A letter from Jason to the Babelonians.
The Babeled On series monthly topic of reaction is: The Paparazzi. The paparazzi are a source of great angst for me on several levels. However, before I could truly form an opinion of these slippery digital snakes, I wanted to consult the council of Babel.
The topic was distributed via e-mail and all responses were seen only by myself until now, thus keeping pristine the individual sanity or lack of within each Babeler. Much is beholden by these responses. Excellent work, gentlemen. Well-answered.
Greg Rineberg
Ah…the Paparazzi. Well I think they suck. They are not interested in providing quality news or media coverage. They are only interested in shamelessly “gunning down” celebrities to the extent that the celebrities act defensively and put themselves in increasing danger, as well as cast themselves in a dark light. The Paparazzi have a horrible track record of going too far. Anyone that likes what the Paparazzi actually does is not interested in the quality news, but they are probably your typical reality TV Jerry Springer junkie that is interested in sheer entertainment. All you Paparazzi lovers out there should be ashamed.
Andrew Blanco
Gossip has existed as long as humans have existed. The Paparazzi are the Gossip Institution – the inevitable consequence of a gossiping species discovering technology that allows them to communicate information instantaneously. The Paparazzi are also uniquely American, in that they can only exist where Free Speech is the law.
Most importantly the Paparazzi exist because we buy what they produce. And we buy what they produce because all humans are voyeurs at heart – to a greater or lesser extent.
Jack Gamble
I think the Paparazzi are the pillars of our community. They are really the unsung heroes of society.
While others might waste their time and talents curing disease, growing food, developing technology, or educating youth our saviors, the Paparazzi, toil day and night to bring us that which matters most: Britney’s lack of modesty, Lindsay’s lack of sobriety, and Paris’ lack of…lack of…well Paris just plain sucks and Paparazzi deem it newsworthy.
One day, these buzzard photographers will be internationally recognized as true public servants and will join the ranks of ambulance-chasing lawyers, golden-parachuted CEOs, and smut peddlers in the halls of philanthropic benevolence.
Greg Molyneux
When confronted by the unfortunate existence of a nefarious paparazzo, one must prudently select an appropriate response from the sanctioned guidelines below:
- Cut and run. Scream with such a fervor that all your ancestry simultaneously gives you the finger from the grave; eliminating any doubt of you being the bastard we’ve all come to despise.
- Remember flamethrowers always work best.
- Curse the mouth-breathing mingers who purchase tabloid magazines by the millions so they can mop up the drool that seeps from their chapped lips whilst their eyes glaze over watching American Idol.
- Take full advantage of your size 13 shoe – thanks steel toe!
- While staring down the barrel of a telephoto lens, spread your legs in such a way that your pantyless nether region is exposed therefore allowing guerrilla photographers to procreate and finance a fleet of Star Destroyers thanks to the millions your celebrity smile will haul in.
Don’t forget the Paparazzi are everywhere and always wear your seat belt.
Jeff Ruemeli
Where should one start his meditative road on the matter of the Paparazzi? My mantra?… Hmm… That is going to have to capture myself capturing myself doing whatever it is that i do… Capture… Capture… Capture…
I see them… The one-eyed yokels… They amass outside my room. They are watching me. I hide amongst the curtains that shroud the window to the world. These veils of secrecy protect me not from the eye of the Paparazzi but rather from the eyes of those who wish to know me. The Paparazzi are only a means to an end… They are the cable that connects my TV to the wall, to the world . The wall is grounded. The TV is not. I see myself… I’m watching my TV as my TV watches me. It wonders what I like, who I am. It asks me to pull back the curtains. It tells me I can look onto The Paparazzi without fear. They are here to help me. I think to myself… What is my motive for watching / listening to TV?… What is my TV’s motives for watching / listening to me?… It only wants to provide for me what I want. It only wants to provide something entertaining, Something to capture my attention.
Capture… Capture… Capture….
Whoa… Wait… what did I just say?
What i meant to say is… The Paparazzi suck. All these “famous” people use The Paparazzi to get themselves into your head all the time. That’s what sells and we’re buying. If there wasn’t money in it no one would do it. Except for Stacy… The psycho hose beast…
Next Month…
Tag, you’re it, Andrew.
15 Comments
lol…hose beast…
Rinestone, isn’t this logic, “…junkie that is interested in sheer entertainment.” the exact reason you give when it comes to bad movies? Also, I don’t think any paparazzo has the intention of providing quality news or journalism.
And Jeff, was this excerpt taken from Chapter 3 of I Wanna Be A Ruemelifier: The Jeff Ruemeli Story?
You know, as much as I’d like to take a shot at the paparazzi (OK OK, here it is … “How about you guys do something … else. Anything will do. Really.”) — their industry is fueled by US, the average Joe/Jane 6-pack.
I mean, let’s face it — it’s much easier to talk about topics like Bradjolina than it is to talk about the implications of water being found on Mars. AJ/J6P doesn’t fully grasp the implications of what water on Mars means, but sure as hell knows what he/she would have done in Jennifer Aniston’s spot during the whole Bradjolina shenanigans.
So you can’t blame the paparazzi entirely … if it wasn’t for yahoos buying/reading/subscribing to their shlop, these guys wouldn’t be in existence. The public is as much to blame (if not more so) for eating up their pictures and stories (or even demanding to know more) as they are for producing them.
First none of us are celebrities(at least I don’t think so), so none of us have any idea what it is like to be constantly harassed by a mob let alone chased by a group of people trying to expose you in any way that can make money.
I tend to agree that society(more specifically the US) is definitely to blame, the paparazzi have knowingly put celebrities in harms way just trying to get that “special” photo, such as chasing down Princess Di or chase down Julia Roberts. Anyone that is willing to do that is simply not a good person, at least in my book. The same type of person that appreciates this senseless form of newscast is most likely the same person that either tramples another human to the ground or simply watches and does nothing about it.
However, I kinda feel that blaming society is a cop out because it’s the easy way to blame something that not any one of us could actually improve. It’s easy to point the finger at society but nothing will ever get better about it. Like I blame society for horrible television programming reality TV, Springer, tabloids, etc…..but when will it ever stop? If corrective measures aren’t taken I imagine society’s lack of intelligence and moral virtue will resemble something close to the movie “Idiocracy”.
Molyneux – I don’t know about you but when I watch a movie, I am doing it for sheer entertainment. I am not doing it to learn something, critique the special effects, or pass judgment on it. I found out when I was a yout that movies are fake and they should not be taken seriously. However the paparazzi are real and for one to be entertained by their senseless form of journalism…..well they are most likely the same people that would watch a man die in an electric chair on television.
I know exactly what you are saying, but in doing so you are placing yourself in the group that you are railing against. As you said in your response, “Anyone that likes what the Paparazzi actually does is not interested in the quality news, but they are probably your typical reality TV Jerry Springer junkie that is interested in sheer entertainment.”
Also, I don’t think the Paparazzi view themselves or even claim to be journalists. They are just trying to capture (to borrow Jeff’s words) the million dollar photograph.
I completely believe there should be laws on the books to limit the paparazzi.
The basis of these laws should be that no photographer can make money by selling a photograph of another person…unless there has been a prearranged photo-shoot organized with the consent of the photographed.
That’s what France & Germany do.
If blaming society feels like a cop out, maybe it’s better to say something along the lines of “the values that we are embracing seem to focus on the superficial more now than ever.” I mean, look at toys anymore — we went from Barbie (as shallow as she was — she at least owned her own McDonald’s) to things like Bratz, which are all about being glamorous for the sake of being glamorous. With the constant focus on fluff (and kids being raised to value it), it’s really no wonder that the paparazzi goes to further and further extremes to go after that “entertainment” dollar — I bet there’s more of a market for it now than ever.
I don’t know — maybe I’m way off track with that thought process, but I swear the two go hand-in-hand — even if my logic is jumping all over the place today. LOL.
Three, you are right on the money, and blaming society is not a cop out. This is a simple cause and effect relationship and the paparazzi is the direct result of our societal needs. For better or for worse they are delivering a product that people want. Naturally, it is disgusting, but it is the unfortunate truth. This is why reality TV and tabloid magazines will never go away. Aside from the fact that both are tremendous tools for keeping the mob pacified.
Three, I’m gonna have to disagree with you.
People are just as superficial now as they were 8,000 years ago. The only difference is you have way more opportunities to come in contact with superficial people acting superficially (in person, on Tv, over the internet) than at any other time in history.
Oh yeah, Andrew? I suppose you were there at the dawn of agriculture and can speak an informed opinion on likes and trends of the late neolithic? Bravo on your bravado.
Of course he was there, designing for the stars of the ancient world. Have you not heard of A. Blanco Haberdashery, established 8,500 BC?
3,467 BC was one of the best years of my life. Not only did I finally start seeing some profits from my long-running haberdashery, but I also invented the wheel. Yeah, those were the days…
I am disappointed a copy of my book “I Wanna Be A Ruemelifier: The Jeff Ruemeli Story” was leaked eary. It was not yet slated for release. I am also disappointed to find out that I had wrote a book without any knowledge of myself doing so…
Did you know that the term Paparazzi wasn’t used in the U.S. until the early 1960’s when an Italian movie director Fellini made a film called “La Dolce Vita” where there was an annoying photographer in the movie named Paparazzo. Apparently he was called Paparazzo because he was annoying and pesty, much like a mosquito (which is the Sicilian word for an oversized mosquito). Once the movie was released in the 60’s, the term became ingrained in the fabric of lives, with Jacqueline Onassis being their target for years.