14 DAY TRIAL // If we were to make a poll, I bet half of the people questioned would answer 'You bet we are!', while the other half would simply say 'Hell, no, this is a matter of privacy and respect'. To which side would you adhere?
The issue of public information versus private life is, basically, one of perspective and, no matter from which point of view you approach it, you soon discover that there's no in-between, no clear cut distinction to indicate where one ends and the other continues. Of course, the public has the constitutional right to free and unbiased information but does that imply infringing on other persons' rights? Does our hunger for gossip and snippets justify the paparazzi's intrusion into the life of the celebrities?
Sure, this problem couldn't be advantageously worked out even if a dozen of media experts, experimented stars and a handful of library-bread psychologists all joined forces and sat down to have a thorough talk about it. And it has been a hot issue on debate (and it will probably remain so until the end of time) ever since the first Hollywood silent movie stars began their slow ascent towards immortality.
But from that to escalating conflicts that range from civil and penal jury trials and the payment of huge amounts of money, to celebrities breaking down in front of the cameras and starting to beat the crap out of photographers (or viceversa, there have been some cases of that, as strange and unbelievable as it might seem) is a long way.
Just to set the record straight, we're not writing this to take sides, although some might be induced to think so. We believe in the sanctity of one's personal space and the distress that breaking upon it causes. And, yet, one can't help from thinking that most of today's stars (sometimes also called 'artists' for no well founded reason at all) are desperately seeking all the media attention they get, only to have something to bitch about later.
First of all, let's take things one at a time. A common man, just like me or anybody else, feels entitled to have access to information concerning his/her idol, be it a rock star or a famous actor. Who doesn't like to read about Mr. X who got divorced from Mrs. Y in order to be able to marry a certain Miss or Mr. Z? Who doesn't enjoy the articles about a fight or a quarrel between two famous women, disputing over a man or over who's got the best looks? There must be very few people in the world who are not fond of such little juicy details and, sometimes, even they read about them.
From this 'need' or thirst for information (considered in its broadest acceptance) comes the logical reaction, that is, the appearance of multiplying tabloids and entertainment newspapers or other media outlets. More often than not, in their search for the hottest subject of the day these journalists will trespass such basic rights as that of a private property and of intimacy.
It's a constant war, fought with admirable arguments from both sides. Well, do not let me dramatize this whole business and make you imagine that it's something of WW I proportion but, still, it's pretty big. And anybody can see that by merely taking a peep on the way stars react when caught on camera on a bad day.
Practically, the tabloid industry never attacks the celebrities; it is always working on the defensive side. Worst case scenario, its most daring publications are dragged into court and, after a legal procedure spanning more than a couple of years, forced to apologize and/or to pay huge sums of money to the offended stars. And it's a good thing that they do. One should never see his/her name trashed in a newspaper or in the news or hear all kinds of things that are as unfounded on any real facts as can be.
On the other side, some celebs sure have a funny way of acting when a paparazzo comes into sight. Some simply duck their head as if some missile or something were heading their way and try to escape the camera lens, but manage to draw even more attention to their person. Others act as if nothing were happening, as if they were completely alone and the flash lights weren't hurting their eyes. And, in most cases, there are those who are the public's delight: the stars who just lose it and become aggressive.
Sure, we're not advocating for corporal violence now, but it's no secret or mystery that this is exactly what the paparazzi are looking for. Huge celebrities like Woody Harrelson, Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Jean Claude Van Damme, Russell Crowe and many more have had troubles dealing with too much media attention.
And, in some cases, it's not even the hunted star that initiates the conflict, but their bodyguards, probably in an excess of zeal. One can't actually blame the photographers for standing up an entire night at the corner of a street in the hope of some 'sighting'. He is doing his job, after all and, as long as he's not stealing to put food in the mouths of his children, this means his job is as legit as yours or mine.
And there is another aspect to ponder over, too. We imagine that all the stars must have thought that this is how their lives would be like if they ever became famous. I mean, it's not like they didn't know what to expect; probably they would have never guessed that it would go to such lengths as having their garbage ransacked or their every step tracked down but some idea they must have had.
Anyway, as I was saying in the opening lines, the paparazzi vs. the stars issue raises a question with many more sides than that. And, if I were to answer the question whether we are entitled to find out about every detail in my idols' life, I would say: 'yes, I am but only to some extent'. There must be a middle way and, if there isn't, then we must find it. By the way, what would you say if asked the same?
