Re: Paparazzi &Princess Di

[Harrison McClary <hmphoto@delphi.com>]

spaniel wrote:
> 
> >From the Los Angeles Times this morning:
> 
> "The paparazzi have been getting a hammering, which seems a mite
> unfair.
> War photographers get paid to go on snapping as people die and
> pictures
> of the semistarved in Ethiopia regularly win prizes without people
> angrily protesting that the emaciated child would probably have
> preferred a glass of water and a biscuit rather than a Leica shoved in
> its face...
> 
> In the end, Diana only truly seemed to come into her own when in the
> company of people in worse shape than she. Recently, as she bent down
> to
> embrace a little boy, oblong handbag elegantly raised to shield her
> cleavage from the photographers, it was obvious that she did not mind
> the paparazzi, in fact craved their constant attention, but on terms
> she
> hoped to be hers. That's how everyone in show business wants it.
> Paparazzi gave her comfort and meaning, as surely as did her
> encounters
> with the dying and the maimed."
> 
> Bravo!

I find several flaws with this reasoning.

1- War photographers by nature of what they are covering are going to shoot
photos of people dying ... That is, after all, what war is about.

2.  Starving people in famines and plagues need to be reported on so those of
us in better circumstances will know the events happening on the other side of
the world and can send assistance.  Look at the past famines in certain areas
of Africa, before the media jumped in and started reporting on the events
there was little being done to help, after their coverage people started
sending food and medical supplies.  

There is A LARGE difference in staging an event to create media interest,
I.E.: Princess Di with a starving child, and stalking a person to grab photos
of a "private" moment.  Having worked as a news photographer for a national
wire service I have been in the unfortunate circumstance of having to cover a
funeral of a national figure.  Even though there was "legitimate" news
interest here I personally found it reprehensible that I was there and turned
down assignments of a like nature after that.  I also have had the National
Enquirer, Globe, and other members of the Tabloid press in the States contact
me wanting me to hang out and shoot various stars after court trials, weddings
ect.  I have always turned these down, even though I needed money at the time,
because I find that type of photography unethical and immoral.

As I said before covering a news story or press event is worlds apart from
stalking someone just because of their celebrity just to shoot photos of them
in private moments.  For goodness sake give people a moment of rest.  How
would like to have someone parked at the end of your drive and have them
follow you every time you had to run to Kroger?

As far as the paparazzi being idiot photographers using auto everything
cameras, well I saw a news clip this morning of Princess Di and all of the
Paparazzi shooting her skiing with long glass and low and behold there was a
Leica APO Telyt-R Module.  It is not the camera that separates you from these
people it is the fact you have morals and ethics.  Something lacking in this
world these days and becoming less and less as time goes on.  IMHO 
- -- 
Harrison McClary
hmphoto@delphi.com
http://people.delphi.com/hmphoto