Misty

Unfortunately, I’ve had to do quite alot of research on tabloids for a term paper. It’s quite unbelievable what these “news” sites get away with! The people saying nothing is true in tabloids are correct when they say that nothing is true on ANY of them. The US laws protect their lies, and the tabloids are quite crafty in how they present those lies. Most of them are owned by the same corporations, and just recycle the articles between each other to save on salaries, etc. They choose the “celebrity of the day”, usually the one with the most avid fans, pay the paparazzi to spy on that particular celebrity (some have been caught altering, even creating pictures), and create words to fit the paparazzi picture. Then they pay a source to say a few words that the tabloid “journalist” tells them to say. Instant story. They have a picture, they have a “source”, they have the celebrity. AND they have the fans that are naive enough to be lured into clicking on the headline the tabloid so masterfully creates. The tabloids make their money through advertisers on their site that give the tabloid so much money per site “hit”. The average “hits” each average-sized tabloid gets is 169 million per month. Even if the amount per hit were under a dollar, that still equals quite a large amount of money, doesn’t it? The bigger-name tabloids gets even more “hits” per month. They aren’t required to name their “source”, they aren’t required to verify ANY of their information. Very few celebrities try to sue the tabloid because, quite frankly, it is very difficult to find a tabloid guilty of wrong-doing under the current laws of the United States. The US Supreme Court defines a public figure (which includes celebrities) as “not as other mortals”. Public figures must go way above and beyond what the average citizen must prove to determine liability. So, before you click on that luring headline, think about it. Your going to be reading false information about the star you’re a fan of, the celebrity you’re a fan of will be constantly lied about in that tabloid as long as they are bringing the tabloid money through clicks, and the paparazzi will NOT give that celebrity any peace as long as their picture will give them a paycheck. If you are a true fan of ANY celebrity, don’t read this trash. Don’t help to pay the paparazzi to harass them. Help them to have some peace. And thank you for helping with my research!

15 Responses to Misty

  1. Velma Jean Holmes. says:

    OK if they are not as other mortals what does that make them? gods? I don’t think so. If you cut them they bleed. If you torture them they cry. You know the highest court in the land is denying a whole segment of citizens their rights under the law including the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. OK they have LIFE but one that may be interupted at any minute once they step outside their house by whole flocks of ill mannered shouting people pushing to get their photo. That causes them to live in high walled gated communities. No walks or runs on the beach even if they own a strip of it. No courting the girl of your dreams without paparazzi tag alongs dying for them to go ahead and kiss the girl. No taking mom to the park without security to see that she and the lucky immortal don’t get mobbed. No going through an airport without the real chance of being chased even inundated with camera flashes. So no real LIBERTY. HAPPINESS?
    Once you take liberty and life as you’d like to live it away well then there is no happiness is there?
    Lucky, lucky immortal. There are days I’d say they wish someone would just knock them off their
    cloud and quite a few have jumped. This is the sorriest excuse for a law ever written and it was written to benefit someone. Hearst maybe. Now there was a guy who believed in immortals, from all that I have ever read or seen of him. he thought he was one. Alot of these laws concerning celebrities should be lining mice cages instead of being lived up to and enforced. I love the Constitution until recently I thought it wasthe most perfect document ever written outside the Bible.
    If we are not equal under the law then rights are being abused. It’s that simple. What’s wrong with you people? For some America isn’t the land of the free. It’s the land of the carefully seqestered.

    • Velma Jean Holmes. says:

      One other thing that I meant to include and forgot, But it brings it home, Princess Diana was not immortal. She was very mortal in her last hour. But because of the laws, attitudes, and lattitudes that those paparazzi enjoyed, they felt totally within their rights to chase her to her death.Can the wrongness of this US Suprene court ruling be made any plainer than it was in that instant?

    • Beautifully stated! Brava, Velma, Brava!

      • Velma Jean Holmes. says:

        Thank you ma’am. You know that phrase not as other mortals is the most vague piece of bull I’ve ever heard. They should have been made to define what they were in my opinion.
        It;s a tiny bit of law made to occomodate our present celebrity hungry society. I had always thought that laws were made to protect people and that they were timeless, applicable to any age. It leaves a whole strata of people with no redress for what they and anyone watching see as violations of their rights and freedoms. How does your friend Twilighter 57 stand working within such a system. Law shows are fun to watch on TV but
        I would think one would get ulcers from the real thing.

  2. Misty says:

    Thank you for that, Velma. That’s exactly why I try to use the “not as other mortals” quote in everything I write, as often as I possibly can. So many people don’t know about “public figures” not being “mortals” according to our courts point of view. If more people knew about that quote, and helped to get that changed, it would go a long way in ending the paparazzi fiasco. Even though the world was shocked by Princess Diana’s death, not enough has been done to stop the paparazzi. Maybe if more people knew about that one, single quote, they would help to change the law that protects these predators known as paparazzi.

  3. Velma Jean Holmes. says:

    Misty I think you have homed in on the root of the whole paparazzi problem. But it is almost impossible to get a law revoked once it has been passed. It would take our own Diana tragedy to even get a reputable lawyer to help try to change it. Plus he’d have to be a wizard to get it done.
    Most lawyers are as hidebound and stuck in rules of judgement as twelve priests from five religions and all arguing over what the face of God looks like. Regrettable but true.

  4. Misty says:

    Yes, unfortunately you’re right about changing laws. I’ve been in contact with a number of “responsible” journalists, not to get support for an amendment that is certainly needed to that law, but ANY advise on how to achieve The Plan’s goals, from a journalist’s point of view. I am not having much success. My understanding is that most “responsible” journalists are very reluctant to support ANY changes in their first amendment rights. After seeing the 20/20 episode from 9/7/2012, “The Camera Never Lies”, it became apparent WHY most of them are reluctant for a change. Are the “responsible” news media concerned that their own reporting tactics sometimes resemble the tabloid ways of doing business? Did anyone involved with that 20/20 show bother to check any of the “facts” they so eagerly reported? I don’t think they so, because some of the “facts” they’d been reporting as truth for months would have been exposed. How many other news programs, or newspaper articles aren’t verifying their sources, or checking their facts? It IS going to be a very steep uphill battle, but most things worthwhile never come easy, do they?

    • Christopher Dark says:

      Misty I would not go to other journalists with this problem unless they say they see it as a problem. I have great respect for a true journalist as opposed to a paparazzi. However as my granny would say, “Same cabinet. Higher shelf.” Please fporgive me for saying so but what benefits a paparazzi can in gentler more respectful hands also benefit a photo journalist or straight journalist. If you feel strongly that this is a law that needs changing
      don’t you think you might do better to step outside your chosen field and take it to a lawyer perhaps someone recently retired who specialized in Constitutional law. The study and upholding of the Constitution is how my friend describes it. They will at least know what you are talking about before you have to spend long minutes explaining it, I am sure many before you have found this discrepancy and never imagined doing anything about it. There is where you may be unique, and it does you credit, But as others have surely told you this will not be easily done. On the US Supreme court’s side. all of theose years ago how could they have envisioned a world where so much muti media power is essentially concentrated in so few hands. America despite the occassional war seems to have been asleep much of the last half of the past century. We have that Constittion and we all thought as long as it endures we’ll be fine, And we have been for the most part .A few things have slipped through the cracks in the floor. The trouble is that floor is made of
      titanium with a lock every few inches. It will take a wily and dedicated mind to get through that crack and not damage the essential beauty of the mosaic. But there is a talisman It is these words, “By the people and for the people.” And if that doesn’t include all Americans the whole thing is meaningless. And I assure you it is not meaningless. It is quite simply the best the world has to offer. And something to be proud of and careful with.

  5. Misty says:

    Thanks, Christopher Dark. I too have the utmost respect for true journalism AND the Constitution. I was merely trying to get some informed advise or opinions on how to tackle the tabloids lack of respect for journalism ethics. Why do most responsible journalists hold those ethics so dear, while the tabloid “journalists” seem to scoff at them. I just thought whom better to ask than a responsible journalist! All of the gentlemen I communicated with seemed as frustrated with tabloid journalism as I am, but are, and rightly so I feel, strongly protective of the first amendment. I was basically just looking for some knowledgeable information from some respectable journalists. They all were very reluctant to get involved with The Plan because it could come dangerously close to stepping on that first amendment. And I don’t blame them a bit! I’m not trying to change the Constitution, and I don’t think anyone else involved wants that either. However, I do feel that the Constitution should protect all the people, all the time. Unfortunately, some people, and not just the public figures, do fall through those cracks. I feel the Constitution is wonderful, and has done a marvelous job protecting our citizens since it’s inception. However, when the internet became a reality, how could any of our lawmakers realize how vast and far-reaching it would become? Did anyone realize what it would become? Your granny was absolutely correct (I called my grandmother granny too! Loved that!) about “Same cabinet, higher shelf.” How can the Constitution protect the true photojournalists while putting restrictions on the paparazzi without being unconstitutional? It can’t as it stands now. With the court dockets as jammed as they are, how can they keep up with these cyber world issues? It seems an impossible task. A very daunting one indeed. That’s where I feel we can all join together and try to get the courts and law enforcement to use the laws already on the books. Use our power in numbers to ask people with the power to help us; people like Oprah Winfrey, Katie Couric, or even Bill Gates. Why can’t the stalking laws be enforced against the paparazzi for following a celebrity 24 hours a day? Why can’t they be arrested for being on school grounds when they have no reason to be there? This issue is just so vast, I was just looking for help anywhere I could get it. I could go on forever about this, but poor Sue has to read the whole thing, so I’ll stop now! But no, I won’t be going to any more journalists for help on this issue, unless I read of one that wants change as well. Thanks for opening my eyes even more. Believe me, I’ve had many long conversations with a very knowledgeable attorney turned professor on these issues. He had retired from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, but became bored and decided to teach, luckily for some of us. Come to think of it, I just might run over and give him a visit! Dr. Holt might not thank you, but I do!

  6. Christopher Dark says:

    When you have a large and knotted up problem, start with the longest, easiest piece and work at it. That would be the children. You will find all people, even a few paparazzi sympathize with children being harrassed. They do take advantage of the existing rules to exploit the opportuity for photos but I think you’ll find them less resistant to change where children are concerned. The money is in the adults mostly and stalking a child is something even they can’t feel good about.
    As for how it should be taken care of: I would think that a well crafted set of federal rules needs to be applied; else we’ll have differing state laws and that could be chaotic.
    As for how these new laws should be enforced, I would think (and I am no lawyer) each
    school system should be in charge of policing their own school. That seems simplest and most workable. Surely logic dictates that we should keep it simple. Anyone caught on school grounds who isn’t dropping off or picking up a child should be considered a potential kidnapper or child molester, with police involvement a guarantee.
    After banning the person or to be more precise his camera on exact and binding grounds it would become a simple thing to ban the fiming of children without parental consent. All schools, even public schools should fall under the law and all people with cameras would be easily banned from school grounds. Send everything you have found on the internet (including petitioners to show how many people take this seriously) to one well connected person interested in this. Like Oprah. That way it stays a matter of PUBLIC interest and won’t be locked away for future debate while lobbyists scramble for new footholds in how not to let it happen. I’m no law student, but logic I’ve studied from day one and it’s made me cynical.
    People will get behind the rights of children more easily than adult film stars. Your law professor can tell you much better than I whether this is do able. One thing is in its favor: Once introduced the states will almost all ratify it. Can you imagine, if only say Arizona adopted this law? Every famous parent would want to live and educate their children there! The children should always come first, and in loosening that knot you may find a piece of the string to help ease things for the rest. And knot by knot you may be able to do some real good heiping to enact laws for this new internet computer age.
    We don’t live in the same information or technological environment as when those laws were originally adopted. That beloved document, our Constitution, cannot remain rigid or else it ends up a useless thing. But it does strive to be perfect, and that will be your greatest asset and help in fixing it, or I miss my guess. Have you considered that you waking up to this lack in our society is
    a step on the right path, We’ll get there evebtually. It may take patience, because as far as I can see everybody is busy playing in this new smart technological age and are not interested in change.
    Best wishes C.

    • Jean Worley says:

      I just finished watching all of those videos of the paparazzi following the stars. I was slightly disturbed at the youth of so many. And also that it was seen as an easy way to
      make money by many barely out of their teens. I don’t know why, but when I think the word paparazzi, I always visualized over weight , middle aged men.. with maybe a hint of onion or alcohol on their breath.
      But many young men are making a business out of stalking celebrities for their photos; even supporting their families this way. Somehow that makes it all the more heinous, that they have families and know how the parents that they stalk would feel. I find it all rather disturbing. Something has to be done. This problem won’t die out or fix itself.
      And I’m sorry, CD and VJ H can venerate that document all they like and I’ll have no quarrel with them. Because the founding Fathers did not put that piece of idiocy “not as other mortals” in there. It was done much more recently. Some of those men had a very colorful vocabulary. Had it been brought up in their time, the discussion may have gone something like this, ” It has taken us months to hammer out a set of laws to govern mortal men, and to live by and now you want us to include a different set for those among us who are “not as other mortals.” POPPYCOCK!! There will be no lords and ladies in America, and no immortals either.
      I like to think such words might have been said by Benjamin Franklyn, the man who graces our one hundred dollar bill, though he is no president or holder of any office higher than Ambassador to France. He would have been seconded and passed. Because at that time we were not in love with royalty of any kind. And especially not an
      actor’s claim to it. So how did these later Justices get such an idea into their head?
      Abuse of riches has always happened. Rich men have swayed courtrooms since there was a courtroom. And if they could not trust a jury to see past a pretty face or fame then the whole Justice System is rendered rather moot isn’t it. So what? We give them a harder time than they deserve because they didn’t break their backs earning their money? Neither did many an heiress and heir. Was this that era’s form of disapproval and discrimination? If so that is not the American way. Or it wasn’t until celebrities ( (famous actors lets face it ) became so numerous in American society in the 40’s and 50’s.
      This law needs revisiting. It is the Paparazzi’s key to a whole segment of largely unprotected Americans. And why? Because they’re rich. Because they’re famous. But mostly because they’re loved. And that is not a good enough reason in a world with a eight second attention span . And stars of music, film. and broadway are treated like flavors of the month. There Sue that’s my take on Misty’s “not as other mortals.”
      I hope that you like it or give others a chance to like it. It took me long enough to get
      right.

  7. Jean Worley says:

    Sure. By all means. Thank you for the invitation.

    • Nick Dial says:

      A lot of food for thought here. I knew the paparazzi were a problem for a lot of high profile stars. But I guess like most I had no idea of the true situation. How can this behavior be
      acceptable and protected under the Constitution? Looks like McCarthyism really amounted to a great commedy of errors. The Senator and his House on Unamerican Activities was busy policing Hollywood when he should have been policing Capitol Hill and what was going into our Constitution. Laugh out loud or weep buckets. We, the American people have been had. Probably on more occasions than this. One minefield at a time as my dad would say. But you know I’m eighteen years old and for the first time seriously ticked off about something besides my own self.

      • HANNAH says:

        I know what you mean Nick. I really resent that Rob and Kristen can’t even take a walk near their home without being careful at all times to not smile or hold hands or give those paparazzi pigs the perfect shot of the reunited couple. They and the tabloids will wait until hell freezes over before they get such a picture out of this couple again. Meanwhile we their fans have lost that spontaneous joy we use to see between them, and you know what it’s their fans fault. Well certain of their former fans. No not even that. A few screw ups and jealous jane’s have spent months saying what they pleased about them aided by
        pap pictures because we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. How can something meant to be a good thing be used to so invade people’s privacy? And keep an unrelenting smear campaign going against two people who won’t behave to their specifications namely that Rob won’t leave Kristen for some new girl. I never really got into being a fan before Twilight. I liked certain movies not certain movie stars. If fan culture holds more of this spite and bullying, I think I’ll give movies a pass and go back to being a bookworm. All of the story none of the of the ugliness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s