Senior citizen Rock Stars try to get their way again

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lex and Steve,</p>

<p>Take it to the OT forum, from which I have banned myself as a New Year's resolution, so I don't have to read it anymore. It's been so peaceful! [This request is not legally binding.]</p>

<p>Fred</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Fred -- My apologies. Seriously. I weakly gave in to a sarcastic impulse. As a matter of respect for you and others, I consider your request to be quite binding and will abide by it. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>To earn the respect and approval of the civilized countries of Europe and the United Nations, we need to take serious action to stop illegal candid photography. We must stop the spread of the sick photo-culture that makes us appear so barbaric to the rest of the world."</em><br>

Actually the average person won't probably be subject to this type of barbaric behavior. The rich and renowned do have something to wory about though. However, usaully the media picks a designated Bread-and-Butter person to ply their trade. Preferably this person must be controversial enough to raise eyebrows but famous enough to draw curiosity therefor profits and ratings. </p>

<p>At first this game can seem harmless after all the famous individual is getting free publicity but this can quickly deteriorate into Hell-like torment for the victim(s) involved where finding fault, humiliation, and petty cruelty are the name of the game. Usually past and current achievments by the victim are completely ignored with a concentration more on sensationalism, petty childish conficts, and a complete lack of privacy for the victim(s).</p>

<p>As the stalking progresses, base human emotions of jealousy, vindictiveness, competition and even black mail are included due to the anonymous nature of the stalking and the "cant touch me" attidue of the stalkers. </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Paparazzi photography is a business enterprise. There's a product, a customer, a price and a profit before there is any other consideration. The market makers or enablers of this business are the world's billionaire media moguls. With all the recent consolidation, there's only a few of them. So, it's not unreasonable to suggest that those half dozen men could end the practice in an instant by simply not buying. </p>

<p>If there's one thing sacred in the modern world it is business, or free enterprise. In public chatter about paparazzi, it's often discussed with the photographer at the center of the discussion, as some kind of scum bag, or morally deficient person. But there are only a cog in a wheel being driven by the establishment billionaires. No paycheck, no Brittany crotch shots. The "product preferences" then are not being driven by the morally deficient photographers, they are driven by the morally deficient billionaire publishers. At least that part is clear. </p>

<p>Large business corporations have no means of understanding what anyone thinks their rights might be. How is privacy more of a priority than say, health? If the fast food industry can serve you unhealthy food with a smile, why can't the publishing industry rake hay over you flashing your underpants in public? You know? </p>

<p>Blaming the photographer for any of this is like yelling at the paper-hatted teenager serving you the greasy burger. Wrong end of the enterprise! </p>

<p>The rich and famous are doing this to the rich and famous. <yawn></p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>The market makers or enablers of this business are the world's billionaire media moguls.</em>>>></p>

<p>Actually, I think consumers can share some of the blame. People buy this trash. They have a choice not to.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Yes, the bad taste of the end customer is partly to blame of course. But, the crux of the business is in the direct purchasing of the product from the supplier. I might put it this way - the public collectively didn't know it wanted to see a photo of Brittany's crotch until the buyer paid for it and published it. The public is not the buyer, but a secondary beneficiary of the buyer's intent.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>the public collectively didn't know it wanted to see a photo of Brittany's crotch until the buyer paid for it and published it</em>>>></p>

<p>A dubious claim.</p>

<p>The public might want to take (even if it doesn't already) a little more responsibility for its tastes and desires. Those tastes and desires will always be driven by something or someone and advertising and publicity are strong determiners, but . . . I think the public already knew what it wanted . . . sex and gossip sell and have for a very long time. </p>

<p>Sellers try to sell Shakespeare books and Photography books. It's not just because they're not trying hard enough or not rich enough to compete with People Magazine and worse rags.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>There's nothing dubious at all about the claim. The photo was taken then sold to a willing publisher without the public having made any fuss about "seeing Brittany's crotch." The claim I made is an explicit understanding of how publishing works.</p>

<p>The relationship between the public's bad taste and the publisher's desire to fulfill it for a profit works like a race to the bottom. Ever more obscene photos are purchased and offered to the public. Yes indeed, the public can become fouled in this process of selling to the most base nature. </p>

<p>Blaming the public for their bad taste obscures the logic of reversing the trend. Which might be easier? -- training 100M people to have better taste, or getting 6 guys to stop buying these kind of photographs? </p>

<p>And how would the public receive this training if not from the media? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>And how would the public receive this training if not from the media?</em>>>></p>

<p>Teachers, priests, rabbis, mothers, fathers, friends, clubs, organizations, schools . . . I don't necessarily see cultural shifts as a matter of "training." Again, I give individuals and communities more credit than simply being the object of someone else's training. A lot of factors go into what cultures value.</p>

<p><<<<em>The claim I made is an explicit understanding of how publishing works.</em>>>></p>

<p>LOL. I guess that settles it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Blaming the public for their bad taste obscures the logic of reversing the trend. Which might be easier? -- training 100M people to have better taste, or getting 6 guys to stop buying these kind of photographs?</em>>>></p>

<p>I disagree. I think cow-towing to the powerful just gives them more power, precisely what they want. It feeds right into the power hunger. If the public's only power is to convince the powerful that they should do such-and-such so we won't consume so-and-so, that really makes the public less powerful. The public might better assert its power to bypass those powerful and rich gossip-mongers and just not buy their trash. I'd hate to underestimate the power the public can wield, not just to convince the powerful to do good by the public (which keeps the powerful in a paternalistic stance toward the public), but to let the powerful know they don't hold all the cards.</p>

<p>Of course, convincing the powerful to stop buying these kinds of photographs is a good thing as well. But it's not the main or the only thing and it shouldn't come at the expense of giving the public credit for being able to manage its tastes and what it consumes.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Ah, fame, be careful what you wish for. Seemingly great to be a rock star, money, stardom, A-List into clubs and parties, mingle with the beautiful people, loved by fans who love what you do...photos are great when you are plugging your new show or album to sell. Making millions singing songs beats the hell out of a construction job. Sadly there is no convenient off switch to make it go away on bad hair days or when you are at your worst. Tabloids paying big bucks for photos of any gossip and several guys hoping to score a pay day just for a photo of you doing something, anything that will sell a magazine, and that means the good, the bad and the ugly. Yes it must suck at times, but were the celebs really too stupid to know that when they chose that path. It's not like the celebrity tabloid dynamic has changed that much since the 1930's.</p>

<p>But common sense says, jez, can't the tabloids give these guys a break at their homes. Seems like common courtesy. Of course there are private gated communities celebs could live in that would keep paparazzi's away from their home. But that would keep them from living in the real world, living with the regular people. So do we draw a line? Passing a law outlawing street photography even partially is a slippery slope. Be careful what you are doing law makers or it could become illegal to photograph any beach front lined with properties owned by the uber-rich and famous. The streets these elite walk could become no camera zones.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>"LOL. I guess that settles it."</p>

<p>It certainly settles the question of whether the claim was "dubious" or not. </p>

[tholte]

<p>"But, Tim -- you must live an oddly-informed life if the prohibition of photos of royal titties would deprive you of "truth." I do indeed "live an oddly-informed life", but I kind of like it!</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Tell you the truth for a Professional driver, someone who drives for a living in all types of situations a blood alcohol level of double the limit is nothing." Harry, if I was a multi-millionare, I too would hire this guy in a second. If you have to die, might as well do it quickly!</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>The real embarrassment is that we have cultured such a salacious, if not prurient, interest in those prominent individuals who in other places and times would have been afforded respect or admiration. </p>

<p>Somehow I can hear in the appetite of the public for the tawdry work of skulking paparazzi sneak-abouts the faint roar of the blood-maddened crowds of the ancient coliseums. The fact it makes money does not reflect well on us at all.</p>

[tholte]

<p>If you can't make fun of the rich and famous, who can you make fun of?</p>

[frank_b._baiamonte]

<p>I guess I don't pay a lot of attention to musicians' names - I never knew who Steven Tyler was until the clerk at a burger place in Santa Cruz, CA handed us this table marker for our lunch. My wife had to tell me who we was. Anyway, I wonder how he feels about this picture?</p>

<p><img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/Travel/CA-Coast-Nov-2012/Chancellor-Hotel-Ducks-Story/i-kQw8gCc/0/L/51FB9779-L.jpg" alt="" width="398" height="600" /></p>

<p>As for why there is a duck from the Chancellor Hotel looking at Steven Tyler's mugshot, you'll have to go to my blog to figure that one out.</p>