Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: What rules are these?

72 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

  • Brent Jackson,

    Hear, hear!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 615 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    And that’s the rub for Lorde, or Bingle or others who complain about the media’s constant gaze. While there’s little question the 24/7 demands of the internet have raised the stakes, the fact remains that celebrities are famous because of the media – not despite it.

    These would be the same media outlets whose proprietors and editors would scream blue fucking murder (and rightly so) if Lorde hired her own pack of pap-smear stalkers to follow them and their families around. And isn’t it funny how media billionaire James Packer & Nine Network CEO David Gyngell didn’t just shrug their shoulder and say “well, it just goes with the territory of being a high profile media type” when their public fisticuffs went viral. I guess sauce for the celebrity goose most certainly isn’t sauce for the rich prick ganders.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Nik Dirga,

    Famous people aren't allowed to have problems or whinge about anything that happens to them because they're FAMOUS! Don't we KNOW that?

    And rubbish like this is why I stopped picking up the SST

    Auckland • Since Jan 2009 • 25 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    I'm surprised people still read it. I don't even bother picking it up in a cafe anymore. Stupid Fairfax paper is stupid.

    But "Well, have a fucking chocolate fish." is going to be the line of the week! :-D

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2932 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Maybe there should be an opt-out request protocol, whereby one can request to be no longer reported on as a public person. It would be easy to program publishing systems to block any article that mentions a person who has made such a request.

    To be fair, this should be for a five year minimum, so that people don't toggle themselves in and out of public status when they, for instance, have something to sell.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg,

    For all Lorde’s talents – and they are many – it is the media that have propelled her into the living room of American and beyond and made her arguably the most famous NewZealander in the world right now.

    Fuck - seriously? I'd give substantially more credit to a) her own determination, b) Adam Holt, c) Bandcamp, d) net buzz.

    She was well on her way long before the SST or any such similar "media" bothered with her name. Two years ago I was in record company offices where her impending success was touted. As always, these people follow, they don't create.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3283 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Simon Grigg,

    She was well on her way long before the SST or any such similar “media” bothered with her name. Two years ago I was in record company offices where her impending success was touted. As always, these people follow, they don’t create.

    Yes. There’s an undertone of “she couldn’t have done it without us” which is ludicrous. For months after she became a name, there was one Lorde interview (with Jim Pinckney in The Listener) and they were scarce for some time after that.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Simon Grigg,

    Fuck - seriously? I'd give substantially more credit to a) her own determination, b) Adam Holt, c) Bandcamp, d) net buzz.

    And just to go really out there - perhaps Lorde interests the media because she comes over as an unaffected human being with a refreshingly low bullshit tolerance rather than a merchandizing-bot reading today's PR script?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Miche Campbell,

    Lorde is a minor, for fuck's sake. That should be enough to keep the likes of Runting off her back.

    Dunedin • Since Feb 2011 • 79 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    To be fair, this should be for a five year minimum, so that people don’t toggle themselves in and out of public status when they, for instance, have something to sell.

    No. There is a material difference between doing interviews about your work and consenting to be followed around by a photographer.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • John Edwards,

    As something of an update on Hosking v Runting, there's this, from Paul Weller http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/16/paul-weller-privacy-damages-children-photos-mail-online

    Herne Bay • Since May 2009 • 2 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    from the editorial

    it is the media that have propelled her into the living room of American and beyond

    Bull F***ing Shit.

    This is an outright lie used to justify an unjustifiable position. The person who wrote this should be seriously taken to task for this drivel.

    One of the major reasons Lorde is as important as she is musically, is because she did the exact opposite of this, she quietly release her music, with no fanfare, with no media. She completely subverted the self important media that believes they have some "right" to own her. That very act made her connect with audience in a way the the editor of this crap will never understand.

    But at least he (an assumption) could take the time to get that fact right even if he never understands its importance.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4458 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    The Star Times also ran a story on the issue:

    There’s even a case to be constructed for snapping celebrities going about their daily business.

    “A lot of those celebrities are super-managed by their agents,” says an Auckland photographer. “You don’t see the real them. They have picture and copy approval.

    “People like to get beyond the veneer sometimes and see a real moment. That’s why pap photography has a place."

    Lorde is papped constantly when she’s on the job – followed from the hotel to the venue by fleets of photographers. She doesn’t complain about that. But being followed when she’s just trying to live? It’s different.

    And it also bears noting that this is a performer who tweeted an unretouched picture of herself in performance, after the original was photoshopped by a magazine. That’s fairly beyond-the-veneer.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Dastardly Bounder,

    I think possibly the best way to deal with someone like Runting is socially. Something came across the FB feeds recently calling for a boycott of Runting, don’t serve him coffee, turn him away at your door… never darken this hearth again kind of thing. As group our actions determine what is socially acceptable, and although I doubt he’ll change his style we can certainly tell him that it’s not welcome.

    Runting came to New Zealand from the UK and seems to have bought the dubious ethics of the English media with him. But at the same time he’s chosen an image of himself that is obscured for his Facebook page, perhaps in the hope of maintaining some obscurity.

    Auckland • Since Dec 2012 • 61 posts Report Reply

  • bob daktari, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Lorde interests the media because they can make much money off her (and all the other celebs) - be it photos, tweets, mentions and the like- as opposed to talking about her art which is of little interest because there's no money for the media in that angle

    To be fair about the lack of media around her rise - interviews weren't offered nor accepted initially... except for the Listener piece.

    Media will have their pound of flesh, be it with photos or not... At least in Lorde's case she isn't pandering to them, overly and hasn't lost her voice at the bequest of the marketing dept - she continues to shine as a person and a artist, long may she reign

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 540 posts Report Reply

  • Dastardly Bounder, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    refreshingly low bullshit tolerance

    That's one of the things I admire about her style. As a father of girls I thoroughly appreciate her stance to reduce the beauty myth

    Auckland • Since Dec 2012 • 61 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Laudanum...

    that doesn’t entitle her to her own set of rules.

    Sadly, that was the only way such a bitter editorial could end, it's as if the dinosaurs have seen the comet coming straight at them and are lashing out, trying to counter their irrelevance.

    Sad people,
    sad paper,
    sad corporation...

    They even ran a huge editorial ad for the TAB on the front page of The Press today...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7943 posts Report Reply

  • Jonathan King, in reply to Russell Brown,

    "A lot of those celebrities are super-managed by their agents," says an Auckland photographer. "You don't see the real them. They have picture and copy approval.

    And it also bears noting that this is a performer who tweeted un anretouched picture of herself in performance, after the original was photoshopped by a magazine. That's fairly beyond-the-veneer.

    A-men. If ever there was a 'celeb' for them to hang their sad arguments on, this is one for whom it just doesn't hold water.

    Since Sep 2010 • 185 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Lorde is papped constantly when she’s on the job – followed from the hotel to the venue by fleets of photographers. She doesn’t complain about that. But being followed when she’s just trying to live? It’s different.

    And sorry, but where’s the public interest let alone news value in (gasp!) Actress X. goes out for coffee or picks her children up from school in sweatpants and a t-shirt rather than a high end couture gown? I'd probably make a bit of an effort if I got an invite to the Grammys, but that doesn't come with an open invite to be stalked.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Martin Lindberg, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    And sorry, but where’s the public interest let alone news value in (gasp!) Actress X. goes out for coffee or picks her children up from school in sweatpants and a t-shirt rather than a high end couture gown?

    There are literally hundreds of magazines, websites and TV channels almost exclusively dedicated to this, so there certainly is a lot of interest by the public (not the same as public interest, I guess).

    Stockholm • Since Jul 2009 • 802 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to bob daktari,

    Lorde interests the media because they can make much money off her (and all the other celebs) – be it photos, tweets, mentions and the like- as opposed to talking about her art which is of little interest because there’s no money for the media in that angle

    You may well be right -- though I'd note there are plenty of exceptions that may (or may not) prove the rule. "Making a living" and "not being a egregious bunghole" are only mutually exclusive states if you want them to be.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    I’m always a little conflicted about this sort of stuff – the fact is that any of us have the legal right to photograph anyone in a public place, and that is the same right that these photographers are asserting. I don’t think that should be limited because once press photographers aren’t allowed to photograph celebrities in public then perhaps we aren’t allowed to photograph the police in public, or something similar?

    However if any of us, as ordinary people, started following and obsessively photographing some random member of the public we could be charged with any of a few different offences, and we likely would.

    Similarly, I’m sure if we started taking photos of 16-year-olds on the beach and selling them, or even posting them publicly, that the editorials focussed on us by the Sunday Star Times would be somewhat different.

    There is a trade-off that the famous have to accept to some extent, but that’s no reason to suggest that there should be no limits, or that behaviour that, in other circumstances, would be harassment and stalking should be acceptable.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 311 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    And sorry, but where’s the public interest let alone news value in (gasp!) Actress X. goes out for coffee or picks her children up from school in sweatpants and a t-shirt rather than a high end couture gown?

    Well ultimately the media interest is in the public interest. As annoying as the cry of "we're only giving people what they want" can be it is ultimately true.

    If people didn't buy the magazines then they wouldn't be able to sell the advertising and they wouldn't have the money to buy the pictures - it's that simple. They've clearly found that photos of celebrities going about their business like normal people somehow sells magazines and I'm not sure that there's anything we can do about that.

    If people want to see it, then someone will cater to it - right? And if there's money in catering to that demands, then others will join in too.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 311 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Icon or Mycon?
    If the famous are famous because of the Intellectual Property of their 'Image' - perhaps it would be only fair for the 'subject/content' of the paparazzi's saleable images of said 'intellectual property', to share in the profits.

    I think the SST article alluded to Ms Bingle having 'preferred photographers' that were given the chance of shots in return for a percentage of the take.

    Seems fair, and might end up with a tolerable balance for all involved.

    Of course no paper could publish any informal picture without prior approval of the 'copyright/IP' holder... nah, they'd never wear that would they?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7943 posts Report Reply

  • James W,

    There's lots of things the public might have an interest in that the media chooses not to include in its publications – porn, perhaps (I'm still waiting on the Herald on Sunday to start featuring Page 3 girls). Less savoury things. Editors make decisions all the time about what not cover. I think this whole "well Woman's Day sells!" argument is just an excuse not to think about it too hard. Why is it this issue – celebrities having no privacy whatsoever – that we all just abdicate any responsibility for? Maybe something to do with resentment?

    Also, I'd wager the reason the SST isn't going after shots of Judith Collins has precisely nothing to do with her "illness" and everything to do with being shit scared of her and her (governing) party.

    Since Jul 2008 • 136 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.