You are wrong. Do some research. Heck the National Enquirer is over 50 years old. I was born in Britain and it's part of their culture down there and it's been going a long time. The only difference now is that technology has made it easier.
Umm I'm pretty sure the post you just quoted directly mentions that the Enquirer has been around for a long time, as well as pointing out that the shift has been particularly recent in North America (ie, not in Britain).
I'm not sure you're seeing my point, I'm not arguing that tabloids are new (in fact I say quite clearly that they aren't) but that the manner and degree of tabloid journalism has changed dramatically in recent years.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
So here is another hypothetical for the "she deserved it" crowd. What if last summer when she was in Calgary, somebody had installed a spy camera in the hotel room shower where they were staying? Would you have been OK with that?
I realize there is an indoors vs outdoors difference; however being ~800 metres away from anywhere public seems to be just as much of a private setting as a shower in a hotel.
So here is another hypothetical for the "she deserved it" crowd. What if last summer when she was in Calgary, somebody had installed a spy camera in the hotel room shower where they were staying? Would you have been OK with that?
I realize there is an indoors vs outdoors difference; however being ~800 metres away from anywhere public seems to be just as much of a private setting as a shower in a hotel.
There are different situations, you said it yourself in the post......
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I'm not sure you're seeing my point, I'm not arguing that tabloids are new (in fact I say quite clearly that they aren't) but that the manner and degree of tabloid journalism has changed dramatically in recent years.
I am seeing your point but it's you not listening to me. The manner hasn't changed simply the technology has made it much easier to capture celebrities on film. It not just tabloid photographers anymore as it's anyone with a cell phone that just happens to be in the right place at the right time.
I am seeing your point but it's you not listening to me. The manner hasn't changed simply the technology has made it much easier to capture celebrities on film. It not just tabloid photographers anymore as it's anyone with a cell phone that just happens to be in the right place at the right time.
The manner has changed dramatically, and you're correct that it has a lot to do with technology. Previously celebrities had the ability to control a lot of the narrative. Magazines that published unflattering material could be denied access and that threat allowed things to be kept under wraps. With no other channels of distribution things simply didn't get out to the public in the manner they do now. With the appearance of the internet that changed, websites could publish things with ease, and once magazines started to be scooped by these sites they followed suit. The control that once existed isn't there anymore. It's a very different dynamic than it was for previous generations of celebrities.
I am seeing your point but it's you not listening to me. The manner hasn't changed simply the technology has made it much easier to capture celebrities on film. It not just tabloid photographers anymore as it's anyone with a cell phone that just happens to be in the right place at the right time.
There has been protection afforded for sexual orientation even in the film industry for years. Families of politicians are still given privacy today unless their behaviour happens in the public eye. In the past Presidents could have affairs without anything being spoken of in the press. Things have not always been like it is today.
Even if this had been the norm for a very long time doesn't make it right. Taking nude photos of someone without their permission should be out of line. This story isn't about a princess not being modest. Without pictures nobody would run a story about Kate sunbathing topless away from the public eye. It's the pictures that make the story; Pictures that shouldn't been taken and published.
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgaryborn For This Useful Post:
According to the newspaper The Evening Standard, photographers, including local cameramen not linked to international paparazzi, said the couple were visible from a nearby road as they relaxed on a terrace beside a pool. Prince William appeared to be reading an iPad as Kate rubbed sun cream into his back, the newspaper said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Seems that experts on French law in this area disagree
I just came back to thank the submitter for removing the apostrophe.
__________________
We may curse our bad luck that it's sounds like its; who's sounds like whose; they're sounds like their (and there); and you're sounds like your. But if we are grown-ups who have been through full-time education, we have no excuse for muddling them up.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Goon For This Useful Post:
I thought this was a pretty good article on boobs. Seems like this is probably the best place for it since some of the content is overlapping.
Quote:
Regardless, the pictures appeared in the Italian magazine Chi, which like Closer, is owned by former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, who is staunchly pro-boob. Italian citizens interviewed by a news team on one street corner threw up their hands at the scandal and said – loosely translated – “They’re just breasts! Iy iy iy iy! Relax-a!”
Quote:
Therein lies the mammary conundrum: Are breasts a big deal or are they just boobs? It wasn’t like Middleton’s gynecologist released vulva video, nonetheless, the Royals won a court injunction halting further publication of the photos in France. The confusing cultural duality of breasts – biological necessity and sexy time (a.k.a. mother and whore) – may be distracting us from the much darker reality of a gland beset with illness, in need of a different kind of attention.
In the new book Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History, author Florence Williams ruminates on the accepted notion of breasts as “courtship devices,” aiding in natural selection and competition, a sign of female fecundity. But she finds that the big-boobs-win theory doesn’t hold up. New Zealand researchers have conducted “eye-tracking” studies where the male eye lingers repeatedly on the breast, but it isn’t picky; preference for size, shape, and even areola colour is all over the map.
Quote:
A different breast story also made the British news last week. An actress named Lucy Holmes launched an on-line petition asking Sun editor Dominic Mohan to get rid of the topless “Page 3 girl.” In a YouTube video, Holmes – seemingly motivated more by self-esteem than politics – tells the story of how lousy it made her feel as a kid to see her own body in relation to the Page 3 girls day after day.
Quote:
Side by side with the Middleton scandal, the story highlights the shifting currency of breasts, depending on who they belong to. The unknown Page 3 girls ply their breasts as entertainment. They’re revealed for a quick, but probably meagre, buck, or in the hope of fame. These kinds of anonymous breasts – see: Hooters and Xtube – are readily available, and come cheap.
Quote:
And yet, this stark reality gets cloaked when breasts are viewed as either a giggle or a taboo. October is Breast Cancer Awareness month. A noble cause, but often, breast-cancer campaigns pantingly play off exactly this mass of confused signals, fetishizing breasts or chuckling at them, and almost always wrapping an infantilizing pink bow around a serious disease.
Even though they’re everywhere, we’re not really seeing breasts. The Duchess and Fleet Street are right that boobs are a big deal, but they’re tending the wrong scandal.
I thought this was a pretty good article on boobs. Seems like this is probably the best place for it since some of the content is overlapping.
That is actually a very very good take on nudity, sexuality and the mystique or idol worship of breasts.
Unfortunately it skirts the real issue. Privacy and protection of it.
Which is important, not just to royals and celebrities, but to you and me.
I shouldn't have to have a picture taken of me in my house even if I'm just on the computer or sleeping. I'm sure all would agree.
Also about the privacy of two people romantically in love.
The sad thing is, a lot of these people who claim that's the price for people who have it good (royals or celebs), or people who married into it (Kate, etc.), are the same people who lash out against frumpy stay at home moms who fund the national enquirer.
They are the same thing. They are part of the problem of our celebrity obsessed world. They drive the machine.
All of you who think it's ok because (whatever the reason is) are the problem news is dumbed down, TMZ is huge, and celebrities AND paparazzi get paid what they are.
You sirs, drive this horrible system that you claim to be above of.
The nudity really isn't the shame, and it shouldn't be for her. It's the benefit that you are entitled to that. Or that certain people deserve it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
There is no need to go see pictures of women who never wanted to be photographed in the first place. There is no shortage of actual voluntaries for nude pictures, and those kinds of pictures are about the easiest thing to find.
So what does it say about someone that he gets specially excited for a picture that was taken without consent?
It is seriously very creepy behaviour.
More on that, here's a British view on how the paparazzi-culture relates to British culture in general. As is Guardians style, it's good and in-depth. Of course, it's also long.
This paparazzi-culture produces obvious victims, yet somehow the only ones to blame are the victims themselves? That is a seriously messed up line of thinking. Or not thinking perhaps.
But hey, I'm sure it's all completely harmless.
Last edited by Itse; 09-24-2012 at 02:47 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I straddle the fence on this one. First everyone regardless of status should be afforded privacy when they are in a private setting.
However if you are in a public position you are responsible for ensuring your own privacy because you know that people will not respect your right to privacy.
I think the bigger issue is that kate being topless while on vacation is considered a scandle. Really this is a person behaving normally and well within the expectations of her position. Even if she was giving Will a bj on the balcony it still shouldnt be a scandle.
There is no need to go see pictures of women who never wanted to be photographed in the first place. There is no shortage of actual voluntaries for nude pictures, and those kinds of pictures are about the easiest thing to find.
So what does it say about someone that he gets specially excited for a picture that was taken without consent?
It is seriously very creepy behaviour.
More on that, here's a British view on how the paparazzi-culture relates to British culture in general. As is Guardians style, it's good and in-depth. Of course, it's also long.
This paparazzi-culture produces obvious victims, yet somehow the only ones to blame are the victims themselves? That is a seriously messed up line of thinking. Or not thinking perhaps.
The sad thing is, a lot of these people who claim that's the price for people who have it good (royals or celebs), or people who married into it (Kate, etc.), are the same people who lash out against frumpy stay at home moms who fund the national enquirer.
They are the same thing. They are part of the problem of our celebrity obsessed world. They drive the machine.
All of you who think it's ok because (whatever the reason is) are the problem news is dumbed down, TMZ is huge, and celebrities AND paparazzi get paid what they are.
You sirs, drive this horrible system that you claim to be above of.
The nudity really isn't the shame, and it shouldn't be for her. It's the benefit that you are entitled to that. Or that certain people deserve it.
Let's not be hypocrites here. This thread drives the bus. We all looked at the pictures out of curiosity. That curiosity that common people have with celebrities drives the tabloids. I don't buy the tabloids but I don't have control over the housewives that do. I have hopefully 60-80 years on this planet and I'm not going to waste any of it trying to be the moral police for what is right and what is wrong for something trivial like privacy for the rich and famous. It is what it is.
