paparazzi

PAPARAZZI

In the website (http://www.gawker.com/news/paparazzi/index.php) there were 4 sections that talked about paparazzi. One is “paparazzo and Moral Arbiter”. This is a section that records an interview with a paparazzo, Ron Galella. This guy thinks that he is right to shoot any celeb even though we think that their behavior is bad, but his arguments justify himself. Another is “Gossip Round: Mary-Kate Will Kick Your Ass”, which collects five gossip about famous people. The exaggeration seems to be a characteristic of the news. Although people considered whether the news was true, they still made an effort in believing in the rumors. Next one is “Have you No Sense of Decency, Paparazzi?” Here is a statement that paparazzi not only do something for their profit, and some paparazzi declared themselves to be the friendly paparazzi, because they allowed celebrities to retain some control over choosing the pictures that appear. The last section is “‘People’ Stalkerazzi Not as Smart as Your Average Stalkerazzi”. The article seems to emphasize roles of the action through the event that Jeffrey Weiss and Don Sider were arrested. In fact, paparazzi are in the supporting role and the editor is just the leading role in the whole action. And the behavior of the paparazzi should be considered a multiple foul.
In my opinion, the biggest dispute is about the behavior of the paparazzi. Surely, we know they did something that we feel is evil. But we also know this fact that everyone likes to see paparazzo’s achievement, just the celebrities’ pictures. Do we sense evil for our behavior that we like to obverse someone’s privacy? I believe that if everybody stops looking at these magazines which do invasion of someone’s privacy, then “paparazzi” will be a historical word. That’s because they will not be able to get any profit from their evil pictures.

Man-Jung