Message Boards

Topic : 03/11 Dr. Phil Now: Targeting the Paparazzi

Number of Replies: 171
New Messages This Week: 0
Last Reply On:
Created on : Friday, March 07, 2008, 11:30:06 am
Author : DrPhilBoard1
Dr. Phil takes on a hot topic that has people buzzing! They’ve been called wolves, snakes and vultures, and now Hollywood stars want them to back off. They’re the "stalkarazzi" who stop at nothing to get that million dollar photo. What should happen to photographers and videographers who chase celebrities through traffic, harass them and hunt them down like prey? Should they go to jail, or do celebrities give up their right to privacy when they become famous? Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine has created an anti-paparazzi proposal that would impose a personal safety bubble of several feet around public figures who are deemed to be paparazzi targets. Joining the discussion is Russell Turiak, a paparazzi for 30 years, Adrian Grenier, star of HBO’s show Entourage, Hollywood.TV owner Sheeraz Hasan, actress Illeana Douglas, and Brandy Navarre, Vice President of photo agency X17 Online. What do they think of the newly proposed Britney law? Plus, who does musician Gene Simmons say is to blame for the celebrity-obsessed paparazzi? Talk about the show here.

Find out what happened on the show.


As of January, 2009, this message board will become "Read Only" and will be closed to further posting. Please join the NEW Dr. Phil Community to continue your discussions, personalize your message board experience, start a blog and meet new friends.

March 10, 2008, 8:06 am CDT

Paparazzi Jail

I am tired of the  Paparazzi hounding celebrities. I believe they should be arrested with a long jail sentence.
 
March 10, 2008, 12:18 pm CDT

Craziness

Why do people feel they need to follow these stars around with cams in the first place? These stars are no different then anyone else they just happened to have a job that puts them out there more then most people. I live north of Nashville Tennessee I have seen some country singers out and about. I don't snap pics of them or bother them. I figure they want to be left alone when they are on their time.
 
March 10, 2008, 3:24 pm CDT

Appalled by Mr. Simmon's comments

First: nothing at all to say in support of paparazzi.  They are leeches who have clearly contributed to much unhappiness for people in the news, they have doubtless contributed to celebrity suicides and self-destruction, and they are now clearly endangering public and private safety by things like interfering with a celebrity's right to drive on the public roads.

However.

Mr. Simmon's threat that if a paparazzi came near his kids, he would "set your pets on fire," is atrocious, even if he never has the capacity to carry out the threat.  Mr. Simmons, do you honestly believe it's right or fair for  you to torture and kill a small helpless animal in retaliation for someone's approaching your children?  Do you believe that's a healthy response?  How about "I will set YOU on fire"... this at least puts the punishment where the blame lies.

You have sought and embraced your celebrity with gusto, so now you have a responsibility to not put ideas like this in the minds of your fans.  If you don't want those fans, drop out of the very public life you lead.  Otherwise, accept the responsibility that comes with your fame and fortune (let us not forget your fortune), and don't suggest to your fans that a reasonable response to a threat to your family is to find the threat's helpless and utterly innocent, completely dependent, pet and set it on fire.

I've watched you on the Celebrity Apprentice, and I've been entertained by your music; your bombast has been amusing until now.  Now you're just vile and offensive, and a very real threat to me and my pets - not because i'm a paparazzi (I'm not, I'm just a housewife), but because some moron fan of yours now has the idea in his head that it's "cool" to set animals on fire in retaliation for whatever offense I might give him.

Shame on you.
 
March 10, 2008, 3:44 pm CDT

This needs to stop

I think that the paparazzi are way out of hand. I believe that they really need to let the stars live their lives in peace. If the paparazzi want to snap pics of them that is what the red carpet and special events are for. Stars with children have the right to protect their kids, i read that Reese, Witherspoon had her kids at Disney World and the paparazzi where so bad that they ended upsetting the kids and they had to leave because the kids were to scared to go back to the park . I think that is ridiculous. If the Human Rights Activist would take the time to put the effort in to stuff that really matters rather than in criminals rights, than the paparazzi wouldn't get away with half the stuff they do. They wouldn't like it if we as a society started following them around and snapping pics of them all the time, so what makes it right for them to do it to stars. If you really stop to think about it, the stars are people who do the same everyday stuff that everyone else in this world does, except for one thing  makes them different from other people is most of them have money ,that is the only difference.
 
March 10, 2008, 3:52 pm CDT

03/11 Dr. Phil Now: Targeting the Paparazzi

Quote From: ariale

 it should be against the law to invade the privacy of any person like the tabs and press do, if you don't give prior knowledge consent to be followed or photoghraphed it is stalking, and criminal invasion of privacy, I don't know why people need to know what does not concern them but it has become downright shameful, if you want to pry into peoples private lives and know what is none of your business expect to pay stiff penalties.
your image is your property and no one has the right to it but you,
Well, yes, but not quite.  There's also the "in the public eye" clause, which says, if you're a public figure, anyone can take a photograph of you in a public place and use it for the purpose of "news."  Taking the video of Brad Pitt, son, and hot dog as an example:  if that took place in public, while you and I might not agree that it's news, it is a fact, it happened.  Because of that, and because our press is "free," they can publish that video without his permission.

(Although I do question whether the presence of a minor - his son - might not require meeting some higher legal threshold to publish the video.)

Our legislators historically have used their "inability to keep up with technology" to avoid giving these issues some serious attention.  We need to tell them, in our voting, either get educated on technology and revise these laws properly, or else get out of office.  Entrepreneurs can "keep up" pretty well, why cannot our lawmakers?

Meanwhile, yes, we apparently do need either *new* laws to deal with providing those in the public eye with additional legal standing to protect themselves, but we also clearly need the police to start enforcing the existing laws.  There cannot be any reason why, for example, those pappa. who swarmed around Brittany on the *highway* of all places cannot be charged with criminally endangering the public safety.  Free press doesn't get you a free pass to interfere with traffic on a public thoroughfare, or to create a public safety hazard like that.

Until the police get serious about enforcing public safety laws, and courts get serious about fining the offenders, or making them do real time for the privilege of that million dollar shot, nothing will improve.  Telling the stars to stay home puts the burden upon them.  Can you imagine the outcry if the police had in hand a clear and present threat to the safety of some star, like "i'm gonna rape you", from a known person, and they told the star the only they could do was tell her to stay at home?  That's the equivalent of telling Brittany the solution to all her paparazzi problems is to stay home.

Lastly... people... please... Stop buying the trash mags.  Stop providing the marketplace.  if a legitimate newspaper or news show publishes video or images of stars which doesn't really have any news value, then tell them of your disapproval.  Until the marketplace becomes too expensive to support (not enough sales, too many fines, too many lost viewers/readers), this will always be an issue.
 
March 10, 2008, 7:06 pm CDT

What ever

I don't care about celebrities personal lives, we all do crazy things like them.  When I read a magazine like people magazine, I want to read just that about people not celebreties.  If I want to read about celebrities I read celebrity magazine.  I remember reading personal quizes from everyday people.  Just lilke the Ophra magazine, 90% of her magazine is advertisements, I hate it.  I don't even read magazines anymore.  I used to subscribe to magazines, not anymore.  Now I get food magazines for my health. Cuz I need things that  are intresting.  LEAVE CELEBRITIES ALONE, WE DON'T CARE, YOU JUST CARE ABOUT THE MONEY YOU MAKE FOR THAT PICTURE.  GET A REAL JOB!
 
March 11, 2008, 6:33 am CDT

03/11 Dr. Phil Now: Targeting the Paparazzi

Quote From: rvv210

I don't care about celebrities personal lives, we all do crazy things like them.  When I read a magazine like people magazine, I want to read just that about people not celebreties.  If I want to read about celebrities I read celebrity magazine.  I remember reading personal quizes from everyday people.  Just lilke the Ophra magazine, 90% of her magazine is advertisements, I hate it.  I don't even read magazines anymore.  I used to subscribe to magazines, not anymore.  Now I get food magazines for my health. Cuz I need things that  are intresting.  LEAVE CELEBRITIES ALONE, WE DON'T CARE, YOU JUST CARE ABOUT THE MONEY YOU MAKE FOR THAT PICTURE.  GET A REAL JOB!
I think you're right  If they did away with the paparazzi, We might have better showsafter the news then E.  I have to channel search to find something worth watching at that time.  And another thing.   I don't know who that woman is complaining about them.  She looks old.  Must be a porn star.  She couldn't get enough publicity thru the paparazzi, so she decided to go on Dr Phil.
 
March 11, 2008, 6:51 am CDT

Press

When it comes to the tv broadcasts about the stars, the people do not have control of what is going to be shown as far as video on the tv.  If it is already on all the news stations we do not have a choice but to watch only this news that is being shown.  But as far as the tabloids picked up at the local store we do have a choice to not buy.  Just from the fact that the tv is flooded with this stuff shows that the press chooses what to show to us and that we do not really have a say when it comes to what is shown on tv.
 
March 11, 2008, 7:28 am CDT

The show was missing 2 people

I personally think the paparazzi is going way too far and assuming that the majority of us want to see the ridiculous shots at all cost!  I do not believe this is true.  I very rarely buy magazines but when I do it's for the stories that have been freely given by the stars.  I enjoy reading about the good things that are happening for them and seeing the shots they freely pose for.  I could care less about most of the shots taken at any given time or what the stars are doing in their personal time.  I think Dr. Phil had a good show but seeing as how his guest kept bringing the general public into the conversation and saying if we didn't want it then there wouldn't be a problem.... then there should have been at least 2 more people on the show.   Both from the general public.  One representing the view of those who do want to see those types of pics and stories and one representing my view, which is I could care less about most of the pics that are taken and think it's ridiculous for the paparazzi to blame us for this problem.    I am completely against the paparazzi invading the stars privacy.  With the technology in cameras they can keep a safe distance and still get good shots.  Although I still wouldn't buy the magazines for those shots either.  like I said, I only care for the true stories that have been freely given by the stars themselves.
 
March 11, 2008, 7:34 am CDT

I don't buy, but to stop buying won't fix it.

To say that "our dollars" are what cause these actions to continue is CRAZY.  If the purchase of this media slowed, the photographers would just try to get more outrageous shots.  It's a vicous circle that probably can't be stopped. 
 
First | Prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next | Last