Paparazzi dies, everyone laughs

[GTC]

CBC News

Justin Bieber-chasing paparazzo killed by car
Man struck while trying to take photos of Canadian pop star's Ferrari in L.A.

In the world of paparazzi, one image of the rich or famous can be like winning the lottery, but the hunt for that shot can be dangerous — even deadly.

A photographer was struck by a car and killed on Tuesday as he darted across a street after snapping pictures of Justin Bieber's white Ferrari — and the teen heartthrob wasn't even in the car.

The incident again brought the dangers of paparazzi's often aggressive work into harsh focus, prompting some celebrities to renew their calls for tougher laws to rein in their pursuers.

However, at least one previous attempt has been stymied in the U.S. by First Amendment protections.

Authorities have withheld the name of the 29-year-old photographer killed on Tuesday pending notification of relatives.

In a statement, Bieber said his prayers were with the photographer's family.

"Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders, and the photographers themselves," Bieber said in the statement released by Island Def Jam Music Group.

Paparazzi accident 'bound to happen'

Much of Hollywood was abuzz about the death.

Miley Cyrus sent several tweets, saying paparazzi act like "fools," and the unfortunate accident was "bound to happen."

"Hope this paparazzi/JB accident brings on some changes in '13," Cyrus said on her Twitter page. "Paparazzi are dangerous! Wasn't Princess Di enough of a wake-up call?!"

Paparazzi roaming the streets of Southern California have been commonplace for more than a decade as the shutterbugs looked to land exclusive shots that can fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Industry veterans recalled incidents where paparazzi chasing celebrities have been injured, but they couldn't remember a photographer being killed while working.

"Here in the state of California, I'm surprised this hasn't happened before," said Giles Harrison, a celebrity photographer and owner of London Entertainment Group.

Harrison is familiar with the backlash against paparazzi. He and another photographer were convicted of misdemeanour false imprisonment and sentenced to jail for boxing in Arnold Schwarzenegger and his family as they sat in their Hummer in 1998.

Paparazzi law called overly broad

Citing that incident and the death of Princess Diana, the state legislature passed its first anti-paparazzi measure a year later. It created hefty civil penalties that could be paid to stars whose privacy was invaded.

Six months ago, a paparazzo was charged with reckless driving in a high-speed pursuit of Bieber and with violating a separate, 2010 state law that toughened punishment for those who drive dangerously in pursuit of photos for commercial gain.

However, a judge last month dismissed the paparazzi law charges, saying the law was overly broad.

The judge cited problems with the statute, saying it was aimed at newsgathering activities protected by the First Amendment, and lawmakers should have increased penalties for reckless driving rather than target those who photograph celebrities.

City prosecutors said they would appeal the judge's ruling.

The law was prompted by the experiences of Jennifer Aniston, who provided details to a lawmaker about being unable to drive away after she was surrounded by paparazzi on Pacific Coast Highway.

Driver unlikely to be charged

On Tuesday, a friend of Bieber's was behind the wheel of the Ferrari when a California Highway Patrol officer pulled it over for speeding along Interstate 405, authorities said.

"This photographer evidently had been following the white Ferrari," and when it was pulled over after sundown, he stopped, parked and crossed the street to snap photos, Los Angeles police Detective Charles Walton said.

The photographer stood on a low freeway railing to shoot photographs of the traffic stop over a chain-link fence, authorities said.

"The CHP officer told him numerous times that it wasn't safe for him to be there and to return to his vehicle," Walton said.

There were no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings along the street where the photographer had parked, so the driver of the car that struck him had no reason to expect a pedestrian, Walton said of the accident.

69-year-old driver

"It would have been very difficult for her to see him," the detective said.

It wasn't immediately clear how fast the motorist, a 69-year-old woman, was travelling, but she was not believed to be at fault and was unlikely to be cited, police said.

Harrison said he routinely tells his photographers to be safe when they are working.

"In any job, you have to exercise a degree of common sense and caution," he said.

Harrison hopes celebrities and paparazzi examine their actions to ensure a similar event doesn't happen again. No photo is worth someone's life, he said.

"Everybody wants to be the first one to get that shot, get that scoop," Harrison said. "But at the end of the day, you can't spend money if you are dead."

The only thing better would have been if a few lawyers were somehow run down as well.

 

[kaonashi.shinu]

As an addition to the original article:

Paparazzo killed while taking photos of Bieber's car

A paparazzi photographer has been killed in Los Angeles on New Year's Day while attempting to take pictures of a Ferrari belonging to Justin Bieber.

The unidentified photographer was fatally struck when he stepped out of his own car to take pictures of Bieber's vehicle. He was struck by a passing vehicle on Sepulveda Boulevard, near The Getty Centre.

LA police officer James Stoughton told media the photographer died at a hospital shortly after the crash. He also said no charges would be filed against the motorist who hit the man.

According to online reports, the singer's white Ferrari had been stopped by police on Tuesday evening during a routine traffic stop. Bieber was not in the car at the time of the accident and his reps have not yet made a statement.

According to TMZ website the teen idol had loaned the car to two friends - who were pulled over by a California Highway Patrol officer for speeding.

The snapper was said to be following the Ferrari prior to it being pulled over by police. He crossed the freeway to get pictures of the traffic stop and was hit while he attempted to cross back to his own car.

In the last year, Bieber has been chased on several occasions by photographers - sparking an anti-paparazzi debate in the US.

"It's a dangerous situation," one local paparazzo in Sydney told Fairfax Media. "It's a risky profession and, I'm very sad to say it, but it's easy to see how it happened."

Beiber has since released a statement relayed to several US showbiz websites, calling for tougher paparazzi laws.

"While I was not present nor directly involved with this tragic accident, my thoughts and prayers are with the family of the victim," said Bieber.

"Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders, and the photographers themselves," he added.

Los Angeles photographer Thibault Mauvilain told reporters at the scene that the fatality was a friend named Chris who was a photographer but "not a paparazzo - he was just another kid from New Mexico".

Why, as a well-known celebrity chased by paparazzi, would you loan your car to two "friends"? I don't care what sexual favours you've performed or received.

I love how the other photogs are downplaying it that this was not a paparazzo that died, but "just another kid," - trying to save their asses from impending legislation. Although if you become a celebrity and make your money off being a public image, I don't see why there should be legislative "protection" for images that, in a sense, are helping you in the publicity department. The writhing mass of people that follow celebrities needs to be fed - look how many celebs sell their first baby photos for millions to different publications.

I'm sure we'll be hearing about this shit for at least the next couple of weeks.

 

[Conchaga]

There's NO WAY Bieber was that articulate in coming up with those press statements. The kid is a complete fucking moron.

 

[kaonashi.shinu]

Anytime a celebrity makes a "statement," I read it as "here's what my PR people told me to say/write."

:deal:

 

[eloisel]

The issue isn't so much that celebrities are being photographed for the personal gain of a third party but that the third parties go to such extremes to get those photographs. These photographers invade privacy and put people in danger.

I wonder if these photographers who invade the privacy of celebrities would like it if they were to have to divulge all their personal information and have every moment of their existence be displayed for the pleasure of anyone - and without payment for it.

Paying for a person's work is not the same as being granted carte blanche to harass them.

 

[kaonashi.shinu]

There are those few celebrities that know how to toy with the system. For example, Daniel Radcliffe left a movie set wearing the exact same outfit so that any pictures taken after the initial outing would be worthless - they all looked the same. Other celebs do the same thing.

I understand how invasive these photogs can be. There has to be a happy medium where they get the photos they need (as their job description implies) while not risking the lives of the celebrities (and public) that pay their wage (ie preventing incidents such as Princess Diana).

To me, most celebrities rely on fame in order to land new roles, and then there are those (such as the Kardashians) that are only famous due to the paparazzi. On the one hand I can see how the paparazzi are necessary, but on the other there is the ethics of how far do you go? How much privacy must be destroyed?

So far as "they wouldn't like it if the tables were turned" : you really can't take that stance. I know full well what I'm getting into when I am employed with a certain company or individual. As a movie star, singer, or whatever else you are trying to excel at - ergo, a celebrity - you are taking on the loss of the majority of your privacy. High income, proper management and self-awareness allows you to save your most intimate secrets and family moments, but it is something that you must carry with you. As a celebrity photographer, it is your job to take photos, not worry over the moral dilemmas. You wouldn't last long at your work if you did.

It's almost as if they're a necessary evil in our current culture. I doubt legislation will stand in their way, as the fee for one picture could probably easily pay off any fines or legal fees.

 

[eloisel]

Agreed to a point. However, a celebrity is like a packaged product. What I'm interested in is how they are presented to me. I've got enough real life warts and all people in my life. I don't want to know which side of the bed Antonio gets out of. That's Melanie's problem. I want the shallow version of him - like, can he still be smouldering sexy gorgeous looking for us old gals. These celebrities can also appear on talk shows and give interviews to give their fans a little more personal insight.

The problem goes deeper than the photographers. People who would scream bloody murder about that level of invasion into their own lives support that level of intrusion on a celebrity. The general public has to want to stop supporting intrusive acts. Legislation will only make it more lucrative for the photographers respective to supply and demand.

 

[kaonashi.shinu]

This fight against tabloids has been going on since the 1930's, where tabloids were condemned by one analyst as something that only the most degraded and low-minded people could create. Agencies were encouraged to punish their reporters if invasion of privacy occurred or decency standards fell too low.

Seventy-five years later and we still have the same problem. I do not agree with tabloid magazines, and do not read them myself. However crazy it may seem, they do serve a purpose.

Every journalist is called upon to take risks in the pursuit of truth, within agreed-upon limits. It is true that, to a remarkable degree, even the most egregious news outlets adhere to those limits. The tabloids may be sneakier and more persistent than more respected news sources, but this is a matter of degree, not kind.

The tabloids may test the limits of the ethically or legally acceptable, but they are often doing so in the service of a popular desire to see behind the facade of public life. They rely on the appeal (a very human one) of seeing elements of our societies that are often shamefully hidden away from view. Look how many people log on to websites with webcams in order to see into strangers private lives. I know most are sexually based, but there is also that essence of voyeurism.

Within limits, digging into private lives and exposing unsettling information is, and will most likely remain, a basic feature of popular culture in the West. The work of the tabloids can be irritating, provocative, ethically questionable and even highly illegal, but when practiced according to existing laws, tabloid journalism can be an important player in modern culture, helping to mitigate some of the central tensions in democratic society. Journalism has always been marked by a battle to define the boundaries of acceptable investigative behavior. The tabloids constantly test those boundaries.

As a consumer it is our choice whether to fall into the maw that is the tabloids. As yourself, I prefer the pretty package of celebrity - proper photo shoots, not wrinkly clothes running around with a coffee. Thank goodness it is so easy nowadays to access that.

So far as the human nature to see behind the glossy facade, I don't think that will ever change. Even if, legally, it is managed to eliminate these intrusive acts in the center stage of journalism, there will always be the "back-door" tabloids. Much the same as child pornography and strange fetishes hiding in dark corners of the internet - you can make something illegal all you want - no matter how morally wrong it is it will still continue to a degree.

 

[eloisel]

Societal mores can change. They do all the time.