Discussion Item of the Week
Posted by conv on March 2, 2008
Multimedia-ites —
I would like to see more participation in the discussions. Please check out this article and pass along your thoughts in the comments area.
Steve
|
Posted by conv on March 2, 2008
Multimedia-ites —
I would like to see more participation in the discussions. Please check out this article and pass along your thoughts in the comments area.
Steve
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“Citizen Paparazzi” might seem like a new concept but it’s been going on for as long as people have had personal cameras. Most people will take a picture of a celebrity if they see them and have a camera ready, but in the past they would only pass along the picture if it was something outrageous.
Now, however, because people can be on the internet all the time and need constant updates, you can see what your favorite celebrity had for dinner. I think this is just an overload of the same thing.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
They are two main rules within photojournalism – if you are on the street and see something then you can shoot it as long as it doesn’t “pierce the wall” and violate private property rules. Aside from these crucial rules, we live under the first amendment which allows freedom of the press.
However, these rules are always being violated by the paparazzi. When Britney Spears was taken in an ambulance a couple of weeks ago, photographers were taking pictures through the window and hence breaking the law.
So maybe it is time for the dominance of the paparazzi to change.
The web has given unlimited space to photojournalists so more competition could well have a positive effect. Increased competition may forces members of the paparazzi who insist on violating the rights of celebrities to adapt their methods.
If citizens have the talent to take a newsworthy picture and a news organization is interested in it, then why not?
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I feel that since people now have digital cameras and cameras on their phone it is much easier to be a part of a story. On a lot of newsites too they ask for readers to contribute their photos.I always ask why? since they have good photographers on call. Furthermore,their photographers are much more credible and have better equipment then a shakey, fuzzy cell phone camera.
In one way or another I do understand why a news station may invite citizens to be a part of the scene. Photographers and even reporters can’t be everywhere and at times news happens overnight. All in all, if your somewhere at the right place and have a camera then take up the opportunity. One of my journalism teachers gave us the same advice saying,”dont leave the house without a camera! Theres always an opportunity to shoot”.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I think this could be dangerous for the well being of the celebrities, now they might have to hide even from their own fans. We all know about what happened in 1997 with Princess Diana, and that was way before citizen paparazzi was even thought about. I think that even more people will hound celebrities for compromising photographs to sell them to TMZ.com and other tabloid papers and Web sites. The citizen jouurnalism aspects of this are fascinating, but what if the cons of it outweigh the pros?
Also, I think Stan Lee should get royalties on all of the photos sold because he came up with the idea. Peter Parker would sell photographs of himself as Spiderman in Lee’s comic books and movies to pay the bills. I wonder what his spidey-sense would make of this new facet of Citizen Journalism.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time feeling bad for threatened paparazzi. I think “celebrity coverage” is best left to the people who care the most about the subject, i.e rabid fans. The more fans start taking and selling these pictures, then the less profitable being a paparazzi will be, and then professional photographers can get back to the business of getting great shots, for great stories.
Personally, I’m more upset about us journalism students who are wearing many hats being called “MoJos.”
March 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
That sort of thing is always going to happen. It’s competition in the world of paparazzi. This new wave of technology makes it simple for any person to snap a photo and post it on the web. I think the regular paparazzi will do just fine because I’ve heard stories where the celebrities call and let them know where they will be at. They still hold an advantage over the citizen paparazzi, but not by much. The regulars will get their piece of the pie and with citizen journalism the pie only gets bigger.
–Steve
March 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
When I think of citizen journalism the first thing that comes to mind is the shaky video taken by a student during the Virginia Tech shootings. What first seems like just a poorly-shot video of a desolate part of campus becomes shockingly disturbing as you hear gunshots echoing in the distance. I can’t say it was wrong of the student to videotape the event. If anything, it is possible he or she believed the video might come in handy for authorities later, or maybe it was just the journalistic instinct that many of us share. What does bother me is the thought of the parents or loved ones watching the video and hearing the audio of the very bullets that took the lives of their children that day. Ultimately, the question of ethics comes into play. Should the masses be denied to protect the few?
When it comes to “citizen paparazzi”, I feel like it’s fairly harmless. Part of the profession of a celebrity entails dealing with the mobs of paparazzi on a daily basis. In fact, some of the most memorable and historic pictures of all time have been taken by untrained hands. However, I think it’s a little ridiculous that websites are actually requesting that everyday people snap pictures of celebrities when sighted. What’s the point of hiring professional photographers and paparazzi if you have your actual readers doing the dirty work? Either way, the last thing America needs is another picture of this celebrity eating spaghetti sloppily or that celebrity picking up their dry cleaning.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I think the idea of “citizen paparazzi” has been around for a while now. Of course people are going to photograph celebrities if they see them. I would! Digital cameras are like cell phones now–everyone has them. And everyone has a right to take a picture. I think the difference now and what makes “citizen paparazzi” part of the mainstream media is the internet. We can all become mini-celebrities in our own worlds by putting our images online.
I’m wondering if regular people who send in pictures to news stations or to magazines would get paid for it like a normal photographer would. Maybe its a stupid question but regular people would probably get paid a lot less, if at all, because they would just be excited to get their picture out there right? In any case, that might be a reason people encourage citizens to send in pictures. That and you never know what talent people might have.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
For the amount of money these celebrities are being paid, they can stand to deal with people wanting to take their picture. In fact, that is what they are getting paid for to begin with – to entertain. It’s the life they chose and nobody is putting a gun to their heads making them act on screen and live a life in the lime light.
If Brad Pitt and Paris Hilton want to stop getting hounded by citizen journalists, then they should stop making movies, going to award shows, and spending their nights at ritzy clubs. In the end, it’s perfectly legal and isn’t going anywhere.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I don’t think this type of citizen photojournalism is a problem because I don’t see this as a form of actual journalism. People who casually run into a celebrity or take a picture from a distance as actually far less intrusive than the official paparazzi. This does have mirror the theme of the rise of citizen journalism in general. It is very positive that more people are allowed to participate and have an opinion but it is important for the news organizations that receive stories or pictures from ordinary people to make sure they are accurate and for consumers to know the difference.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Citizen paparazzi is inevitable with all the new technology at everyone’s finger tips. In journalism there is even something now called citizen journalism. Citizen journalism can be dangerous because the people acting in this are not trained in the journalism field. To some extent this is like citizen paparazzi because these citizens do not know the boundaries of that field. However, citizen paparazzi cannot be measured on the same level as citizen journalism because they are ‘reporting’ different things.
There is such an emphasis on celebrities and getting scandalous pictures of them to report as news. With citizen paparazzi this could increase the celebrity news found in the media. This could bury more important news at hand.
I also think that celebrities do deserve some privacy. At least before, celebrities could tell by looking at a person and know if they are paparazzi. Now anyone could be out there to get their picture from a 12-year-old child to an unsuspecting elderly man.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I have a very hard time sympathizing with people who have the sole job of stalking around Hollywood and torturing celebrities while they are trying to eat. Yeah, they are people too, they eat, sleep, sometimes they go to their mailbox in their sweatpants, I get it. I don’t care.
But people obviously do, so there are hundreds of paparazzi now feeling threatened by the fact that we (as amateurs) can undercut them. However, I say the same thing about this as I do about regular journalism: sure you can have amateurs send in tips and photos, but the truth of the matter is you want staff on call that can do a professional job, who can really handle the big stuff. As long as a paparazzi actually does a decent job photographing celebrities, they are still going to get paid. The well exposed, perfectly lit photograph is always going to be more valued than the blurry, pixelated crap a camera phone can produce.
http://cweeks.deviantart.com/
Check out this guy, he’s not going to be starving anytime soon.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Nowadays everybody has a cell phone or digital camera. Anyone walking the streets of a high profile city can snap quick shots of celebrities, shots that are eaten up by tabloids and online publications. I personally do not see a problem with this not so new phenomenon. In the end it is up to the station or website manager or whoever is in charge of the publication to decide which picture to run with. High quality pictures will most likely come from the professionals. If a tabloid is looking for high quality pictures they will seek out the paparazzi. Thus, I don’t feel their jobs are in danger. Celebrities are always under public scrutiny. Thats the price they must pay for making millions of dollars per movie. Privacy has always been an issue with celebrities and that will continue to be an issue regardless of who is snapping the pictures. In the world of youtube and other sites, normal citizens are having more of an influence on news and gossip.