someone took my profile picture on IG (I don’t have any “provocative” pictures online by the way) and used it to make a p*rn*graphic IG account. The person start following friends and family. So, I get to know about this account when people started texting me that they got a “friend request” from “me” to an adult entertainment account on IG. It was incredibly frustrating. I have to ask all my friends to reach IG and report the account. It took a long time before that account got closed.
Just wanted to share another example on how difficult and complex having a picture of ourselves online can be. - It doesn’t even have to be a “sexy” picture. Anything can be used against us or with bad intentions. Especially now that AI is out and is so good with recreating images.
Whoa, that is absolutely insane. I'm so sorry that happened to you! And I so agree that we should be protected against this kind of thing, as well as being photographed in public. As we add new technologies that have the power to take even more from us, we have to be careful what we give!
I don’t think having yet another law would be really a solution because all it takes is to be well "connected" for that new shiny law not to apply to your person. But i LOVE, love, love this discussion. I felt my consciousness expand while reading this piece. Expand to include, care, consider several POVs that usually don’t get that much attention from me. We talk so much about privacy and security online but i love that through reading this piece i included the celebrities, the artists, the politicians just as much as i would regular people.
Technically, of course a well connected person could have to pay the fine with breaking this fictional anti-paparazzi law.
When i wrote my comment though what came to mind is one of the main downsides of the carbon tax, as an analogy. The carbon tax might serve as a good deterrent for some businesses but for some other ones who have the means to pay the fine, they might not see the value in rethinking their business models and/or practices. Change in behaviour, in mindset, is WAY more labor intensive and it’s costly in several forms of energy beside money. It requires a certain amount of faith, patience (time), energy and money.
What motivated some business owners to change though was that they saw how in the long run it affected their ability to respond to the public’s demand for safer, healthier and truly effective alternatives. The younger generations having been raised to think about environmental issues and they’ve lived with the effects of industrialization longer.
So, i imagine an anti-paparazzi law would be just as a viable "solution" as the carbon tax.
What are the people acting as paparazzi want though? What are they after? Fame? Money? Both? Neither? What demands are they responding to? And can we think of ways for them to respond that are more win-win-win for all the different parties involved ?
I.e. The celebrities, who while they are making a living sharing their talents, by being a more public figure, they are still very much human, equipped with the same human desires as their audience.
The non-public human figure who is watching his or her private life being encroached upon with increasing worry, anxiety and fear. Reality tv. Data breaches. Social media scandals.
Everybody wants to be popular without the downsides, i.e. be an inspiration, love and be loved enough, feeling satisfied and joyful about one’s life.
The people in the paparazzi business...i don’t know much about but since it’s a business, i can imagine that they act as a bridge between the two previously cited parties (and realities). I imagine they are the ones contributing to selling the dream of being a celebrity to the non-public figure. And that they are the ones who know how to connect the celebrities to their audience, the general public, by both humanizing them and make them look dreamy.
I guess my point also is that laws aren’t consciousness tools.
They are part of the system and, like that Einstein’s famous quote says, the solution isn’t at the same level of consciousness where the challenge resides.
If a change in behaviour or in mindset is what’s truly needed, get prepared to be creative, patient and to massively invest energetically.
Right now, the ~30-55 years olds is the strata of the population that seem to be into this consciousness shift concept the most, who seem to “get” it somehow... from what i’ve generally experienced. Why? Well maybe because they’ve lived and seen the effects of industrialization like i said before but they are also old enough to remember a time when there was no internet and no cellphones for example. They saw their grandparents and parents being healthier at their age while their kids (if any) are having trouble. Thus, they are likely to be less affected by the system’s memory-holing. They have the capacity to desire and imagine being healthier, sturdier, freer, etc.
I believe that to be able to imagine outside-the-box possibilities and realities is a consciousness expansion tool and a powerful one at that.
This all makes a lot of sense. I agree that there is some level of generational bettering of society (being healthier, etc...) But people always want what's best for themselves and their families, and making their lives healthier (for example, not smoking) is better for themselves and their families. There is still an intrinsic motivation there.
Other things however, might be intrinsically rewarding even as they are extrinsically harmful. For example, if it will make them a lot of money to sell a photo they will. But if they won't, they won't. Removing the financial reward will improve human behavior more than letting them have it and hoping they don't make an intrinsically rewarding decision.
It's tricky because I think different things require different responses. For example, a good campaign probably did way more to get people to stop smoking than making cigarettes illegal would have. BUT, a good campaign to get people to stop using plastic bags wasn't nearly as effective as governments that have banned single use plastics. That's because we will ultimiately do what is in our own best interest: it's better for me to not smoke, but it's more convenient for me to use a plastic bag at the grocery store.....
That’s a good point : people do indeed what is best for them, what is more convenient. A mix of having a law and using consciousness expanding tools could be an effective tactic to tackle this. One mix came to mind but i’ll wait for more before posting.
"ESPN has returned to reporting on the game—they have to—and any fans in attendance might catch a glimpse of Taylor in her box and even take a picture of her, but they won’t be shared online or profiled in a hundred media outlets the next day." Oh what a world it would be, Elle! (single happy tear rolls down face)
I like your take on this but I struggle with your portioning of accountability (at least somewhat). The institution is definitely the mechanism that creates the problem (American political system spitting out slimy politicians, for example) and like you, I'm in favor of changing almost every institution we have in America. What I struggle with is the ways people choose to exist inside a mechanism while being fully aware of the pitfalls, then retroactively acting like they didn't want to be there. It's hard for me to believe that someone strives and strives for riches/fame, plays the game in the way it is currently structured, puts in the ungodly amount of work to obtain those things, but then suddenly exists inside a world (be it business, politics, celebrity, etc.) that is foreign and gross to them. Those worlds were gross the entire time and people on the inside should understand that more than anyone. So on the one hand I sympathize with any human going through strife (because why would I want that for anyone?!?) and on the other, I want to scream through a megaphone BE CAREFUL AND INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHAT INSTITUTIONS YOU CHOOSE TO BE A PART OF. I think that is a nuance there that many overlook when screaming about what the rich/famous do or do not deserve, or dreaming and working towards being rich/famous themselves. I like this quote from you ("I don’t think we should villainize the artist (for being a fame monger) or the fan (for being a patron of it)), I agree, and I think that particular equation presents a good point for reflection on individual desires, current institutions, and whether or not any of us truly want to be involved with them. Those are my thoughts and I apologize in advance for angrily texting you the next time Taylor Swift coverage overwhelms a Chiefs game.
Yes, I totally get that. But at the same time, I think it's a viscous cycle. People are forced to play the game that way because that's the way the game is played (and even in my hypothetical scenario, they could continue playing it as much as they want and then yes, it would absolutely be their fault for every media pitfall they bring down upon themselves).
I chose to be a writer, and thankfully writers don't get famous. But if I wanted to be an actor or singer, I would choose not to be part of those institutions because I would not want to subject myself to that level of scrutiny. But think about that: that's also why no one wants to be a politician, and that's why we only wind up with the very worst options.
We wind up with reality show contestants for every public office because they are the only ones who are up for being recorded like that.
I am conflicted. On one hand, I think current celebrity culture/journalism seems awful for the celebrities and not great for the rest of us.
On the other hand, it isn't really new (the Cohen brothers _Hail Caesar_ has a major plot-line about trying to manage the media coverage of a star) and I think it is telling that it's hard to find a better model. I do wonder about how laws like that would affect journalism. Both directly, but also by sending the message that the prepared photo-op or interview is the natural setting for a celebrity. I think about Joan Didion's story from the 1988 campaign (currently paywalled but available at the wayback machine): http://web.archive.org/web/20211027141750/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1988/10/27/insider-baseball/?pagination=false
This “battle of the backdrops” story appeared on page 24 of the issue dated September 12, 1988. On pages 22 and 23 of the same issue there appeared, as illustrations for the lead National Affairs story (“Getting Down and Dirty: As the mudslinging campaign moves into full gear, Bush stays on the offensive—and Dukakis calls back his main street-fighting man”), two half-page color photographs, one of each candidate, which seemed to address the very concerns expressed on page 24 and in The Post. The photograph of Vice-President Bush showed him indoors, with his jacket on, and behind a lectern. That of Governor Dukakis showed him outdoors, coatless, with his sleeves rolled up, looking ebullient, about to throw a baseball on an airport tarmac: something had been learned from Jeff Greenfield, or something had been told to Jeff Greenfield. “We talk to the press, and things take on a life of their own,” Mark Siegel, a Democratic political consultant, said recently to Elizabeth Drew.
About this baseball on the tarmac. On the day that Michael Dukakis appeared at the high school in Woodland Hills and at the rally in San Diego and in the school-yard in San Jose, there was, although it did not appear on the schedule, a fourth event, what was referred to among the television crews as a “tarmac arrival with ball tossing.” This event had taken place in late morning, on the tarmac at the San Diego airport, just after the chartered 737 had rolled to a stop and the candidate had emerged. There had been a moment of hesitation. Then baseball mitts had been produced, and Jack Weeks, the traveling press secretary, had tossed a ball to the candidate. The candidate had tossed the ball back. The rest of us had stood in the sun and given this our full attention, undeflected even by the arrival of an Alaska 767: some forty adults standing on a tarmac watching a diminutive figure in shirtsleeves and a red tie toss a ball to his press secretary.
“Just a regular guy,” one of the cameramen had said, his inflection that of the union official who confided, in an early Dukakis commercial aimed at blue-collar voters, that he had known “Mike” a long time, and backed him despite his not being “your shot-and-beer kind of guy.”
That it's hard to find a better model... wouldn't that be because the scale of this problem is about as old of the internet? We have to invent a new one!
“I think a lot of people are quite dumb to how it works,” says the Manchester-based paparazzo Aaron Parfitt. “People think we are scumbags hanging out of trees. But these celebrities are ringing us.” He estimates that 80% of his shots are set up in advance. “I’ve been on holiday with celebrities,” says Parfitt, 22. “Most of them are reality stars. We go to Spain, shoot six bikini sets and stick them out throughout the month.”
...
Fellow Love Island alumna Rachel Finni, 30, remembers the moment she was inculcated into this secret practice. She was having dinner with a minor celebrity, having just left the show. “He said: ‘I am going to text the pap guy.’” Finni was confused. “He said: ‘Honey, paps only come if you call them!” Over the next few months, she routinely let paparazzi know her plans. “Seeing yourself in the papers and magazines every other day is the most incredible feeling,” she says.
Yes, but whether paparazzi makes more or less now is not the point? It's whether the person is abused more now, and I would argue that they are.
And of course celebrities ring the paparazzi and leak stories. An extension of privacy laws won't stop that, they can keep doing that as much as they want. The point is that at least then it's their choice.
The question is what problem are you trying to solve?
I agree that, currently, becoming a celebrity comes with benefits but also means giving up a lot of privacy and control over one's time, and that it would be nice if that wasn't the case.
It's also true that people who are willing to give up privacy for exposure have an advantage in becoming celebrities. That certainly affects who is able to succeed. But that's a hard thing to unwind.
If you think the problem that you're trying to solve is that people shouldn't have stories written about their personal lives without their consent, that is going to be used against legitimate journalism.
I don't mean to say that either of those concerns are insurmountable but, together, they really limit the room available to try to craft a solution.
The question that agonises Newman in the memoir is that of authentic emotion, what he calls his ‘core’. He told Stern that for years no one else was real to him, not even Woodward and his children. He agonised over the difference between the interior and exterior person, and worried that ‘the light that people are looking at is not the same light that you think you are emanating.’ How strange it must have felt to be inside those blue eyes. He was the one person in the world who would never know the sheer thrill of catching sight of Paul Newman, the film star. ‘When we’ve been walking down a street,’ Stern said,
"one of the things I’ve often said to Paul is how unfortunate it is that he won’t look back at people who are looking at him. I get a glow by the time we’ve gone two blocks, and find myself smiling simply because of the pleasure in people’s faces at seeing him. And it’s something Paul won’t see because he won’t look."
"If you think the problem that you're trying to solve is that people shouldn't have stories written about their personal lives without their consent, that is going to be used against legitimate journalism."
The problem I'm trying to solve is not that people shouldn't have stories written about their personal lives without their consent, but that people shouldn't be able to post photos of them without their consent. And journalists can't use anonymous sources who are speaking out about someone's personal live unless it is of public interest. (Which would only increase integrity in journalism.)
People can write about people without their consent, but the public surveillance of people should be illegal.
Fame isn't new. Public surveillance of famous people is!
I guess the first question would be what are the current laws? I had a surprisingly difficult time finding the answer. IT appears that a number of states have already passed anti-paparazzi laws but there are surprisingly few cases testing their effectiveness.
“Before the internet, an artist might be known for their work—a singer for their albums or an actor for their films—but they weren’t harassed for their personal life.”
This caught my eye and Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle popped into my head. He was perhaps the leading edge of the press shifting its interest from mostly political monitoring and championing (no “objective” press back then, journalism wasn’t even a profession, and didn’t require a J-School degree, there were no J-Schools.. anyway, that’s a topic for another day) to celebrity reporting. 40 quarts of liquor, a party in a hotel, a dead model — Virginia Rappe — a silent movie star (Fatty) and a relentless press. The only difference between them and now might be the speed and volume at which things get published. It’s a fascinating story... two book reccos:
Yes, that's a good point. There were definitely artists who were abused by the press in the past. But there could be nothing like the loss of privacy achieved today with social media in every pocket!
Oh I like this! Esp the fictional container, it just zaps the piece to life. I’d love to see an end to the paparazzi. I always tell people this is one reason I never wanna be famous, because you have your whole life blasted into the public sphere for everyone to pick apart. Not my cup of tea — I much prefer my little anonymous life, thank you very much.
It’s interesting too the way you trace the effects such a move might have on the general culture. I agree entirely that we’d be healthier and happier without this celebrity obsession. One problem tho! I’m not sure how meme culture would survive! (le gasp) No but really, if you dig into the particulars, it gets bumpy: laws enforced by fines are essentially only applicable to the poor, altho that could change if the fines levied were not flat but proportional as you suggested in a comment. I think such a change on a legal level could precipitate a cultural shift that would help complete the change, but irl the legal landscape often follows cultural shifts rather than the other way around...
In any case, definitely a cool thought experiment! I’d sign that petition so fast.
Right!? I'm so grateful that there is no such thing as famous writers because it allows me to reach for the moon with my art without consequences. But it would be such a bummer if the thing I was passionate about was singing or acting in this age. 😵💫
I definitely hate what it does to the culture. I think you're right that it would be tricky to implement in practice, but I also agree that if a cultural shift happens along side it it could work. For example, when celebrities petitioned for paparazzi to not photograph their children, there was a legal element, but there was also a cultural element where all the paparazzi agreed that was crossing a line and said they would no longer be photographing the children of celebrities. That has made it horribly taboo to do so!
Oh cool, I didn't know that shift was so substantial, but I'm glad to hear it (I'm not really plugged in to celebrity gossip so I'm blissfully unaware lol)
Hi Elle, this is a very interesting topic. I also wanted to point out that this also happens to anyone online. Someone took my profile picture on IG (I don’t have any “provocative” pictures online by the way) and used it to make a p*rn*graphic IG account. The person start following friends and family. So, I get to know about this account when people started texting me that they got a “friend request” from “me” to an adult entertainment account on IG. It was incredibly frustrating. I have to ask all my friends to reach IG and report the account. It took a long time before that account got closed.
Just wanted to share another example on how difficult and complex having a picture of ourselves online can be. - It doesn’t even have to be a “sexy” picture. Anything can be used against us or with bad intentions. Especially now that AI is out and is so good with recreating images.
Whoa, that is absolutely insane. I'm so sorry that happened to you! And I so agree that we should be protected against this kind of thing, as well as being photographed in public. As we add new technologies that have the power to take even more from us, we have to be careful what we give!
I don’t think having yet another law would be really a solution because all it takes is to be well "connected" for that new shiny law not to apply to your person. But i LOVE, love, love this discussion. I felt my consciousness expand while reading this piece. Expand to include, care, consider several POVs that usually don’t get that much attention from me. We talk so much about privacy and security online but i love that through reading this piece i included the celebrities, the artists, the politicians just as much as i would regular people.
Interesting! Why would a well connected person not have to pay the fine?
(Thank you for thinking this through with me!)
Well ok...let’s discuss this further.
Technically, of course a well connected person could have to pay the fine with breaking this fictional anti-paparazzi law.
When i wrote my comment though what came to mind is one of the main downsides of the carbon tax, as an analogy. The carbon tax might serve as a good deterrent for some businesses but for some other ones who have the means to pay the fine, they might not see the value in rethinking their business models and/or practices. Change in behaviour, in mindset, is WAY more labor intensive and it’s costly in several forms of energy beside money. It requires a certain amount of faith, patience (time), energy and money.
What motivated some business owners to change though was that they saw how in the long run it affected their ability to respond to the public’s demand for safer, healthier and truly effective alternatives. The younger generations having been raised to think about environmental issues and they’ve lived with the effects of industrialization longer.
So, i imagine an anti-paparazzi law would be just as a viable "solution" as the carbon tax.
What are the people acting as paparazzi want though? What are they after? Fame? Money? Both? Neither? What demands are they responding to? And can we think of ways for them to respond that are more win-win-win for all the different parties involved ?
I.e. The celebrities, who while they are making a living sharing their talents, by being a more public figure, they are still very much human, equipped with the same human desires as their audience.
The non-public human figure who is watching his or her private life being encroached upon with increasing worry, anxiety and fear. Reality tv. Data breaches. Social media scandals.
Everybody wants to be popular without the downsides, i.e. be an inspiration, love and be loved enough, feeling satisfied and joyful about one’s life.
The people in the paparazzi business...i don’t know much about but since it’s a business, i can imagine that they act as a bridge between the two previously cited parties (and realities). I imagine they are the ones contributing to selling the dream of being a celebrity to the non-public figure. And that they are the ones who know how to connect the celebrities to their audience, the general public, by both humanizing them and make them look dreamy.
I guess my point also is that laws aren’t consciousness tools.
They are part of the system and, like that Einstein’s famous quote says, the solution isn’t at the same level of consciousness where the challenge resides.
If a change in behaviour or in mindset is what’s truly needed, get prepared to be creative, patient and to massively invest energetically.
Right now, the ~30-55 years olds is the strata of the population that seem to be into this consciousness shift concept the most, who seem to “get” it somehow... from what i’ve generally experienced. Why? Well maybe because they’ve lived and seen the effects of industrialization like i said before but they are also old enough to remember a time when there was no internet and no cellphones for example. They saw their grandparents and parents being healthier at their age while their kids (if any) are having trouble. Thus, they are likely to be less affected by the system’s memory-holing. They have the capacity to desire and imagine being healthier, sturdier, freer, etc.
I believe that to be able to imagine outside-the-box possibilities and realities is a consciousness expansion tool and a powerful one at that.
I’m sharing here an article about affecting Humanity’s collective consciousness because it goes into great details as to how this can be done and why it is increasingly viewed as a viable solution to current social challenges : https://open.substack.com/pub/starfirecodes/p/affecting-rhizomatic-consciousness-of-humanity?r=1odztq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
This all makes a lot of sense. I agree that there is some level of generational bettering of society (being healthier, etc...) But people always want what's best for themselves and their families, and making their lives healthier (for example, not smoking) is better for themselves and their families. There is still an intrinsic motivation there.
Other things however, might be intrinsically rewarding even as they are extrinsically harmful. For example, if it will make them a lot of money to sell a photo they will. But if they won't, they won't. Removing the financial reward will improve human behavior more than letting them have it and hoping they don't make an intrinsically rewarding decision.
It's tricky because I think different things require different responses. For example, a good campaign probably did way more to get people to stop smoking than making cigarettes illegal would have. BUT, a good campaign to get people to stop using plastic bags wasn't nearly as effective as governments that have banned single use plastics. That's because we will ultimiately do what is in our own best interest: it's better for me to not smoke, but it's more convenient for me to use a plastic bag at the grocery store.....
That’s a good point : people do indeed what is best for them, what is more convenient. A mix of having a law and using consciousness expanding tools could be an effective tactic to tackle this. One mix came to mind but i’ll wait for more before posting.
That's a good way of putting it. We need both. I'll be curious to know what mix you're thinking of!
"ESPN has returned to reporting on the game—they have to—and any fans in attendance might catch a glimpse of Taylor in her box and even take a picture of her, but they won’t be shared online or profiled in a hundred media outlets the next day." Oh what a world it would be, Elle! (single happy tear rolls down face)
I like your take on this but I struggle with your portioning of accountability (at least somewhat). The institution is definitely the mechanism that creates the problem (American political system spitting out slimy politicians, for example) and like you, I'm in favor of changing almost every institution we have in America. What I struggle with is the ways people choose to exist inside a mechanism while being fully aware of the pitfalls, then retroactively acting like they didn't want to be there. It's hard for me to believe that someone strives and strives for riches/fame, plays the game in the way it is currently structured, puts in the ungodly amount of work to obtain those things, but then suddenly exists inside a world (be it business, politics, celebrity, etc.) that is foreign and gross to them. Those worlds were gross the entire time and people on the inside should understand that more than anyone. So on the one hand I sympathize with any human going through strife (because why would I want that for anyone?!?) and on the other, I want to scream through a megaphone BE CAREFUL AND INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHAT INSTITUTIONS YOU CHOOSE TO BE A PART OF. I think that is a nuance there that many overlook when screaming about what the rich/famous do or do not deserve, or dreaming and working towards being rich/famous themselves. I like this quote from you ("I don’t think we should villainize the artist (for being a fame monger) or the fan (for being a patron of it)), I agree, and I think that particular equation presents a good point for reflection on individual desires, current institutions, and whether or not any of us truly want to be involved with them. Those are my thoughts and I apologize in advance for angrily texting you the next time Taylor Swift coverage overwhelms a Chiefs game.
Yes, I totally get that. But at the same time, I think it's a viscous cycle. People are forced to play the game that way because that's the way the game is played (and even in my hypothetical scenario, they could continue playing it as much as they want and then yes, it would absolutely be their fault for every media pitfall they bring down upon themselves).
I chose to be a writer, and thankfully writers don't get famous. But if I wanted to be an actor or singer, I would choose not to be part of those institutions because I would not want to subject myself to that level of scrutiny. But think about that: that's also why no one wants to be a politician, and that's why we only wind up with the very worst options.
We wind up with reality show contestants for every public office because they are the only ones who are up for being recorded like that.
I am conflicted. On one hand, I think current celebrity culture/journalism seems awful for the celebrities and not great for the rest of us.
On the other hand, it isn't really new (the Cohen brothers _Hail Caesar_ has a major plot-line about trying to manage the media coverage of a star) and I think it is telling that it's hard to find a better model. I do wonder about how laws like that would affect journalism. Both directly, but also by sending the message that the prepared photo-op or interview is the natural setting for a celebrity. I think about Joan Didion's story from the 1988 campaign (currently paywalled but available at the wayback machine): http://web.archive.org/web/20211027141750/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1988/10/27/insider-baseball/?pagination=false
----------------------------------------------------
This “battle of the backdrops” story appeared on page 24 of the issue dated September 12, 1988. On pages 22 and 23 of the same issue there appeared, as illustrations for the lead National Affairs story (“Getting Down and Dirty: As the mudslinging campaign moves into full gear, Bush stays on the offensive—and Dukakis calls back his main street-fighting man”), two half-page color photographs, one of each candidate, which seemed to address the very concerns expressed on page 24 and in The Post. The photograph of Vice-President Bush showed him indoors, with his jacket on, and behind a lectern. That of Governor Dukakis showed him outdoors, coatless, with his sleeves rolled up, looking ebullient, about to throw a baseball on an airport tarmac: something had been learned from Jeff Greenfield, or something had been told to Jeff Greenfield. “We talk to the press, and things take on a life of their own,” Mark Siegel, a Democratic political consultant, said recently to Elizabeth Drew.
About this baseball on the tarmac. On the day that Michael Dukakis appeared at the high school in Woodland Hills and at the rally in San Diego and in the school-yard in San Jose, there was, although it did not appear on the schedule, a fourth event, what was referred to among the television crews as a “tarmac arrival with ball tossing.” This event had taken place in late morning, on the tarmac at the San Diego airport, just after the chartered 737 had rolled to a stop and the candidate had emerged. There had been a moment of hesitation. Then baseball mitts had been produced, and Jack Weeks, the traveling press secretary, had tossed a ball to the candidate. The candidate had tossed the ball back. The rest of us had stood in the sun and given this our full attention, undeflected even by the arrival of an Alaska 767: some forty adults standing on a tarmac watching a diminutive figure in shirtsleeves and a red tie toss a ball to his press secretary.
“Just a regular guy,” one of the cameramen had said, his inflection that of the union official who confided, in an early Dukakis commercial aimed at blue-collar voters, that he had known “Mike” a long time, and backed him despite his not being “your shot-and-beer kind of guy.”
That it's hard to find a better model... wouldn't that be because the scale of this problem is about as old of the internet? We have to invent a new one!
Is that true? This suggests that tabloids (not the internet) has been the big source of money for paparazzi: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190423-how-the-paparazzi-make-their-money
Also, while looking that up I saw this as well: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/aug/17/people-think-we-are-scumbags-but-celebrities-are-ringing-us-the-changing-world-of-the-paparazzi
--------------------------------------
“I think a lot of people are quite dumb to how it works,” says the Manchester-based paparazzo Aaron Parfitt. “People think we are scumbags hanging out of trees. But these celebrities are ringing us.” He estimates that 80% of his shots are set up in advance. “I’ve been on holiday with celebrities,” says Parfitt, 22. “Most of them are reality stars. We go to Spain, shoot six bikini sets and stick them out throughout the month.”
...
Fellow Love Island alumna Rachel Finni, 30, remembers the moment she was inculcated into this secret practice. She was having dinner with a minor celebrity, having just left the show. “He said: ‘I am going to text the pap guy.’” Finni was confused. “He said: ‘Honey, paps only come if you call them!” Over the next few months, she routinely let paparazzi know her plans. “Seeing yourself in the papers and magazines every other day is the most incredible feeling,” she says.
Yes, but whether paparazzi makes more or less now is not the point? It's whether the person is abused more now, and I would argue that they are.
And of course celebrities ring the paparazzi and leak stories. An extension of privacy laws won't stop that, they can keep doing that as much as they want. The point is that at least then it's their choice.
The question is what problem are you trying to solve?
I agree that, currently, becoming a celebrity comes with benefits but also means giving up a lot of privacy and control over one's time, and that it would be nice if that wasn't the case.
It's also true that people who are willing to give up privacy for exposure have an advantage in becoming celebrities. That certainly affects who is able to succeed. But that's a hard thing to unwind.
If you think the problem that you're trying to solve is that people shouldn't have stories written about their personal lives without their consent, that is going to be used against legitimate journalism.
I don't mean to say that either of those concerns are insurmountable but, together, they really limit the room available to try to craft a solution.
One last thought, in terms of the question of whether this is a new issue I remembered the close of this article about Paul Newman: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n04/bee-wilson/it-isn-t-the-lines
---------------------------------------------
The question that agonises Newman in the memoir is that of authentic emotion, what he calls his ‘core’. He told Stern that for years no one else was real to him, not even Woodward and his children. He agonised over the difference between the interior and exterior person, and worried that ‘the light that people are looking at is not the same light that you think you are emanating.’ How strange it must have felt to be inside those blue eyes. He was the one person in the world who would never know the sheer thrill of catching sight of Paul Newman, the film star. ‘When we’ve been walking down a street,’ Stern said,
"one of the things I’ve often said to Paul is how unfortunate it is that he won’t look back at people who are looking at him. I get a glow by the time we’ve gone two blocks, and find myself smiling simply because of the pleasure in people’s faces at seeing him. And it’s something Paul won’t see because he won’t look."
"If you think the problem that you're trying to solve is that people shouldn't have stories written about their personal lives without their consent, that is going to be used against legitimate journalism."
The problem I'm trying to solve is not that people shouldn't have stories written about their personal lives without their consent, but that people shouldn't be able to post photos of them without their consent. And journalists can't use anonymous sources who are speaking out about someone's personal live unless it is of public interest. (Which would only increase integrity in journalism.)
People can write about people without their consent, but the public surveillance of people should be illegal.
Fame isn't new. Public surveillance of famous people is!
I guess the first question would be what are the current laws? I had a surprisingly difficult time finding the answer. IT appears that a number of states have already passed anti-paparazzi laws but there are surprisingly few cases testing their effectiveness.
“Before the internet, an artist might be known for their work—a singer for their albums or an actor for their films—but they weren’t harassed for their personal life.”
This caught my eye and Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle popped into my head. He was perhaps the leading edge of the press shifting its interest from mostly political monitoring and championing (no “objective” press back then, journalism wasn’t even a profession, and didn’t require a J-School degree, there were no J-Schools.. anyway, that’s a topic for another day) to celebrity reporting. 40 quarts of liquor, a party in a hotel, a dead model — Virginia Rappe — a silent movie star (Fatty) and a relentless press. The only difference between them and now might be the speed and volume at which things get published. It’s a fascinating story... two book reccos:
https://bookshop.org/p/books/room-1219-the-life-of-fatty-arbuckle-the-mysterious-death-of-virginia-rappe-and-the-scandal-that-changed-hollywood-greg-merritt/12428878
https://bookshop.org/p/books/forty-quarts-of-liquor-fatty-arbuckle-and-the-death-of-virginia-rappe-hollywood-s-first-scandal-dave-zuda/12122859
Maybe a third... a little biased, but a good read nonetheless
https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-trial-of-fatty-arbuckle-a-precedent-of-injustice-brad-kronen/11535276
Yes, that's a good point. There were definitely artists who were abused by the press in the past. But there could be nothing like the loss of privacy achieved today with social media in every pocket!