Won't someone please think of the real paparazzi?

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal introduced us to the world of "fake paparazzi journalism," in which stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Jessica Simpson hire their own photographers.

Here's how it works: The celebrities simulate "unstaged" moments for their staff photographer. They leak the photos to tabloid reporters. And poof -- they've satisfied the hunger of both fans and media for impromptu photos without actually sacrificing any privacy.

Granted, they likely have the most success with this plan when it produces unflattering pictures. But evidently it is worth the cost.

And speaking of costs, I wonder how much these hired photographers earn.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Didn't the story say that magazines like People pay staggering amounts of money -- tens of thousands of dollars -- for these photos? These photographers probably live pretty comfortable lives.
March 22, 2006
dl004d said…
The story (free to read, by the way) says that someone paid $400,000 for one of the pictures of Jolie. But Jolie gave the money to charity, so it is not clear what her photographer got. (Unless her photographer was the charity.)
March 22, 2006
Anonymous said…
Maybe she'd like to add a music writer to her list of approved charities ...
March 22, 2006
Anonymous said…
it still would be weird to have the photographer follow you around to the grocery store, the coffee shop, etc. Still weird. I would be critical of the whole ridiculous enterprise of somebody paying half a million dollars for a photograph...but then I'd have to get critical of people who have a subscription to magazines that print these pictures...so...
March 22, 2006
dl004d said…
It's not like these "fake paparazzi" are following you around. They arrange a staged moment, photograph it, and that's it.
March 22, 2006
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Incumbents didn't stand a chance

Image
Kamala Harris had an advantage in fundraising and campaign mobilization. Yet she got trounced. The lesson is that advertising and organizing doesn't matter in politics, right? Wrong. In the battleground states where she leveraged those resource advantages, Harris underperformed Joe Biden's 2020 results by 1.6 points . In the non-battleground states where she did not meaningfully compete, she underperformed 2020 by 3.9 points . This means that i n the places where the Harris campaign spent money and organized and knocked on doors, she did better.* Duh, it wasn't enough. Yet consider the political environment in 2024 for incumbent parties: across the world this year, each governing party facing election has lost vote share. Every single one. (This is the first time that had ever happened.) No one would suggest that Democrats pat themselves on the back when the result of their efforts is a Donald Trump victory. But look at this chart:**  The red dot is the 2024 Democrats, the ...
Read more

USC goes commando

Image
I've always thought USC cheerleaders were pretty classy (to the extent that such a classification is possible in the cheerleading world). They wear long-sleeved white turtlenecks, rather than the skimpy tops donned by most cheerleading teams. But yesterday I discovered that a USC Song Girl named Megan Ramer doesn't wear underwear. Britney Spears, are you responsible for this?
Read more

Paperweights have become paperweights

Image
When something goes unused or becomes obsolete, it's said to become a paperweight. Is your cellphone slow and out of date? It's become a paperweight. Is your laptop too slow to use? It's become a paperweight. Do you never use your Apple Vision Pro? It's become a paperweight. Weirdly, paper itself has become a paperweight. People do their work on laptops, tablets, and phones. Most homes don't have printers. Not only do we not need paperweights, we barely need paper!
Read more