web
counter


The Real Problem with the "Pedorazzi"

By Courtney Enlow | Celebrities Are Better than You | February 26, 2014 | Comments ()


brangelina-cover2.jpg

For weeks, Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard have been waging war against the “pedorazzi,” photographers who take photos of celebrity children, as well as the publications and programs that pay for them. Ostensibly, this is a great thing. Children should not have to face that kind of attention or scrutiny. These people are vultures who attack and stalk and it’s terrifying.

Except, they’re not the biggest problem when it comes to children being papped. Their parents are.

Celebrity children are all too often used as a commodity, leveraged with the full consent and involvement of their parents. Whether it’s to appear like a warm, happy family after a scandal, to make themselves front-of-mind during award season or just to get their pictures in a magazine, cute kids sell and these parents know it. That’s why leading up to last year’s Oscars we saw Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner and their adorable offspring out everywhere, happy smiles and cute hand holding. Then within days of a Best Picture announcement, photographers were getting kicked. It’s why we know every Jolie-Pitt child down to their jacket and snack item preferences. It’s the only reason anyone still bothers to photograph Hilary Duff. Kids change a person—and in the celebrity world, the change is that it makes them marketable.

People Magazine announced that they will not support photographers who target children. And you can tell by their meticulous verbiage that they were in a real bind. Because, for those not aware, everything in People Magazine is celeb-approved. People is so celeb-friendly, they have a summer home in the anal cavity of every star from C-list up. So, after public prodding (because, you see, their core fanbase does not understand celebrity PR) People had little choice but to get on board, despite the fact that they *know* exactly who claims to be against the pedorazzi while still keeping the paps on speed dial every time they walk their kids to school. Lest we forget, it is these people who keep an entire People website devoted to celeb kids and babies afloat. Not merely afloat, but thriving.

Lainey Gossip summed this up fabulously. I’ve included the whole thing Read it..

So, as we watch from the sidelines, think about who’s really pulling the strings here. Because as abhorrent as the guy with the camera is, how much worse is he than the parents who put him up to it?



Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


Paul Rudd's Dance Performance In GIF Form Is the Reason Why the Terrorist Will Never Win | The Disney/Marvel/Netflix Machine Will Godzilla Its Way over New York City to Film Five Netflix Series





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • fleurdcerise

    Dear Pajiba, not Lainey Gossip as your stimulus, please.

  • stollison

    I'm not a parent, but I'm an aunt, and have friends with kids, and I find this article and the sentiments behind it so extremely offensive, particularly this passage:

    "[Celebrity kids are] not the biggest problem when it comes to children being papped. Their parents are. Celebrity children are all too often used as a commodity, leveraged with the full consent and involvement of their parents. Whether it’s to appear like a warm, happy family after a scandal, to make themselves front-of-mind during award season or just to get their pictures in a magazine, cute kids sell and these parents know it. That’s why leading up to last year’s Oscars we saw Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner and their adorable offspring out everywhere, happy smiles and cute hand holding. Then within days of a Best Picture announcement, photographers were getting kicked."

    WHAT?!?! That is completely insane. Anyone who sees or has seen photos of (most) celebrities and their children over the past decade (as the obsession and intrusiveness has multiplied with the internet) can tell, neither the parents nor the children are comfortable with the paparazzi following their children. And have you ever watched video of these assaults (which is what they really are)? Like when a paparazzi called Suri Cruise a spoiled brat for not smiling? Halle Berry testified under oath before the California Judiciary Committee that paparazzi yelled at her daughter, "You may not see your father again. How do you feel about that?’” Her daughter was THREE YEARS OLD at the time. Berry testified, “They say curse words and call me names, all trying to provoke some sort of response to sell a photograph." It must be terrifying for the adults, much mores their children, and enraging for their parents, making them feel totally helpless to protect their innocent children.

    Celebrity parents should be living their lives as normally as they can for their children and themselves, which is the healthiest choice. Their children have the right to a private life (or at least they should), whether their parents are public figures or not. That means their parents should be able to take their kids on errands, play with them in the park, take them to school, walk down the street, go to Disneyland, and anything else, without having paparazzi stalking, scaring, and antagonizing them. Famous parents and their children have the right to not have to hide the kids away from normal, public life, having nannies raising their kids--but that they, themselves, are their childrens' primary caregivers.

    It's so fucking cynical, and frankly, cruel, to make the comments you make about the photos of the Affleck kids. I bet that the "reason" the Affleck kids are seen everywhere with their parents is because their parents are normal parents--spending time with their children, rearing them, taking them to the grocery store, and everything in between. And, by the way, the Affleck family seems to be the biggest victim of being photographed with their kids because THEY ARE WITH THEIR KIDS ALL THE TIME. Which should be celebrated and admired, not punished--not seen as some publicity stunt. Also, I've seen TONS of pics of them with their kids since the Oscars last year, so that theory is bullshit. And if there were to be a lull in Affleck family pictures, couldn't that be that the paparazzi didn't find them as "newsworthy" when the Oscars weren't on the horizon, and just didn't hound them as much, instead of the Afflecks' "kicking" them to the curb?

    I understand and appreciate the importance of free press, but outlawing unsanctioned photographs of celebrity children certainly will not have the "chilling effect" on free press that so many media outlets would have you believe. They just want money, and the "chilling effect" they are so scared of is that not having photos of celebrity kids will put a chill on their bank accounts. It's fucking disgraceful.

  • Some Guy

    I'd just like to point out, after having lived with a TMZ pap for two months in Hollywood, that not all Paps are the same. Case in point: TMZ people get paid high five figure salary to stand around a bar or restaurant for two hours out of a ten hour shift, in the hopes that they'll get a picture of the person they're there for. If they don't get the picture, however, and Mel Brooks slips out the back rather than the front, it's okay, because they still get paid for the work, and TMZ will fill the void with something else.

    I got interesting when I heard about how most paps have working relationship with the celebs. Take Matt Damon, for example.

    When he shows up to an event with his family, the corporate guys let the family and Matt pass by unmolested, as it were. This is on the grounds that Damon will then return, and repeat the entrance alone, only the second time they get to take pics.

    The photogs get what they want, and the celeb gets a reprieve.

    Not all celebrities play this game, however, and take offense to all paps. Bryan Cranston was mentioned as one.

    However, from talking to a dozen or more of them, taking pics of the kids is not what they want or even need, and they mentioned going out of their way to protect the families of celebs from the real issue, which is independent photographers who don't make a salary, and have to get the BEST shot to sell, otherwise they can't make the rent, pay for their kids food, etc.

    So again, for you TLDR types, not all paps are the same, plenty of them respect celebs and their families, and, like all industries, there are those who have no morals simply because you can't always afford to have morals.

    Especially when it comes to the self-serving millionaires that are actors.

  • ScienceGeek

    Thanks for the perspective. Do you mind me asking, do you know how the decent paps feel about this law? Are they worried they might get screwed by an accidental shot, supportive because it punishes the arseholes while generally pissed by the implication they're all like that, or is it like 'Welp, makes no difference to me'?

  • Ben

    So uh... this is just straight up content theft right?

    We're all cool with this? Pajiba writers can just quote verbatim entire articles written by other people for updates?

    That's uh... kind of a fucked up thing to do.

  • foolsage

    I agree. This wasn't quoting a selection; reproducing the entirety of someone else's work is wrong. Even if you provide the link, it's still theft. This is simply not ok.

    Quote an excerpt. Talk about the excerpt. That's fair use. But if you feel your audience really needs to read the whole thing, then tell them to click on the link, and then proceed to discuss the material.

  • kirbyjay

    How is it theft? She credited the author? Most authors want as many people to read their words as possible. I see it as free advertising.

  • foolsage

    It's theft on two levels.

    First, it's not in keeping with the principle of Fair Use. Basically, it's fine to cite something, or to satirize it, or to comment on it. It's not fine to just repost the whole thing, no matter what your reasons are. Even when you point out that someone else wrote it, it's not yours to repost without permission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    Second, a lot of websites are monetized by ads. Reposting someone's work in its entirety is literally stealing ad revenue, in those cases. People who read the whole article here don't have a lot of reason to go to the original site, so the original site (which owns and has the rights to this material, unlike Pajiba) is getting less traffic. That in turn means people aren't seeing the other content on that site, which again leads to less traffic.

    This is not ok.

    Edit to add: By your logic, I could have a website called "Foolsage's Thoughts about Harry Potter", in which I write a paragraph about how much I love the books, then reprint the series in its entirety. I mean, Rowling just wants people to read her stuff, right? That's all writers want?

  • googergieger

    Pedorazzi is just turrible. I mean they are horrible but come on...

  • Berry

    It is. I hate that word, and I hate that Kirsten Bell, whom I like and admire, uses it.

  • Bodhi

    I have a very hard time taking anything Lainey says seriously. She may be an "insider" but she doesn't hold all celebrities to the same standards & that bothers the hell out of me,

  • meadowdancer

    True. For a while there she was pro-Goop to the point I was sick of even seeing articles with Goop's name. Now she came out shading the heck out of her for her affair(s).

    Let us not forget her lover of all things Blake Lively (who cannot freaking act) and Kristen Stewart (BitMeLip=Torn).

  • Bodhi

    Oh geez, I'd forgotten all about her Blake Lively hero worship. So bizarre

  • meadowdancer

    Yeah it was so weird.

  • pfeiffer87

    But when you can’t swallow your curiosity, a curiosity that’s been
    created by their own offering, you are a piece of the piece of sh-t.

    This sounds a lot like what a rapist might say. As someone has already commented we are not controlled by our base instincts or desires, we have the ability to control how we act. In the same way that someone who is turned on by a woman in a tight skirt can control themselves so that they don't RAPE them.

  • ScienceGeek

    I thought the same thing, but then I figured I was being oversensitive. The actual act of rape is a thousand times worse than taking photographs, but there's some very worrying similarities in the justification, particularly in this article.
    Like this whole thing about celebrities 'selling' their children for their own benefit, then having the audacity to get miffed about the paps. That's very similar thinking to the idea that you can't rape a prostitute. It's the idea that if someone agrees to A with one person for their own benefit or profit, then by default, they've also consented to B-Z with everybody else.

    At what point of objectifying a person do we not only fail to see them as fellow human beings, but also their children? Does it really matter if that person 'did it to themselves' when WE are the ones who treat them that way?

  • foolsage

    That's a decent analogy, and a very good point. Temptations exist, but we're fucking sapient. We're able to decide what to do.

    My curiosity about a celebrity - even if that curiosity was deliberately stoked by said celebrity - does not entitle me to anything at all from that celebrity. In exactly the same sense, my physical arousal - even if that physical arousal was deliberately stoked by a woman - in no sense justifies sexual assault of said woman.

    Wanting something doesn't give you any rights to it.

    Most of us learned that in kindergarten. Sigh.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    The thing is, that might be the financial front of this "war," but the real war is a legislative one. If the anti-paparazzi bill (606) Halle Berry and her fellow celebs are pushing for passes, it would open a real front in the tabloid/paparazzi world, because they would then be dealing with worse legal charges, and celebs would be well within their rights to call the police on them. This would also expose further the celebrities who care less about the privacy of their children, if it comes as a price tag for an Oscar or a blockbuster. Some people are that cold, let's not be naive about it. And paparazzi are scum, because they do invade privacy, do disregard laws, and they do harass and yell at celebrities and their children, everything for a reaction. We are not dealing with a helluva lot of goodness here, on either side.

  • foolsage

    I'd like to see the paparazzi smacked back a bit, honestly. I don't like the attitude they frequently convey (i.e. "your fame has removed any right to privacy"), and I don't like the effects they have on our society. From the obvious stuff like contributing to traffic hazards, to the less obvious issues like taking advantage of children, to the skeevy problems like photographers literally lying in gutters trying to get upskirt shots as celebs open car doors, there are copious problems with paparazzi, and from my perspective, no upsides at all.

    That's right. I'd be happy to live in a world without photographs of what celebrities do in their free time.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    Paparazzi culture is, at its core, an extremely twisted, dystopian version of investigative journalism. Paparazzi would do anything for a story, or a photo that can cause a story, true or not. It's become a game that some people really know how to play, and some are helpless in playing it. A-list celebrities oftentimes have the means and power to truly hide their lives from the public eye, unless they choose to expose some of it. Example: Brange selling sanctioned photos of their new babies to the highest (and classiest) bidder, and giving all the money to charity. Most celebs, however, are not that powerful, and they cannot hide their lives as easily (though they are being paid a lot of money too, and can choose to live with a low public profile). Paparazzi do what they do because they, too, are well-compensated for it, when the job is "good." This is a twisted, bloated Shelob of a monster, gorging on PR efforts on both sides.

    Bottom line is, yes, I agree with you, but there are a lot of people in show business who don't, and there is a lot of money at stake. It's why this is a discussion at all.

  • BlackRabbit

    I upvote you both for the post and your LOTR reference. Many would have gone with some sort of cephalopod.

  • foolsage

    I'd have gone with Ungoliant, sucking the light from the Two Trees, but Shelob works too. Any Tolkien-geekery is good Tolkien-geekery.

  • BlackRabbit

    I'm more concerned about why you'd name your kid "Romeo."

  • Prepagan

    I've got a friend at work called Romeo. It is a perfectly serviceable name and I'm surprised its use isn't more widespread.

    What's the deal with "Romeo"?

    Would you be equally concerned as to why someone might name their child "Juliet"?

  • BlackRabbit

    Well, considering they're most famous for brainlessly committing suicide, yes.

  • Prepagan

    That's a little bit sad.

  • BlackRabbit

    Would you name your kid "Judas"?

  • Prepagan

    No, she's 13 and I think it would just confuse things.

  • nosio

    I honestly don't understand where the pitchforks are coming from. Courtney/Lainey pointing out that quite often, celebrities are complicit when their children are photographed by the paps - and therefore quite a few are blatantly hypocritical (looking at you, Garner/Affleck clan) - is bad because...why?

  • NateMan

    I don't think anyone broke out a pitchfork - I know I didn't. I love Courtney's writing and usually agree with her. But this article, particularly the stuff written by Lainey, reads way too much like calling a woman a cocktease because she screws someone and then refuses to another time.

    Affleck and Garner are allowed to have their kids photographed. They should also be allowed to not have it happen again at a later date.

  • foolsage

    Agreed. There's room for nuance in discussions like these. I disagree mildly with a couple things Courtney wrote here, but agree with other things she said. No pitchforks are needed!

    I don't think that having photos taken of your child (or profiting from said photos) is any kind of free pass for paparazzi to perpetually harass your family, which Lainey implied (and Courtney implicitly supported). On the other hand, some celebrity parents clearly profit a lot from publicizing their children, and there's a whole industry that's grown up around taking advantage of children for publicity (almost always for money, plain and simple, but sometimes for crass politics). It's not unreasonable to point out that those celebrity parents often share some part of some of the fault involved here, just as it's not unreasonable to point out that paparazzi consistently take things too far.

  • nosio

    The pitchfork thing was a tad hyperbolic, I admit!

    But I am surprised at the general response here, because I interpreted the Lainey piece very differently. Personally, and this could just be me, it reads far less like an indignant screed than it does a tongue-in-cheek indictment of the culture of demand for these types of photos, and how celebrities play into the public's desires. Instead of, "How DARE these celebrities who've been feeding us these tasty baby morsels decide to snatch their kids away now, after whetting our appetites!," I read more, "People might be shitty for clicking on pictures of celebrity babies, but the celebs shopping around pictures of their spawn are equally shitty, if not more so. Should they not be held just as accountable as the tabloids/media companies, whose shittiness is well renowned?"

  • foolsage

    I think that message was in there, yes. But Lainey definitely seemed to me to be suggesting that because the celebrity parents made their children available, they lost their rights to privacy. If you're going to profit from something, the argument goes, you have no right to complain about it.

    "But when you can’t swallow your curiosity, a curiosity that’s been created by their own offering, you are a piece of the piece of sh-t. Not them. Never them."

    The curiosity was CREATED BY THEIR OWN OFFSPRING. It's not just curiosity. It's certainly not our fault. No, no, it's the celebrity parents' fault, and their offsprings' fault, and so they're the ones who must pay.

    It's all in the approach taken by the writer. I absolutely agree that the celebrity parents who shop their kids around are part of the problem; I think most of us agree with that readily enough. I just don't agree in the slightest that shopping your kids around (for profit or politics) removes their right to privacy.

  • chanohack

    Thank you for saying this far better than I could.

  • chanohack

    No shit! Everyone's like, "EW, Courtney, so they DESERVE this now? I thought you were cool!" NO, guys. No.

  • Pretty damn near the top on the list of "Shit I Don't Care About": celebrity offspring. If other people also gave no shits about this the world would be a much better place.

  • NateMan

    By the way, Courtney, something about what you wrote struck me as odd, and then I remembered you writing this a few months ago in an article about Rashida Jones:
    http://www.pajiba.com/think_pi...
    I want a world where baring it all doesn’t make a woman a whore. I want
    a world where people shouldn’t have to feel bad for putting sexuality
    on display. But I also want a world where a woman’s body isn’t a
    commodity bought and sold by record companies, music video directors and
    Terry Richardson for the titillation of the public, used to make these
    women seem like naughty bad girls because all that does is make them
    seem like what they’re doing—what they’re being told to do—is bad and
    naughty.

    This article and the earlier one seem entirely at odds. A woman's sexuality is her own, she should be able to choose when and where it's displayed, but if she's dumb enough to let her kids be photographed once she deserves it - or at least should expect it - when it happens without her permission? Scarlett Johansson, for example, has a right to privacy when nude photos of her are released without her permission, despite how much skin she shows on the screen, but if she should breed and then allow photographers access to her kids on some occasions, she should have to deal with it all the time?

    Either privacy exists or it doesn't. Either celebrities (and by extension their families) have a right to it or they don't. What we allow people to do at one time doesn't preclude our ability to deny it at others. That's the foundation of consent, and it applies to more than sex.

  • I in no way think anyone "deserves" to have their children photographed, or that kids should be papped at all. The paparazzi are wretched. I mean to point out that celebs are doing this and it's not just the wicked paps doing it on their own. I don't agree with it, and I actually agree with the movement to stop it. I just think the focus being only on the Pedorazzi and ignoring complicit parents is wrong.

    Edit: Actually People (of all people) points out this phenomenon in their release, mentioning parents who exploit their kids one day and complain about lost privacy the next.

  • NateMan

    I get where you're coming from, after reading your first paragraph again. But the rest of the article - and the entirety of the linked material - reads like a defense of it. More specifically a "They asked for it" defense. And that gets real nasty real fast.

  • And I get that. I will say that Lainey, as an industry "insider," knows far more than I do about this type of thing and is likely more jaded by the whole thing. She's seen and knows some shit.

  • Davis

    They're all just as bad as each other but at least the magazines can accept responsibility.

  • Amen, amen, and can I get an amen?

  • gdobbs

    Love your articles Courtney! Just a question - by including the entirety of the Lainey Gossip article, aren't you taking page views away from that site? It seems counterproductive if you want to support the content.

  • ERM 275

    It kinda seems like stealing content?

  • Ben

    If by 'kind of seems like' you mean 'blatantly stealing content'

  • manting

    The biggest problem are the consumers of the pictures. If people magazine sales go up 20% when they have a celeb baby picture then they are going to continue doing it until it is no longer profitable.

  • LD

    How will Brangelina counterattack splitting and drug rumours if not by arranged photosops with the children? How will they make money with selling those pictures or promote their films?

  • Claire

    But Brad and Angelina are not the ones pushing for this or the anti paparazzi law. I don't think they've ever said a word about it.

  • lillie

    I had to double check that this wasn't one of those satire pieces Pajiba sometimes does. It doesn't appear to be. The parents are the biggest problem?? No. No they are not.
    I love your articles probably more than any other writer on this site, but I respectfully disagree with this one. Entirely.

  • Sirilicious

    Agreed. How do you know the parents call the pap anyway? Maybe the reason we see more (family) pics before a big awards show, is BECAUSE there is an award looming and all the tabloids are hungry for pics of the celebs, with or without kids.

    It's not like Brangelina needs the extra exposure and nothing in here convinces me they stage these ops on purpose. I dislike this article.

  • Kate

    Of course they get papped more when they're up for awards, but the thing is many of them react to it very differently then. To use the obvious example, Affleck was all smiles and laughs for the paparazzi during last years award season, when any other time he looks deeply annoyed and pissed off (which obviously would be the normal reaction, I'm not saying he shouldn't look or feel that way). Reese Witherspoon has been all sweetness and light when papped with her children ever since her arrest, when before she looked sour as hell and usually kept her older children out of the shot. Even Halle Berry, who hates the paparazzi with a passion, made the effort to plaster on big smiles while she was going through her custody battle, because she wanted to get across a certain image at that time.

    Once you start using the paparazzi like that, you've become a part of it, even if you never planned on it.

    Naomi Watts and Liev Schreiber get papped with their kids a lot when they're in New York, but no one mentions them in the same breath as celebs like Affleck because they don't play up to the paparrazi when they have something to gain, they look just as annoyed to be photographed 2 days before the Oscars as they do when they have nothing to promote.

  • Sirilicious

    How does someone know this? Do you watch ALL the celeb pics all the time and compare them?

    I can not imagine that, but say one does and what you said is what one sees. Can it have something to do with how much the pap is or isn't intruding on their space, or someone's happy & smiling anyway?

    If what you are saying is true about Reese and Affleck and such, that is weird/hypocritical. But someone smiling for the paps that are always there (Halle), if they take pics anyway, you might as well make it work for you. It would be very different if she called them.

    I don't know what scheming m oves both paps and celebs, but i err on the side of don't fucking shove your camera, foot, bike, VOICE and general aggrevating fuckery into the personal space (and at least 30 feet) of anyone.

  • Pippa_Laughingstock

    I really don't know how much I agree with this, because there are so many alternate explanations. The reason you don't know who Matt Damon's kids are might also have to do with the fact that their mom is not famous. The fact that you see so much coverage during awards ceremonies might because there's more of an interest in the nominees and the paparazzi target them more, and the relative lack of interest after an award might account for the drop off. It doesn't seem monstrous to me that you're more likely to restrain yourself from kicking someone who is begging for a kicking when you're under awards-show scrutiny. Also, will we ever know if Katie Holmes would have trotted out her daughter if she hadn't had said daughter with a man known to be a control freak? Suri was already public, and scientologists are scary (the worst offense is downplaying the threat of scientology: "alleged retaliation"?! Nicole Kidman doesn't have her first children anymore, they are scary), and she used the paparazzi as her bodyguards. That is also not monstrous; it is clever. And are Posh and Becks worse than other parents of child stars? That's an actual question, since parents of child stars are pretty weird. In sum though, there is no transparency here, we have no idea who calls and who doesn't, but I'm not gonna trust the word of a gossip magazine that capitalizes on the industry.

  • JustOP

    There is a difference between telling some people that you and your family are going to be out and about and you can take photos from a safe distance, and photographers surrounding your family and kids whilst deliberately trying to get a rise out of you (see: whats his face from Man on a Ledge). Either way, celebrities are forced to interact with the paps as part of their job - they have no choice, so I can understand how some may decide to turn it in their favour somehow.

    Just because a celeb has allowed us to see their children once doesn't mean we are entitled to see them whenever we want. That level of entitlement is despicable and disgusting and has no grounds to stand on. Are you forgetting that these are children? Children being hounded by some of the most amoral disgusting people in the business?

    I saw a youtube video the other day of Matt Damon leaving a plane with his family. The paps were there - he said to them 'I'll stay for photos, just let my kids through'. The thing that gets to me about it is - how about if he didn't want to co-operate? How about if he didn't stay for photos? Why should the paps have that element of control and leverage over him if he's out and about with his children? Are 'celebrities' no longer allowed out in public with their family?

    And whilst I appreciate the perspective - your entire career is built around celebrity/scandal. Anything that hurts that is going to hurt you. You're not exactly the most unbiased/reliable source of information and opinion on this.

  • namerino

    Frankly, Lainey's post struck me as intellectually dishonest and self-serving, and so does yours. Just because some celebrities "exploit" their children does not give tabloid bloggers the right to do the same. These children did not sign up for this level of scrutiny, and what's more, they are minors whose privacy ought to be protected. If that means the magazines and the bloggers end up treating these children with more respect than their own parents, good. At least someone will be looking out for their well-being.

    And both of you pretending not to know the difference between a photo shoot in a controlled environment and a mob of grown men rushing at a child on a public street is disgusting. Two years ago I happened upon a scrum of paparazzi hounding some blonde starlet on Robertson Blvd. in Los Angeles. Fifteen 40 year old men shoving at screaming. I was a grown adult twenty feet away and it was fucking terrifying. Now imagine a child in that situation.

    Again, I don't care if the parents call the paps. Their bad behavior does not justify the paparazzi's.

  • Claire

    And what's really hilarious from Lainey's perspective? She refuses to cover the Kardashians. She doesn't view them or any other reality celebrity as true stars even though Kardashians and reality stars generate a lot of pageviews/clicks.

    And if you read her blog long enough a person will realize that truthfully she doesn't really care about many children of celebs either. So if she can not cover reality stars out of principle losing money in the process, why not refuse to cover children of celebs since when push comes to shove, she doesn't give a fuck? Is the money they generate really that good?

  • Berry

    I'm inclined to agree. Lainey is very eloquent, but her argument doesn't really hold to much scrutiny. Plus of course she would find eloquent ways to argue against this movement. Pap pics of celebrities AND their kids are her bread and butter.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    Actually, the idea of putting your kid's photos on facebook is debatable as well, because you are not asking your kid whether they would like to have potentially thousands of strangers see their pictures. Your kid would not know their privacy is being violated. But once they grow old enough to know their parents gave their photos to a website infamous for privacy breaches and selling subscribers' photos to third-party companies, the parents would probably be in for some yelling, at the very least.

  • Ben

    It's also ignoring the bigger issue of putting your kids photos up on facebook. Your facebook friends don't want to see your shitty little kid sucking on a book. No one gives a fuck about that shit but you.

  • Mari

    Actually, your FRIENDS who also happen to have Facebook, do. Which is why you shouldn't accept just anyone into your Facebook. And those who don't give a fuck, can simply scroll down and move on.

  • NateMan

    When they offer up their privacy and personal information - every
    single detail about their pregnancies etc - that’s totally OK. But if
    your (natural) reaction to that is to want more… that’s your f-cking
    problem. When they post images of their chubby-cheeked daughters on
    social media, it’s beyond reproach. When they negotiate a $100,000 fee
    for those chubby cheeks to show up on the cover of a magazine, that’s no
    problem either. But when you can’t swallow your curiosity, a curiosity
    that’s been created by their own offering, you are a piece of the piece
    of sh-t.

    Well.... Yes. You are. It's fine when my friends post pictures of their kids on Facebook. But I don't lurk outside their house with a telephoto lens hoping to catch another glimpse they don't want me to have. If they want to enter them into modeling and beauty pageants and whatever, that's their business (crazy as I think it is). If they then want to keep that kid hidden, that's ALSO their business. I'm sure that the exposure of small children comes at the best time for the parents. Just like I bring my daughter to visit my parents when my mother is being the biggest pain in the ass. That's one of the things kids are for. But that doesn't mean it'd be okay for my mother to knock on my door at 3am because she wants to see her granddaughter.

    Celebrities and their kids might be commodities, but they're also parents and children. That means they do (or should) get to decide when, how often, and how much we see into their lives. If it's self-serving, that's their prerogative. Just because we want to see more of them for some bizarre reason doesn't mean they should have to give it to us.

    Oh, and this line: But when you can’t swallow your curiosity, a curiosity
    that’s been created by their own offering...
    No. Just stop right there. This curiosity exists because people seem to have difficulty grasping the very simple premise that there are boundaries to people's behavior and your intrusion into their lives. A friend of mine used to have me take photos of her daughter for Christmas cards and the like, because I have a kick-ass camera and some small skill behind it. But I didn't chase after them taking pictures when she didn't want me to. And the concept that, because she's let me take pictures of the kid before I should be allowed to take them whenever I want, makes me feel physically ill. The idea that they 'owe us' is bullshit.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    There's almost no acknowledgement that celebrities might put their children out there to assuage the curiosity, not to entice. And if the magazines want a photo, why not charge for it (and therefore expose the magazines that actually pay for content, which is a journalistic no-no)

  • DominaNefret

    Aye. Thus the fact that there are some celebrities that charge magazines for photos of their kids and then donate all of that money to charity.

  • Slim

    But when you can’t swallow your curiosity, a curiosity
    that’s been created by their own offering...
    We can stop. We are not base creatures who can't control our instincts. I love celeb gossip as much as the next person but please, if I can't 'stop' looking a pictures of kids (pictures that may or may not be sanctioned by that child's person) with whom I have no direct relationship, then I might need help for my problem.

  • Cowtools

    Thank you! This idea that people can be 'addicted' to celebrity gossip is pathetic, and the way articles the one quoted here enable this is sickening.

    As in all things, follow the advice of The Simpsons: "Just don't look! Just don't look!"

  • Art3mis

    Totally agreed. And additionally: if (part of) the problem is that some celebs arrange for paparazzi pictures of their kids, then magazines and websites signing on to a blanket refusal to publish paparazzi pictures of children is going to shut that down, too. You think it's gross that some celebs arrange for those pictures while pretending to hate them? Well, they're not going to be able to do that in a world where we all know that the only pictures being printed are the ones the parents agreed to.

  • And that's why I think this is a good thing. But the movement ignores it focusing only on the (totally evil and soulless) pap machine.

  • Anne At Large

    It makes me happy that I do not know what Matt Damon's kids look like.

  • DominaNefret

    Holy shit. Matt Damon has 4 kids? I had no idea.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    and now you feel an all consuming desire to know them from tinest mole to SS#, don't you?

  • Ben

    Holy shit this is the top ranked post and no one is telling me how much money they make!

  • googergieger

    They look a lot like their mother Ben Afleck.

  • Aaron Schulz

    Matt Damon has kids? Well good for him.

  • Cathy Parsons

    my roomate's sister Μ­­­­­­а­­­­­­κ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ѕ $­­­­­75/հ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­r on the l­­­­­­а­­­­­­р­­­­­­τ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­р. She has been out of a ј­­­­­օ­­­­­ƅ for 5 Μ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ but last Μ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ her income was $­­­­­12312 just W­­­­­­օ­­­­­­r­­­­­­κing on the l­­­­­­а­­­­­­р­­­­­­τ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­р for a Ϝ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­W հ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­rs. check հ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­r­­­­­­℮,... Profitbeatsnow2014startc2qv....

    ♚♚♚ ♚�♚♚ ♚♚♚ ♚♚♚ ♚�♚♚♚ ♚♚♚Just like I bring my daughter to visit my parents when my mother is being the biggest pain in the ass.

blog comments powered by Disqus





Follow Us





Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins