M63

Paparazzi!

September 29 2012

Last week the news was all about pics of Princess Kate topless. All out of focus and no way of assertaining that it's her without being told. Now there emerges photos of her removing her bikini bottom. She was wrapped in a towel and partially obscurred by bushes but some perve, with a tele-photo lense, managed to get these shots and sell them to the rags. Now in the old days, the press respected celebrities' privacy. Bogey and Bacall used to have extremely violent arguements. Punching, kicking objects thrown and blood drawn but the public was blissfully unaware of any of this. I should also say that they were very much in love and devoted to each other right up to Bogey's death. Theirs was a volitale relationship. John Wayne argued with Frank Sinatra in a hotel. When Sinatra's body guard stepped in, the Duke knocked him out. All of Hollywood knew that Rock Hudson was gay but the public didn't know until he announced that he was dying of AIDS. It never made it into the papers that Elvis was having affairs with his co-stars or that Priscilla left him for her Karate instructor. All these details came out many years later and after the demise of many of the subjects. The Paparazzi are definitely vile parasites but are they to blame? Is it their fault for being sly enough to get these shots, the magazines' fault for buying them or the buying public's fault for soaking it all up? When and why did it all change?

Comments

RHP User

13 years ago

There has been a decline in moral and ethical values in regards to the paparazzi, it is a cut throat business now and they will stoop to anything to get the dirt, even if it is fabricated, with no consideration to the person involved, if it is not true and the loved ones suffer they don't give a continental, ie. Princess Diana - the vultures pestered the living daylights out of her and possibly caused her death in their pursuit of the Big Picture. There should be a line drawn but unfortunately some don't give a rats, but turn the tides and everyone take pics of these people including personal and private photos even in the nude or their private life of rendezvous then maybe things will change.

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

Rupert Murdoch.....an incredibly immoral humanbeing

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

Its like everything in the world today. Dollar driven, with the technology to achieve.Cheers Felonious

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

Kate Middleton -> Naked Tit Model

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

When we wouldn’t be so voyeuristic and schadenfroh (malicious) as a society, these photos couldn’t be worth anything. But we as a society are driven so much by seeing someone fail, it sells. It makes us and our so called insignificant lives more justified. However don’t forget too, without this shit silly stories some of the Star’s wouldn’t make as much money either. I mean really who is faced to see Kate’s breast or her naked???? Its just someone naked, that’s all.

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

and the winner is...........I am a better host in many other ways

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

Quoting 'Litonya' When we wouldn’t be so voyeuristic and schadenfroh (malicious) as a society, these photos couldn’t be worth anything. But we as a society are driven so much by seeing someone fail, it sells. It makes us and our so called insignificant lives more justified. However don’t forget too, without this shit silly stories some of the Star’s wouldn’t make as much money either. I mean really who is faced to see Kate’s breast or her naked???? Its just someone naked, that’s all. Supply and demand. Whatever sells the product gets published, if people would get their own lives instead of feeding like leeches on gossip about strangers, supply would decline.

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

While I find the whole paparazzi thing distasteful in the extreme it must be remembered that the pics in question were taken legally. If you know you are in the public eye then don't do anything out in the open or near an uncurtained window because there will be some douchebag with a camera pointed straight at you. People used to enjoy heartwarming, happy stories in their magazines. Now it's all about who's put on weight, who's lost it and who is shagging who. I only read that crap at the hairdressers and the stories are the same only the names change. Why do we as intelligent, people want to pay money to read that nonsense? It only encourages them to publish more of the same rubbish.

reply

like
RHP User

13 years ago

Yes you can argue privacy...and lets face it the photo journalist took the pics at almost 2 kms away and one would assume that she would be safe to do what she wished......, but there was nothing illegal in what he did...... sorry but when you sign on the dotted line for instant fame, (and in this case she had a choice) nowadays that means..zero privacy...especially in this age of social networking. It sucks...but it is what it is...I would have a thought that Kate would have learnt from her predecessors (The Duchess of Wessex and York who also had pics taken in what they believed was when they were in total privacy), but as she is now royalty..she can no longer do the normal things that she used to do ...is it fair ? , no, but suck it up Princess, life is not fair...dont want to be exposed, then dont do it..EVER Im just pleased that several fish and chip wrapper magazines in Australia declined to publish the pics when they were offered to them, however bet they wishing that they didn't......because yes people would have bought the publication if they did....we are voyeuristic by nature...and Im sure the sales would have been sky high I am a consumer of magazines...a bit of lite reading on the train.....however my preference is Vanity Fair, Time, Scoop and Hello (about as gossipy as I get) and yes I do enjoy reading some celebrity goss and looking at their beautiful gowns and gorgeous homes, the difference with these mags is that the celebrity in question has granted the interview and approves the pics printed....(and are often paid for the priviledge- so does the celebrity contribute as well ?...methinks so) Am I at fault ?......Am I contributing to the supply and demand ??.....perhaps I am ...I do like to view how the other half live for a few minutes each day.....takes me from my dreary existence to their glamorous one........but I have never bought what I consider a "trashy" magazine in my life....I actually like to read the articles in my choice of reading.... But trust me..naked grainy pics of some tits and pussy of a chick that in my opinion needs a bloody decent feed.........will never intrigue me .....but as for perving at some of the delicious pics on profiles here.........yum yum

reply

like
DonnaBrett

13 years ago

Whether what the paps do is morally right or wrong makes no difference today. This has been going on for many many years now. Everyone knows how it works. So at the end of the day if you don't want to be the focus of peering eyes & hidden lenses don't choose a life in the public eye. Don't marry royalty, don't becomne an actor, singer or politician etc. because if you gain any success you will be watched. To quote Paul Stanley of KISS... " If you're lucky enough to get what you want, shut up! It's like winning the lottery but complaining about paying the taxes"Also remember...it's the average person on the street who buy the magazines & papers because of these stories that are the ones in reality who are paying the paps! It just comes down to good old supply & demand!

reply

like
Cheekyarses

13 years ago

Who cares if Kate was topless or nude!! She is a person like the rest of us.... So what she likes to get nude too! Good on her..... The same with Prince Henry - good on him for having a good time! If everything that is going on in the world and the only thing they can come up with is Kate Middleton topless - what sad lives they lead!!!

reply

like

Paparazzi!

Comments

Tags

Boards

Forum help