ChatterBank0 min ago
Invasion Of Prvacy - Or The Cost Of Fame?
28 Answers
Paul Weller wins damages in a court case against the Daily Mail website.
Personally, if 'public interest' was the yardstick by which the Mail's website was judged, then its endless shots of 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies' would be removed, and the entire site would collapse instantly.
So - is Mr Weller entitled to this level of privacy for his children, or, as the Mail contended, has he already placed his family in the public eye voluntarily?
What do you think? Media URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27049435
Description:
Personally, if 'public interest' was the yardstick by which the Mail's website was judged, then its endless shots of 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies' would be removed, and the entire site would collapse instantly.
So - is Mr Weller entitled to this level of privacy for his children, or, as the Mail contended, has he already placed his family in the public eye voluntarily?
What do you think? Media URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27049435
Description:
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'd agree youngmafbog.
Any celebrity who is 'on duty' can reasonably expect to be photographed, but walking down the street with your family does not constitute that circumstance in my view, and a partner and children who simply have to have a famous parent should not be photographed in this way.
I have banged on at great length many times about my utter incomprehension at the plethora of magazines who's entire raison d'etre is to write about untrue gossip and photograph famous people putting their dsustbins out - but the sales and number of such titles prove that the market for such material is massive.
I find the paper's defence is weak in the extreme - if Mrs Weller chooses to send pictrures of her children out, as their mother that is her choice, that does not equate with paparazzi leaping out at them as they go about their daily lives.
Any celebrity who is 'on duty' can reasonably expect to be photographed, but walking down the street with your family does not constitute that circumstance in my view, and a partner and children who simply have to have a famous parent should not be photographed in this way.
I have banged on at great length many times about my utter incomprehension at the plethora of magazines who's entire raison d'etre is to write about untrue gossip and photograph famous people putting their dsustbins out - but the sales and number of such titles prove that the market for such material is massive.
I find the paper's defence is weak in the extreme - if Mrs Weller chooses to send pictrures of her children out, as their mother that is her choice, that does not equate with paparazzi leaping out at them as they go about their daily lives.
Andy's Link :
http://
... and I agree entirely with what he has just posted.
http://
... and I agree entirely with what he has just posted.
The organisation who were ruled against commented:
"This judgment has wide-ranging and serious consequences not only for local, national and international digital journalism but for anyone posting pictures of children on social networks. We intend to appeal."
Which roughly translates as 'Crickey we stand to lose a shed load of money through outr parasitic activities. We (therefore) intend to appeal'
"This judgment has wide-ranging and serious consequences not only for local, national and international digital journalism but for anyone posting pictures of children on social networks. We intend to appeal."
Which roughly translates as 'Crickey we stand to lose a shed load of money through outr parasitic activities. We (therefore) intend to appeal'
Chilldoubt's video clip rather illustrates my point - what does a photo of Gwyneth Paltrow obviously grieving for her lost child benefit the world at large?
And apart from the fact that she is upset, what exactly is the picture supposed to convey?
As for the photographer repeatedly saying "Everything alright Gwyneth?" that must win an award for the most crass and insenstitive observation ever!
When it is clear that everything is anything but alright, which grieving mother needs a stranger poking a camera in her face and asking crass questions?
How have we created a society where there is a demand that creates this situation?
And apart from the fact that she is upset, what exactly is the picture supposed to convey?
As for the photographer repeatedly saying "Everything alright Gwyneth?" that must win an award for the most crass and insenstitive observation ever!
When it is clear that everything is anything but alright, which grieving mother needs a stranger poking a camera in her face and asking crass questions?
How have we created a society where there is a demand that creates this situation?
we haven't, its been there since time immemorial, fans, autograph hunters, celebrities being feted, star worship, being pursued, its nothing new, it may be unappetising, i agree its insensitive, but why should we the general public be blamed, after all do we buy papers just so we can read salacious stories, generally i would say no. The press are always hungry for stories, pictures of celebs doing wrong, snorting coke and falling out of cabs - that is their world - it isn't mine, nor do i suspect is it many -
why did the mail print 8 pages of photos of the Royal couple with baby George, if they hadn't would people not buy the paper, no, they still would, or look on line, as many seem to do these days. So they do so out of their own need to keep the Royals, the so called celebs in the public eye, does it matter at the end of the day, no it doesn't, because
a) we don't have to buy the papers, b) no one buys a paper just to gawp at the above mentioned.
why did the mail print 8 pages of photos of the Royal couple with baby George, if they hadn't would people not buy the paper, no, they still would, or look on line, as many seem to do these days. So they do so out of their own need to keep the Royals, the so called celebs in the public eye, does it matter at the end of the day, no it doesn't, because
a) we don't have to buy the papers, b) no one buys a paper just to gawp at the above mentioned.
emmie - " ... does it matter at the end of the day, no it doesn't ..."
I think it very much does matter.
In my post, I referred not to the national press, but specific magazines whose entire content is gossip and inappropriate photos - the sort that would buy the shots this paparazzo was taking.
Being a famous actress does not mean people get to poke camaras in your face when you leave hospital after losing your baby - it's simply not accetpable and we as a society are demeaned by it, and the demand for it.
I think it very much does matter.
In my post, I referred not to the national press, but specific magazines whose entire content is gossip and inappropriate photos - the sort that would buy the shots this paparazzo was taking.
Being a famous actress does not mean people get to poke camaras in your face when you leave hospital after losing your baby - it's simply not accetpable and we as a society are demeaned by it, and the demand for it.
Andy you really must stop trawling the Mail's web site simply to ogle the 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies' that you mention, but then being the most popular newspaper web site I suppose they have to cater for all tastes.
Do you know Andy that when I trawl their website for controversial news stories, I hardly notice those 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies'.
Could it be my age or the fact that I obviously have different tastes compared to you. :0)
Do you know Andy that when I trawl their website for controversial news stories, I hardly notice those 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies'.
Could it be my age or the fact that I obviously have different tastes compared to you. :0)
/// Weller recently announced a new greatest hits collection, More Modern Classics, featuring songs from the last 15 years of his solo career, including From The Floorboards Up, That Dangerous Age and new single Brand New
Toy. ///
What has that got to do with the story?
Couldn't be the BBC doing taking part in a little advertising could it? They will be screening commercials next.
Toy. ///
What has that got to do with the story?
Couldn't be the BBC doing taking part in a little advertising could it? They will be screening commercials next.
AOG - "Andy you really must stop trawling the Mail's web site simply to ogle the 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies' that you mention, but then being the most popular newspaper web site I suppose they have to cater for all tastes."
Trawl? I assure you AOG, i do not 'trawl' for their spurious photos, they are there all over the site, it's impossible to avoid them, although I only ever go on when i check links posted on here - often by your good self - other than that, I don't go near it.
"Do you know Andy that when I trawl their website for controversial news stories, I hardly notice those 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies'."
You either have seriously strong willpower, selective viewing, or some strong bromide in your tea!
"Could it be my age or the fact that I obviously have different tastes compared to you. :0)"
Possibly a mixture of the two - the jury is out on that one.
Have a great Easter weekend!
Trawl? I assure you AOG, i do not 'trawl' for their spurious photos, they are there all over the site, it's impossible to avoid them, although I only ever go on when i check links posted on here - often by your good self - other than that, I don't go near it.
"Do you know Andy that when I trawl their website for controversial news stories, I hardly notice those 'toned thighs' and 'bikini bodies'."
You either have seriously strong willpower, selective viewing, or some strong bromide in your tea!
"Could it be my age or the fact that I obviously have different tastes compared to you. :0)"
Possibly a mixture of the two - the jury is out on that one.
Have a great Easter weekend!
again, who is the we, British people, French, German, who exactly.
i don't buy these mags, papers, to gawp, no interest in the love lives of the famous, so do the papparazzi do it because its supply and demand, or do it and hope it sells. i already said its unappetising, not sure what else you think we should do, other than not buy them
i don't buy these mags, papers, to gawp, no interest in the love lives of the famous, so do the papparazzi do it because its supply and demand, or do it and hope it sells. i already said its unappetising, not sure what else you think we should do, other than not buy them
emmie - "...so do the papparazzi do it because its supply and demand, or do it and hope it sells."
It is supply and demand emmie.
As in the clip showing poor Gwyneth Paltrow cut to her very soul being 'papped' - there are several photographers there because the market, and the fees, are huge.
I just could not look at myself in the mirror in the morning if i did that for a living.
But, as I have said, the market is massive - millions of people read these magazines which is why there are so many of them - which again as i said, is a sad indictment on our society today.
It is supply and demand emmie.
As in the clip showing poor Gwyneth Paltrow cut to her very soul being 'papped' - there are several photographers there because the market, and the fees, are huge.
I just could not look at myself in the mirror in the morning if i did that for a living.
But, as I have said, the market is massive - millions of people read these magazines which is why there are so many of them - which again as i said, is a sad indictment on our society today.
Latest Posts
Definitely A Change In The Climate
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Food & Drink24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.