Paparazzi are sensation hunters

If you are a celebrity, then your unwanted companions will necessarily become paparazzi. This freelancers are journalists who earn on selling pictures of the stars of the screen, politics, sports and other spheres of life, the characters of which cause close interest among the public.

Those who forgot about ethics

The meaning of the word "paparazzi" is invariably colored by negative semantics, since the way that indefatigable photographers enjoy is tactless and immoral. They can sit for hours in an "ambush" to snap a peevous details of the personal life of some famous person. Of course, such pictures are taken without the knowledge and consent of the characters themselves.

Origin of the word

Where did this word come from, the very sound of which hints at the meaning of the profession? In 1960, the famous Italian film director Federico Fellini created a film called "Sweet Life", one of the heroes of which was the ubiquitous correspondent-photographer named Paparazzo. The director provided this character with all the features that a nosy and annoying journalist who hunts for sensation possesses. This word has a phonetic similarity to the Sicilian name of a mosquito. According to Fellini, paparazzo (in the plural - paparazzi) - it's something like a pesky buzzing insect, which rushes swiftly, hangs over you, and then stings. Maitre even drew a paparazzi, whose appearance resembles an unpleasantly curved figure, from which it breathes unprincipled and impudent.

Fellini's film made the name of the photographer Paparazzo a household name. The word took on a multiple form and became the symbol of a journalist chasing "fried" facts and ambiguous episodes. For the first time in this sense, the lexeme was used by the American magazine Time, and the term instantly spread through the pages of other printed publications.

There were newspapers and magazines that relied on materials from the paparazzi. These were publications focused on scandalous stories from the life of the stars. After a while they were joined by a similar TV show.

What is the difference between a journalist and a paparazzi?

Often, the paparazzi photo lens is likened to the muzzle of a gun, from which photographers, greedy for sensation, "shoot" at celebrities, exposing or compromising them, thereby distorting their lives. The difference between a journalist and paparazzi is so great that these words are in no way synonymous. The first conducts an honest and objective investigation in order to triumph the truth and the law. He has nothing to do with the creature "sticking" to the camera's eye and hiding in the bushes, in order to capture the details of the intimate life of a famous person that are not intended for the public, and then to rip off a solid jackpot.

But what about the law?

On the one hand, the law protects the human right to privacy, on the other hand, there is freedom of the press. Many paparazzi go to violations in order to get what they want, they can impersonate other people, cheat, penetrate into private territory, forge documents and appearance. Their main arguments are that public people themselves make the choice in favor of having their whole life in sight, that this is, after all, the way of their earning and the condition of popularity. In their opinion, the relationship between the stars of show business and paparazzi is a mutual secret agreement about what they are feeding each other.

Indeed, celebrities would not be such if their faces and details of private life were not flashed in the press, but they also have the right to inviolability, like all other people.

Who is to blame for the existence of paparazzi?

Demand creates supply. While there are people who are interested in leafing through the yellow press, there will also be correspondents, who throw up the "strawberry" obsequiously. Quite a few with disgust are throwing away from themselves a newspaper in which a sensational photo of a star flashes after an unsuccessful plastic surgery, then an ambiguous frame of love comforts of a respected person. Most of us will be interested and will consider unattractive photos from the point of view of ethics. People are curious. And who are the paparazzi in this case, how not the traders of the demand goods?