The Parasite Called Paparazzi

The Oxford Dictionary defines parasite as “an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense”. How easily can this be applied to the paparazzi! They are paid to take photos of celebrities in every possible, conceivable situation for money. They are getting paid, not for the skill involved in pressing a button on a camera, but for the subject of their photograph. Often, it is the most scandalous photos that fetch the highest price and these photos are detrimental to the celebrity they are of. These photos line the pocket of the photographer and do nothing but harm the one the photo is of. If that isn’t parasitic then nothing is. 

Another definition is that of paparazzi. It certainly implies a degree of aggression. Checking the Oxford Dictionary again we see that paparazzo is defined as “a freelance photographer who pursues celebrities to get photographs of them”. The plural is paparazzi. The use of “pursues”implies that the celebrity in question is running away from the photographer. That the celebrity does not want to be photographed or hounded by the incessant click and flash of the camera. The origin of the word comes from Fellini’s La Dolce Vita. There exists a character called Paparazzo. He is a news photographer and it is said Fellini picked the name as it suggested to him an annoying, buzzing insect-like sound. There is also some belief that Fellini was inspired by the Itlalian word pappataci which translates roughly as a small mosquito. Funny how an industry has thrived and built itself on being a bunch of annoying, small mosquitoes.

By now, some might be saying that the paparazzi come with the job of being a celebrity. That celebrities should expect people wanting to see them twenty four hours a day and that there might even be some public sense of entitlement to these photos. This is very far from the truth. There is no justification for the intrusion into someone’s privacy, and this is exactly what the paparazzi do. They have no boundaries and nothing is off limits. There are a number of cases that highlight this, with one highly prominent one. Let’s go back to the night of August 31, 1997. The night Princess Diana was killed in a car accident. There were a number of fateful factors at work on this night that led to the tragic event. Diana had been staying at the Hotel Ritz Paris with partner Dodi Fayed. At the time, photos of the couple were a hot commodity on the market with gossip magazines forking out large amounts to be the first to print new ones. This essentially put a bounty on the couple. The night of August 31, there was a large paparazzi presence at the Hotel. Diana and Dodi attempted to slip out the back door but a few of the older hats suspected this and were waiting for them, motorbikes and scooters ready to follow the getaway car. 

What followed is known the world over. The official London inquiry concluded that the driver, Henri Paul was guilty of negligent driving but that the pursuing paparazzi were also a factor. Could it have been that the paparazzi’s presence forced Paul to drive erratically in the hope of creating some privacy for the couple? Or could it have been that the paparazzi directly caused the accident by being too close? While we will never know the full extent of what happened in that tunnel, it is certain that things may have been vastly different had the paparazzi called of their chase or had not even started the chase in the first place. How eager can someone be to get a single photo that they would place lives in danger? What justification could possibly be given for such acts?

I am not trying to stir the Princess Di controversy pot here, but what I am doing is establishing a precedent for the extent to which the paparazzi will go for a photo. This is the only case, as far as I know, where someone has died as a result of the paparazzi, either directly or indirectly. However, the argument that it has happened only once is not good enough in this instance. Something like this should never happen. Photographs can not be as important as the people they are of. The only hope that could be taken from this tragedy is that it may have pegged the paparazzi and their efforts back a little. It may have checked their methods and forced them to consider how they approach their so-called jobs. Yet, this hope is insignificant when all that was needed was a general respect for other humans and the acknowledgement of the right to privacy.

Others may be thinking that such an extreme example is not truly representative of the paparazzi, especially if it has only happened once before. Let us discuss other instances, although not as severe, still highly disturbing and inherently wrong. I remember a few years ago when it was all the rage for photographers to get shots of female celebrities stepping out of cars in short skirts. A number of these times, the celebrity may not have been wearing any underwear and it would soon be all over the internet. Sure, we can argue that the celebrity should have known the risk she was taking and probably should have worn some pants. However, does this excuse the perverse act that those taking the photos committed? Absolutely not. As soon as the flash goes, the onus is on the photographer as they have the power to withhold the photograph. Yet, the mighty dollar speaks and the photos are plastered all over social media. I’ve never worn a short skirt and I’ve never had to get out of a car in one but I can imagine it’s not the easiest of things to do without giving away a little flash. It is just that most people don’t have to worry about this as there aren’t cameras with fingers on the clicker ready to snap at 100 a second for a glimpse of something not meant to be seen. Even if these stars were wearing underpants I’m certain the headline would have been “Look who was wearing (colour) undies????”

Does that mean all female celebrities should stop wearing short skirts because some low-level human wants to show the world what they are or are not wearing? I can’t even fathom the type of person (if they can be called such) that would actively try to capture photos of exposed crotches. It is the lowest form of pornography. The type that is published without the subjects permission. It is akin to putting up cameras in change rooms and yet, there is no criminal charge against it. This vile act needs to be stamped out immediately. 

Scene from Britney Spears’ “Piece of Me” addressing the actions of the paparazzi.

Celebrities should only have to do promotional rounds and red carpets and award shows and allow photos to be taken of them here. There is plenty of time at these events and these really are a part of their jobs. The reason this is not the case is because it is very hard to sell these photos. People only want to see so many pretty and handsome people in nice clothes. Though, enough photos of celebrities buying milk get bought and sold. Thank you for those, they really made my day that much better because my favourite actor went to the grocery store. However, what people really want is a scandal. That’s where the paparazzi come in. They sit and wait till something slightly controversial happens and then it lights up like a Christmas tree. Not all the blame is for the parasites though. Society, in general, must take a long hard look at itself. Are we really that bored with our own lives that we need to be entertained vicariously by a celebrity doing something stupid or accidentally having their clothes malfunction? Do we require the incessant flow of photographs of the latest celebrity mishaps that litter the vast wastelands of the internet? The paparazzi would not exist if there wasn’t a demand for what they offered. That demand resides in the customers who buy the magazines and click on the links to the photos. We desperately need to readdress what we want to see as we are allowing for a degrading part of society to not only be maintained but to thrive in the digital age.

Alec Baldwin fed up with a paparazzo. 

Source: http://celebslam.celebuzz.com/2012/06/alec-baldwin-paparazzi-attack.php

In no way am I deflecting any criticism from the paparazzi though. They are ultimately the ones who put themselves in invasive positions to attain the golden eggs. It is their choice to sell compromising photos and it is their prerogative to make money from others misfortune. They are counterproductive and it is time we squatted them like the annoying insects they are. One way to change them is to give celebrities the majority of the money made from photo sales. After all, they are photos of themselves that are being sold. Let’s see how many would even bother waiting outside in the cold for three hours knowing they would only get a portion of the price? Also, whatever happened to needing permission to be photographed? If a celebrity is unwilling to be photographed then they should not have to be. I say throw the law book at the parasites and see how many come back for a second bite. I am giving the power to the celebrity here but why shouldn’t they get their say in this issue? We are talking about them after all. It is time to stop this rot and nonsense. Let celebrities be people. We can start by first changing the definition of paparazzi to “parasite”.

Why Australia Should Allow Gay Marriage

*In the following, I use “gay” to include all homosexual relationships.

It is saddening that the Australian parliament has yet to legalise gay marriage for the simple reason that there is no legitimate reason to not allow it other than pure discrimination. I used to be one of those people that thought the existence of Civil Unions was enough for the gay community, but I was blind. The mere fact that it would be called something different inherently implies discrimination. The fact that Civil Unions include the legal benefits of marriage does not outweigh the fact that Civil Unions are still not marriage. I will attempt to go through the objections to gay marriage and show why they should not stand.

The first objection comes from the religious perspective. A lot of religious people quote sacred texts that say marriage is strictly for a man and a woman and that homosexuality is unacceptable. I find it contradictory that this same sacred text goes on to say be good to fellow man and is anti-discriminatory. Can these people pick and choose what to use and believe in? Are they forced to lead contradictory lives or do they simply repeat what they read and have little thought about what they say? I feel the over-riding passages would be the ones about love and acceptance. I call myself a Catholic so I will use a Catholic analogy. Jesus Christ is the model of behaviour for Catholics. This is a man who helped the prostitutes, touched the lepers and forgave the tax collectors. I find it very hard that this same man would shun someone for being homosexual. I feel he would invite them in and accept them in regards to all aspects of life including marriage. I feel so strongly about this that he would even perform the ceremony for them. If this man is the model of behaviour, why than do so many “Catholics” shun gay marriage?

The next objection is to say that it is unnatural. I find this hard to accept on the simple basis that nature is still so mysterious that we can not claim to know what natural is. It has been accepted by society that a man and a woman marrying is “natural”. Has everything society accepted been right before? We need look no further than the institution of slavery and, more recently, at Nazi Germany. A majority of a country accepted a man that is today condemned the world over. Are societies opinions infallible? Absolutely not. My other argument is to say the fact that homosexuality exists in this world is enough to call it “natural”. Nature, or God or whatever one believes in, has provided the right situation, chemicals, mix etc. to allow for homosexuality to exist. This very existence is enough to call something “natural”. A religious person could argue that it is sinful and the work of the devil but I’m still awaiting for all mass murderers to proven to be gay and I’m still waiting for Hitler, Stalin and the like to be shown as closet homosexuals. This is just another uneducated attempt at discriminating against something someone is not comfortable with.

There is a belief that allowing gay marriage would lead to the degradation of “traditional” marriage. Not only is this completely unfounded, it is also completely illogical. The “traditional” marriage is founded on the principles of love. Gay people can love just as easy as straight people. The one thing that undermines marriage is divorce and there is plenty of that around as it is. Allowing gay marriages will not increase the rate of divorce as the chances of straight and gay relationships working in an equal environment would be the same. Even if the divorce rate went up, it is a free country and divorces are allowed (even for Catholics who can attain annulments). There is no argument in existence that substantially lends weight to the thought that gay marriage would degrade straight marriage or that it would result in higher rates of marriages ending.

Another objection suggests that allowing gay marriage would create unstable families. I feel this is completely misguided. The arguments supporting this belief range from the inability of gay parents to adequately raise children, the unnatural (there is that word again) methods gay parents would use to raise children and that the situation the children are in would create a greater chance of the children being gay. None of these reasons can be logically supported. To begin with, what is the basis of a working family? I would suggest love and care. As I mentioned earlier, gay people have the same ability to love and care as straight people. There is no difference here and thus the foundation of a family would remain intact irrespective of the gender of the parents. One might argue that the environment is inherently different and that the social pressures would also be different. Well, I say to these types that every family has a different environment and that it is this very difference that creates diversity in the world. I imagine different cultures would raise children in different ways. Should we therefore ban those races that are deemed less adequate at raising children? And if so, how could we possibly measure this inadequacy? As for the social pressures, who is creating them? It is not the gay couple. It is the society that discriminates that creates these different social pressures. Who is in the wrong then? The family that is ostracised or those that ostracise? The claim that these children could turn out gay is complete speculation. Equally, they could turn out straight. Where is the proof of either one? There isn’t any. Therefore, it can not be used other than as a misguided and ill informed opinion.

I will revisit the religious perspective for this next objection. There are some who see marriage as a religious institution. This is bogus information. Marriage may be mentioned in sacred texts and performed by practitioners but it is also performed secularly and there is no requirement to be religious to get married (not that all gays are non-religious anyway). Marriage is a civil right and that means it is open to all humans. You can not stipulate civil rights based on gender. It is immoral and unethical. However, a large part of the religious fraternity wishes to do this which is astounding. The purveyors of good will and equality want to redefine human rights to suit their beliefs. To me, not only is that deplorable, it is a total contradiction for what they stand for.

I often see people claim that marriage is for procreation and thus gay marriage should not be allowed. This view is a misappropriation. Sex is for procreation but sex is also for enjoyment. Marriage is for the affirmation of love. If we do accept the above view, than by extension, anyone who is sterile or is too old to have children should not be allowed to marry. Also, those who choose to not have children should not be allowed to marry either. Are we going to go down the path where we selectively choose only those who want children to marry? Also, since when did it require marriage to have children? There is an increasing number of single parent families in Australia, often, as a result of out of wedlock conception. Should these people be forced to marry or would we use stricter methods for them? Marriage is not for procreation.

I would like to finish with a point in favour of gay marriage that is not the response to an objection. As I expressed at the beginning, not allowing gay marriage is formed on discriminatory terms. I feel that allowing for this type of discrimination could lead to further and more drastic forms of homosexual discrimination. Is that a society we want to live in? Do we want to take a giant leap back to the dark past where it was a crime to be gay? Or are we willing to venture into the future as liberated minds? Minds that allow for the survival and safety of our fellow human beings without the shadow of hate residing over them.

It is upsetting that we still live in a society that can not accept differences. However, I do hold hope for my generation as I truly believe we are growing up more tolerant than those before us. I do not feel we will ever eradicate the simple minded or misled, but in a democracy, we only need a majority. I sense this majority is not far away. I have hope.

Purpose

The purpose of this page is to establish my thoughts on contemporary issues. However, I eventually hope to have enough traffic to create discussion and exchanges of opinions on the issues that are presented. Antmoot is a play on Tolkien’s “entmoot”. I hope readers enjoy my posts and feel compelled to discuss.