Comments for Overlooked: Paparazzi Vs. Surfers »
Posted By Dakota 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsLast weekend in Malibu, a group of paparazzi descended on the beach to take photos of actor Matthew McConaughy, who was surfing nearby. On this particular day, the group was confronted by a group of local surfers.
Read Full Story at newsquake.netscape.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 61 of 63 Comments
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned12 Replies
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 4 months ago
-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well i found it interesting, but i am a photographer. It's instances like these that made me start carrying a weapon with me whenever im shooting in public. Well that and the fact having $10k in equipment on me, makes me a muggers wet dream.
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suppose that, as a photographer, you
1. Claim the right to deprive well-known individual like Matthew McConaughy any opportunity to relax on a public beach and enjoy the activities that other beachgoers enjoy.
2. Think it is your right to ""travel in packs, run red lights, make unsafe . . . U-turns in pursuit of their subject"
3. Disparage the mothers of those who object to your intrusive behavior.
and 4. Plan, with your critics "to have a huge rumble on the beach" to settle any differences.
Are these the characteristics that make you a serious photographer, Aidenag?
Wow, your life must be exciting.
Reply-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank's for putting words in my mouth Oscar..
I do not partake in that form of photography. I mostly do wildlife, nature, weddings and street photography. And was talking about photographers being attacked/assaulted in general. It happens more than just to paparazzi sleaze. And in 99% of cases, happens due to no fault of the photographer.
As for "Depriving" a individual of their opportunity to relax, it's a public space Oscar. He, and the photographers both have just as much of a right to be there doing what they are doing.
As for carrying a weapon, your damn right i do. Between the crazies and the people who look at my gear as a free meal-ticket worth more than most cars, i would be insane not to do so. If i had a dollar for every photog who had his equipment stolen or broken by others, i would be able to retire right now...
Reply-
Neutral
earthlingerer1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wherever I go, I'm always carrying a camera, whether it's my cellphone, camera, or my video recorder.
If I see something, anything, person, thing or place, while I'm out, it's caught.
It will be a pretty obvious sign when I stop and take out and prepare my phone or camera, so anyone can turn, whatever.
But if you start to yell or run, I'll just walk away... having taken my pictures.
I know there's rights for both sides.
Reply
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive7 Replies
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
Neutral
decipher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
me too a. i like to make positive comments about people with my work but there is such a negative attitude toward photographers now that i have to be extremely careful where and when i pull out the gear. it's sad to think that we would never have so many treasures from people like henri cartier bresson, or dorthea lange had they existed in this same climate. i'd like to see asmp and apa get on this big time.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i found it interesting too. there's a bunch of curious social dynamics going on here that are worth thinking about coz they tell us a lot about what we are as culture. the surfers are as much a part of the same bs game as both the paparazzi and the celebrity. they "protect" their "star" and throw in the usual surfer subculture crap about "their" beach. it's all entertainment taken way too seriously by everyone
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
celebrities and paparazzi have a symbiotic relationship. celebrities by definition are public property. the paparazzi feed public interest. do celebrities think they get paid millions of dollars to work for a few weeks on a movie or whatever it is that is their celebrated trade because they're "good"? get real! sure they just want to be left alone but they really need to put things in perspective here. they are only who they are because people talk about them, idolize them and turn them into demi-gods and then cough up the bucks that pay their astronomical salaries. if they have no public exposure nobody's talking, idolizing, worshiping or buying. paparazzi stoke public interest. if they break the law then they should be arrested, fined, whatever like anybody else would if they'd done the same. surfers beating them up is just a tribal meathead mentality. the ugly side of surfer culture. and i'd say there's a little possessive obsession with said celebrity going on there too
Reply-
Neutral
peaquod1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry but that is really naive... Sure public figures are dependent on publicity....however, that does not mean they become your personal property.....
They are also entiltled to a life..outside of their job just like you.
The Paps...really only want to 'catch' these celebs in some sort of compromising position so they can make big bucks on the backs of others.... The worse situation the better....How can you defend that sort of behavior??? Would it be all right if they were dogging you?
Reply-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're suffering comprehension deficiency. i said public property NOT personal property as you say i did. big difference. the first is that celebrities are a commodity with a price tag -- that's the biz. the second is that they are people who are the victims of stalkers -- for that there are laws. if the paparazzi are stalkers that's for the law to decide. as for being entitled to a life outside of their job try and find yourself a lawyer who can write that into a contract and make it stick. good luck. there's plenty of jobs that own you 24/7. celebrities are no different. if the paps are looking for compromising snaps it's because that's what sells, if it sells it means somebody's buying and that means, lo and behold, the public. go figure. and you call me naive. lol
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
toph19731 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The one stalkerazzi has it right when disparraging the people that read the scandal rags. If no one bought the filth they put out there would be no need for the scum that are the stalkerazzi. Sure, they have the right to make a living, but so do hookers (which as far as I'm concerned is a much more legitimate profession). I'm not going to shed any tears hearing about people or celebs beating up scum like these.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive4 Replies
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.