Celebrities are in the public eye and subject to
gossip. As a society, we enjoy
learning about this gossip, thus creating an industry for the paparazzi and
tabloid media. While celebrities
choose to put themselves in the public eye much more than the average person,
sometimes the actions of the paparazzi are overwhelming and may invade the
decreased amount of privacy a celebrity enjoys. As a result, anti-paparazzi statutes are being created to
offer celebrities more privacy and safety.
According to P. David Marshall’s “The Promotion and Presentation
of the Self,” celebrity gossip functions as an “explanation of personality that
went beyond [celebrities’] onscreen personae” because celebrities were
revealing part of their private lives “to heighten the connection to an
audience” (Marshall 428). In other
words, through celebrity gossip, celebrities became more relatable to the
general public. Also, celebrity
gossip produces social order “through its representations of the problems and
unhappiness of the rich and famous” (428) and can actually be considered “an
extension of the uses of gossip in a community as a form of social control”
(429). Do you feel celebrity
gossip makes celebrities more relatable?
Does society need this gossip?
Because of our societies interest in and dependence on
celebrity gossip, “celebrities are under constant and regular surveillance” and
thus their more mundane and personal activities are “the subject of a gaze”
(Marshall 430). The “gaze” that is
provided by the paparazzi and distributed to various tabloid media “makes
[celebrities’] often everyday activities a performance” (430).
The paparazzi have become extremely competitive and hence,
can be overly invasive in their competition for the best footage or photograph
of a celebrity. According Lauren
Effron’s “9 Memorable Celeb vs. Paparazzi Clashes,” we have witnessed nine
recent “memorable clashes” between the paparazzi and celebrities. Some incidents, such as the shaving of
Britney Spear’s head, are unavoidable by the paparazzi (Effron). However, there are incidents in which celebrities
truly felt that their right to privacy was invaded and even felt threatened by
the paparazzi. For incidence, when Kate Middleton’s topless pictures appeared
in a French magazine, the royal family referred to the incident as "reminiscent
of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi” since the death of Princess
Diana (Effron).
Furthermore, Justin Bieber made a 911 call for help and protection from
the paparazzi after engaging in a car chase with the paparazzi to try to escape
their intrusion (Effron). What is
your opinion of such incidents?
According to William J Seiter’s “A Celebrity’s Map to Right
of Privacy, Publicity, and Trademark in the United States,” California was the
first state to enact an anti-paparazzi statute in response to Princess Diana’s
death and celebrity anger “over the reckless and obnoxious tactics of
overaggressive photojournalists” (Seiter). The statue specifically exempted a publisher from being held
liable for “publishing an image it obtained from a paparazzi, as long as the
publisher did not direct the violation” (Seiter). However, the new anti-paparazzi law, signed by Arnold
Schwarzenegger and effective as of 2010 (Seiter), allows celebrities to “sue
tabloids, televisions, and other media outlets who pay for and use material
they know was improperly obtained in violation of a person’s right of privacy”
(Seiter).
Paul Raef, the paparazzo involved with Justin Bieber’s car
chase, was the first to be charged under the 2010 California anti-paparazzi
statue, according to Julie Hilden’s “Can California’s Anti-Paparazzi Statue
Survive a First Amendment Challenge?” (Hilden). The statute attempts to stop the paparazzi from dangerous
car chases in which they follow celebrities (Hilden). The statue makes it a misdemeanor for a paparazzo to
interfere with a drive, to follow a car too closely, and to drive recklessly “with
the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other
physical impression of another person for a commercial purpose….” (Hilden). If a paparazzo is found guilty of this
misdemeanor s/he can be sentenced to six months in jail and fined up to $2,500
(Hilden).
A trial court, asserting that the statute violated the first
Amendment, dismissed the charges against Raef. The California appellate court directed the trial judge to
reconsider his ruling; however, the trial judge stood by his ruling. The issue will now return to the
appellate court for a full appeal (Hilden). Do you think such anti-paparazzi statues are in accordance
with or in violation of the First Amendment?
Thus, our society’s need for celebrity gossip has allowed
the paparazzi and tabloid industries to flourish. Because paparazzi are always in competition for the best
footage or photographs of celebrities, their methods of collection can be
slightly over-invasive to celebrities’ rights to privacy. Some areas, such as California, are
attempting to offer celebrities more protection against paparazzi with
anti-paparazzi statues. However,
such statues are still in debate as to whether they are in accordance with or
in violation of the First Amendment.
Works Cited
Effron, Lauren. “9 Memorable Celeb vs. Paparazzi Clashes.” abcNEWS. ABC News Internet Ventures, 18
Sept. 2012. Web 30 Mar. 2013.
Hilden, Julie. “Can California’s Anti-Paparazzi Statue
Survive a First Amendment Challenge?” Verdict.
Justia, 4 Mar. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.
Marshall, David P. “The Promotion and Presentation of the
Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media.” Celebrity Studies. Routledge, Jan. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.
Seiter, William J. “A Celebrity’s Map to Rights of Privacy,
Publicity, and Trademark in the United States.” The IP Litigaor, 16.6 (Nov/Dec 2010): 14-22. ProQuest. 30 Mar. 2013.
I think you pose some interesting questions, Raquel. The first few questions you ask seem the most interesting to me and really made me think about the “purpose” of gossip. You cite that gossip can make celebrities “more relatable to the general public,” which in some instances I do agree; however, I believe that some instances of gossip are too invasive and are unnecessary. Additionally, the idea that celebrity gossip helps retain social order was certainly a new one to me. Although I see the point that social order is maintained when the general public has the ability to realize that the rich and famous have not-so-glamorous lives, the problems they deal with- that we gossip about- are very much different than the trials and tribulations of the average Joe.
ReplyDeleteIn P. David Marshall’s article, “The Promotion and Presentation of Self", Marshall, suggests that there are different forms and functions of gossip that consequently serve different purposes. According to DeBacker there are two functions of gossip that can be divided into two separate categories. “reputation gossip, where the status of a person is redrawn based on the information circulated in a community, and strategy learning gossip, where one learns social cues and preferred behavior through the information gleaned about others (2005, in de Backed et. al. 2007, p. 335).” (Marshall, 428) When taking into consideration these two different purposes of gossip, I find it disturbing that we as a society are taking social cues from tabloid articles and photos snapped by the paparazzi. This is not to say that there are no reasonable role models in Hollywood, instead I am suggesting that the scope in which we hear or spread gossip is generally in a negative light and it worries me that the consumers are unable to differentiate between useful and meaningless social clues. How are young/naïve media consumers expected to sort through the “cues” that are acceptable in general everyday life, and those that are bizarre to the average person?
Furthermore I am hesitant to applaud tabloids and paparazzi because celebrities ask for this in a sense. You mention Justin Beiber’s 911 call and talk about the numerous feuds between celebrities and the paparazzi but what is different between an “invasive” picture or tabloid headline and the 140 characters paired with an Instagram that celebrities post willingly? In my opinion if a celebrity is so concerned about people knowing about their private life – what they look like in a bathing suit, who they are dating, or that they are going through a tough break-up- then they shouldn’t post about their lives on Twitter. In the article, “Celebrity Practice on Twitter,” Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd suggest that there are different levels of “intimacy” associated with celebrity Twitter accounts but concede that some “chat about their daily lives.” (Marwick, Boyd, 147) My point is this, if celebrities are willing to share with millions of followers, why are paparazzi and tabloid writers being attacked for sharing essentially the same information with millions of different followers in a different arena? I obviously don’t agree that anyone should be put in danger for that million-dollar picture, but I do believe paparazzi have the right to take that picture.
Your post made me think a lot about the purpose of gossip and the issues facing our society in terms of what we allow to happen, but also what we need to happen in order to maintain the status quo. I believe the paparazzi are a valuable addition to our society, but I worry that consumers are unable to sort out the positive and negative social cues with such an influx of information on the magazine stands.
Works Cited:
Marshall, David P. “The Promotion and Presentation of the Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media.” Celebrity Studies. Routledge, Jan. 2010. Web. 3 April. 2013.
Marwick, Alice, Boyd, Danah. “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter,” Convergence 17.2 (2011): 139 – 158. Wed. 3 April. 2013
Brandon Schindler
ReplyDeleteRaquel,
I find this post to be very interesting. You make some very good points about paparazzi and celebrities. I want to start this post by answering the first question that you pose in your second paragraph. In response to the this question, I feel that the gossip could be a tossup between making the celebrities more relatable and less attractive to some. When looking at the article, “’ Spring Breakers’ and the art of image rehab” by Owen Gleiberman, it states “ But then, one day, when you’re finally out of your teens, it begins to dawn on you that that image may be a trap, that you may have Disneyfied yourself into irrelevance”(Gleiberman). This is a perfect example of a situation that I think could go either way. On one hand, there could be a group of people such as the younger generation that idolized or had a favorite character on a show. It’s like one day one generation is used to seeing a certain character, and then the next they aren’t there anymore. On the other hand, there is another generation that is a bit older, and is not used to seeing such characters. For the younger generation, I could envision there being more gossip about how the character is growing into something different than they are used to. To stick to the answer, I believe that this would make the celebrity less relatable. When looking at the older generation, I honestly think that the gossip would go the other way. This character is moving into something that an older generation might appreciate more. This time around, I would say the character is more relatable to the older generation.
Another thing that caught my eye in your post is the part and where you describe the incidents that involve celebrities. As I have come to understand it, having photographs from a paparazzi can be vital in a news story, or getting the picture out first. I feel that even though some of these points are very important, the paparazzi can still over step their boundaries. I think that such incidents as described in the post are completely uncalled for. Yes, I can understand the need to have a photograph that is grabbing and is up close and personal, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
In the final part of your blog you speak about the first amendment. To answer your question, I personally think that these anti- paparazzi statues are in violation of the First Amendment. When looking at P. David Marshall’s “The Promotion and Presentation of the Self,” it states that “For much of the twentieth century, celebrities served as beacons of the public world” (Marshall 427). To me, this statement seems to be very true, as far back as I can remember there were celebrities everywhere. With that being said, it puzzles me as to how there are restrictions being put on the paparazzi when celebrities were in the forefront of the public eye. Whenever a celebrity goes out into public they run the risk of being photographed or something of that nature. Besides breaking the laws that are already in place it seems crazy to put more restrictions on the paparazzi.
Works Cited
Marshall, David, P. “The Promotion and Presentation of Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media,” in The Media Studies Reader, Laurie Ouelette, ed. (New York: Routledge, 2012), 427 – 438.
Gleiberman, Owen, “Spring Breakers’ and the art of image rehab.” N.p., 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 2 April. 2013.