Just a note on media

[veronica_rich]

I understand there are some pissed-off fans out there in the wake of the weekend auto wreck - and rightfully so - but as happens every time something seedy with the paparazzi pops up (and it does far too frequently), I see a lot of hate and disdain for "the media" in general.

For those of you who don't realize, let me make it perfectly clear: Paparazzi do not represent ALL media. Most genuine newswriters don't even consider them in the same class. Just as there are levels of ick in your profession, you need to understand the same exists in ours. Most of us are underpaid professionals who do the best we can to keep up with local and world events in an accurate and fair manner for non-"yellow" publications, and that we do it with your best interests in mind so that you might be informed of important things you don't have the time to go out and find out about yourself - such as politics, taxes, voting records, etc.

Have I ever taken photos at a wreck? Yep. Many, in fact. No famous people that I know of, but definitely some people who were injured or dead or had died and been taken away. There is genuine news value to it so long as you're only the recorder and not the instigator, as increasingly seems the case with the paparazzi in Orlando's wreck - without respectable publications' photos and factual accounts from witnesses, many people would never know what it's like to see or experience a bad wreck. It serves as a safety reminder, ESPECIALLY for kids who've just gotten their licenses, because these shit-for-brains members of our driving population think they can't die. (Just remember what you were like at 16 or 18. I do.)

Would I have taken photos of his wreck if it had happened in my small town? It's a fender-bender, though there were injuries. If I overheard it on a police scanner at the office, and it was close enough to easily get to, I might have gone to the scene. Likely, for me, the actual news story would have been the swarm of photographers and the police report itself, as well as any witnesses willing to talk with me about what they saw firsthand. The only real value of writing about the wreck itself - in the wake of there being no DUI - would be as a cautionary against reckless driving (on the part of whomever caused it, and if the police report contained the account of a swerving driver, that would be in my article) and the value of wearing seat belts. And yes, the fact he's famous would probably have some bearing on my interest in the story, though to be fair, I wouldn't write it any differently than I would for anyone else in a wreck, save to note a brief resume for him.

In short, not every photographer at wreck is a bottomfeeding vulture trying to sensationalize the event - I have NOT taken photos of corpses and terribly-injured people before, even though it would've been easy to do so, and I would have legally been within my bounds to do so. It's a personal call for each reporter; I didn't see the value in those cases, not when I could just as easily write "they were killed" or "critically injured." (Frankly, the injured were usually gone by the time I got there anyway, since paramedics drive and work pretty damn fast, thankfully.) I usually found a photo of the wreck scene itself, or the damaged vehicle(s), worked just as well to make readers shiver and be a bit more careful out on the roads. (Also, just as a note: A REAL reporter doesn't get in the way of rescue or report-gathering efforts on the part of paramedics or cops - not only is it stupid, it's dangerous.)

Feel free to ask questions. I don't mind.

ETA: In what world do you have to live to think Orlando Bloom - while seemingly a nice guy and a decent actor, but, let's face it, NOT a Midas-touch titanium celebrity immune from trouble - warrants such special fucking treatment from the LAPD to cover up drunkenness or anything else? (You have to page down for it.)

Comments

[ainsoph15.livejournal.com]

I think there's a HUGE difference between taking photos/video for evidence, and the gratuitously intrusive amount it was happening at the crash scene. Yeah, I'm quite aware that there's no way they're going to stop filming (all the way to the fucking hospital). The worst thing was that watching it made me feel like a total hypocrite, but fuck it - if I'm hearing shit about Orlando leaving a crime scene, I want to see it with my own eyes so I can call an allegation like that utter bullshit with impunity.

And with even more vehemence (if it's possible XO) I can't emphasise enough how livid it makes me that these bastards are even considered to be in the same profession as journalists. This is NOT investigative journalism. What they do is not news in any way. It's the modern equivalent of the gladiatorial arena - or bear-baiting - or the stocks. It's that sick, twisted part of humanity that still apparently needs an outlet. How many more people's lives have to be ruined or endangered before there are proper measures enforced to stop this from happening? Yes, a celebrity can expect to be followed by photographers, but to have every moment of their privacy invaded, and to be hounded and chased to the point of endangering yourself and other people - that's harassment.

Everything about this crap makes me angry.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

It's that sick, twisted part of humanity that still apparently needs an outlet.

TWS - Train Wreck Syndrome. That's what one of these tabloid sites should call themselves, instead of cutesy other acronyms. Just label it for what it really is.

[kahva.livejournal.com]

As a fellow worker in the media, albeit on the technical end of things - THANK YOU. Before I ever got into television I never considered tabloids to be legitimate. Once I started working in TV, I vehemently considered tabloid reporting to be illegitimate. They make a sport out of trying to ruin people's lives/careers to varying degrees, and I find their actions repugnant. Legit news reporters have a hard enough job as it is, they don't need trash scavengers and stalkerazzi giving them a bad name.

I hate to say it, but I don't think even their own actions causing someone to be seriously injured or killed here in the US is going to be enough to make them behave. Stalkerazzi have conveniently forgotten that while their actions may not have been the sole cause of Princess Diana's death, they were a major contributing factor. Yes, there is a price to be paid for fame. Last I checked, nobody had agreed for it to be death.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

They make a sport out of trying to ruin people's lives/careers to varying degrees, and I find their actions repugnant.

I don't see them as on the "reporting" end of anything. What they do is take something they find and if it's not sensational enough in itself, twist it around to sound moreso. They don't report stories - they create stories. Only, they're obviously not good enough to be writing books or for television shows, so they do this instead. And most celebrities don't pursue lawsuits because honestly, for some of them, I'm sure they DO have other facts they wouldn't want found out and by suing, they subject themselves to that investigation by the courts and the public.

[fenlika.livejournal.com]

What I found disturbing is that the paps, who where obviously the first at the place of the accident, didn't help.
Is there something like "failure to render assistance" in the US? I don't really know, how it is here (in Germany) for journalists, but I would like to think that they have to follow the same laws as everybody else.
The "failure to render assistance" (I don't know if this is the right term, but it sound so nice legalese) is an indictable offense here and you can get in big trouble if you don't help (if you can without endangering yourself).

Sorry for my run-on sentences, that's how I always write (the reason I could never earn even an apple with writing ;-)

Fenlika

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the laws are compelling you to help someone in distress; I suspect at least some states have something, because there was a crazy case a year or two ago where a person was convicted of not jumping into a river to save a drowning toddler - the child wasn't their own and it turned out they couldn't swim anyway, but it made no difference in the verdict.

I daresay most journalists are people first. If they saw someone in obvious danger or need and nobody else was around to help, and they could get to the person, they would help. But then again, there's legal liability - what if you try to help someone out of a car and you do something accidentally to make their injury worse? You could be sued for negligence!

For me, it was never a case of having to render assistance because I was always behind the paramedics or cops or firefighters. Only once did I ever arrive at a scene ahead of anyone else - it was a house fire, and I didn't see anyone inside, nor was I going to go look. I took pictures and I was still close enough - even standing away - that I spent the next few days coughing from soot inhalation.

[fenlika.livejournal.com]

...because there was a crazy case a year or two ago where a person was convicted of not jumping into a river to save a drowning toddler - the child wasn't their own and it turned out they couldn't swim anyway, but it made no difference in the verdict.
That is where the "if you do not endanger yourself" comes in. Nobody can expect that.

Yes, most journalists are human first. Regrettably some who call themselves journalists aren't either journalists or human.

[porridgebird.livejournal.com]

I joke about living under a rock... but I guess it's no joke! I had NO idea any of this had happened, until this post.

Ironically, though - speaking of paparazzi - the inquest into the death of Princess Diana is going on as we speak. SO many conflicting accounts there... both blaming the paparazzi AND exonerating them. Will be interesting to see how it winds up.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

With Diana's case, there was clearly speeding on the part of the limo driver. Whether he was sober or drunk, driving too fast in a tunnel is not a recipe for safety - for what? To get away from cameras? In Orlando's, it hasn't been reported or proven that he was speeding, and moreover, it's looking more like someone caused him to run off the road and wreck ... possibly even a paparazzo.

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

You are so right about the difference between paparazzi and reporters.
I can't tell you how many times I've argued with one of my editors about taking certain photos at crash scenes. He always wants a photo of the body and I refuse. I'm not in the business to be a gratuitous "great shot" seeker. I want to get accurate information to the public and (maybe) a vague photo of the entire accident.

It just sucks the bastards have come this far and there is obviously a demand for it from the public. Yes, I am a fan and I check celebrity blogs, but I don't need to see someone laying on the road bleeding. The information and maybe a photo of the wreck in its entirety is all I want to see.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

If there's a shot I can get at a distance where I won't interfere with the rescue efforts, I'll do it. An editor once took a photo of a woman in an SUV that had flipped over, still hanging upside down uninjured in her seat in her seat belt, with the door open - it was actually kind of a humorous photo. Plus, photos serve as records of what has happened for the future. If a photo of a body can serve a purpose, that's one thing; but if it doesn't, it's just gratuitous and unnecessary.

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of a photo one of the reporters in a bureau of ours took of an accident. One of the copy editors was going through the pics from a fatality and had shoved her camera in the driver's side after the body had been taken away and there was hair, blood and scalp stuck to the windshield. It was one of the most disturbing photos I've ever seen. Needless to say, we didn't use it.

[roguedemon.livejournal.com]

Well said. Honestly, this accident has underlined the difference between real media and paps more firmly in my mind. I think the problem is that the two are in real danger of blending together -- for instance, look at the whoel Anna Nicole Smith thing. Since the "real" media give seansational celeb stories wall-to-wall coverage all to often, I think many people have started treating stuff like TMZ.com like a reputable source. However, in this case, the mainstream media acted responsibly, reported the facts, and that was that. No fuss. The tabloid sites are so desperate for material that they obviously tried to formulate some sort of conspiracy -- a very selectively edited video, inflammatory language, unfounded speculation.

I agree with you about the ludricrousness of the coverup story. I mean, celebrities are a dime a dozen in LA. Plenty of them, many more rich and famous than he is, have been nailed over the years. Are we supposed to believe the cops who were standing a foot from him talking to him missed the fact that he was under the influence, had alcholol on his breath, or whatever? They had ample opportunity to nail him, both on and off camera, and reason to check him out, since there was an accident. As far as they were concerned, he was just a guy in ordinary clothes driving a Toyota, so I can't see why there would be any special treatment. Keifer Sutherland was nailed just last week, and I don't believe he was don't anything that out of the ordinary. Nobody protected him. Michelle Rodriguez was also nailed recentlty as well, and I believe she will be spending 6 months in jail.

People assume that because they've read/heard a few stories where, say, Nicole and Lindsay haven't gotten lengthy sentences that means that all cops cover up for all celebrities, but I don't see any reason to believe that that is true. It is a very common fallacy in human reasoning, called the availability heuristic. People draw conclusions based on a few flashy examples instead of thinking through the problem logically. It's similiar to everyone assuming that planes are going to fall out of the sky where in fact, travel by car is statistically more dangerous. I think that's where the whole coverup idea keeps coming from.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Honestly, this accident has underlined the difference between real media and paps more firmly in my mind.

I hope that's what it does, really. I know my mind has changed in the last 20 years. I remember when Sean Penn hit the photographer and I thought he was such an asshole for it ... but I've since come to realize there really are paparazzi who go beyond "photographer," who really are nothing more than thugs for the highest price, with expensive cameras.

I mean, celebrities are a dime a dozen in LA. Plenty of them, many more rich and famous than he is, have been nailed over the years.

And that's the point I came to shortly after my whole annoyance with the paparazzi=press misconception. The easiest thing in the world for the cops to do would have been to arrest him, if they had even the slightest inkling he was the one purely at fault - people always believe the worst about the rich, anyway, and he could hardly sue them for doing their job if he were intoxicated enough to test at the legal limit. By not arresting him, they've actually hurt themselves in some public opinion by letting people think this very thing: He must've bought them off or something. I know it's "innocent until proven guilty," but any probable cause is enough to exonerate the police in the vast majority of cases.

[roguedemon.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the spelling errors. I have a bad habit of posting first and re-reading after.

A tangent....

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

I really don't know, but I suspect that journalists (those who have formally studied at a University, anyway) are expected to go through an ethics class and are generally assumed to be following an ethical code (if they work for a respected publication). The paparazzi and most tabloid writers (and their new internet counterparts) do not and are not (and probably couldn't do their jobs if they did and any of it stuck).

Following your link, I'm now finding myself confused. I'm guessing there are at least two ANONs now. But that's just another reason for me to dislike them. :-/

Re: A tangent....

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

(There are at least two Anons over there, but I think one is arguing against the other's POV.)

I don't have a journalism degree; I have an English degree. No classes; just 17 years of experience writing various things for various places. You get your "course" in ethics by living day to day and having people yell at you for screwing up and for them thinking you screwed up - and figuring out which is correct. *G*

[whosoldherout.livejournal.com]

ETA: In what world do you have to live to think Orlando Bloom - while seemingly a nice guy and a decent actor, but, let's face it, NOT a Midas-touch titanium celebrity immune from trouble - warrants such special fucking treatment from the LAPD to cover up drunkenness or anything else? (You have to page down for it.)

I found my way over here from orlando_news and can i just say a big WORD to what you've said. It boggles the mind to think that people actually believe that the LAPD is covering up for him just because he's Orlando Bloom. According to some sites *coughTMZcough* they are covering up not only his drunkness but also the fact that it was a hit-and-run (despite the fact that he didn't actually leave the scene) and people are believing whatever they say despite the fcat that they have a VERY good reason to make Orlando look like the bad guy.

Sorry for rambling in your journal but i was just glad to see someone else who agrees with me.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Hopefully you're not too pissed off for me speaking in your community, but I don't have much patience for mocking disguised as "debate." There was no debate to that one Anonymous's points - they were clearly trying to stir the pot, just by the phrasing alone. If they'd really wanted to raise consciousness, they could've just as easily said, "I'm a fan too, but what if he caused it in some way, and what if someone's covering up for him? I'm just curious if it's possible, given police aren't perfect, and neither is he." Instead, they came in with the preaching "settle down, children" tone that I despise - I didn't outgrow my parents' house and make my own way into the world and get an education just to be treated like an 11-year-old who hasn't thought about basic things. None of us deserve that.

Are there any witnesses who have spoken with police about his state when he left the club, testified if he'd been drinking or anything? That's where I'd be interested in information - a witness willing to give their name, or the club manager or owner or such. Without that, it's useless allegations ... and frankly, much as I love him, he's just not important enough for a "cover up" to be warranted or to matter.

[whosoldherout.livejournal.com]

Don't apologise for speaking your mind. You said exactly what i was thinking much more eloquently than i could ever hope to. I have been getting very sick of the condescending attitude directed towards people who dare think that there is more to the story than those two paparazzi sites are letting on. If i read "would you be thinking like this is he wasn't a nice, good looking actor" one more time...

Are there any witnesses who have spoken with police about his state when he left the club, testified if he'd been drinking or anything? That's where I'd be interested in information - a witness willing to give their name, or the club manager or owner or such. Without that, it's useless allegations ... and frankly, much as I love him, he's just not important enough for a "cover up" to be warranted or to matter.

Not that i've heard. The only official word from the police has been that drugs, alcohol or speeding weren't involved; that they are currently searching for the other car involved and that Orlando won't face any charges.
The only eyewitness accound i have read was on that blog i linked to on orlando_news yesterday and that just confirmed my suspicions.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I gotta say this and my journal seems the best place to do so. You should understand this is not aimed at YOU in any way, shape or form.

I unsubbed from that place. OH MY MOTHERFUCKING SWEET SANITY, I would not have kept it much longer otherwise. I only ever signed up so I could find out about movies, roles, plays, and new pictures from all the above. And things seemed pretty sane when you first posted the information and links.

My brain, she explodes from poor logic. I simply cannot tolerate stupidity - it has nothing to do with me thinking I'm smarter than anyone else. I'm talking about deliberately moronic individuals who revel in displaying their own stupidity to the world and poking people with verbal sticks for the fun of it. Who get naked and roll around in their own idiocy and then stupidly grin when someone tries to apply logic to it.

You have a few posters in there who've raised some good points in favor of the "he may be guilty of something" point of view. But they are vastly overshadowed by the minority Cornflake Club who I have a hard time believing are ANY kind of fans of this actor - not because they question something, but because they gleefully delight in pointing out how anyone who has a positive thought about it is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

And damn, I just have to say - if I'm lofty for not wanting to get down in this kind of pig shit and roll around regularly, then hand me my scepter and robe, because I'll take being seen as snooty any day over having blood on my teeth and the dead, vacant stare of the paparazzi-lobotomized.

[elibad.livejournal.com]

When you told me about this the other night, I, of course, did a search on it. It quickly pulled up two links, one to a 'National News-wire' type of site and one to some 'E!tertainment' site.

The first article was: Orlando Bloom accident, apparently run off road, no serious injuries. No DUI, no charges pending.

The second: Orlando Bloom accident (after partying in club), ran into parked SUV, no serious injuries. Orlando tried to leave scene (nice guy!) paps dragged him back. 'Apparently' no drugs, alcohol or speeding were involved.

This struck me as such a clear indication of the differences. The first spelled out the facts in as unbiased a manner as possible. The second was full of speculation and the writers/sites opinion on the events and 'actions' therein.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Eh, they're all trying to cover up a vast drunken, drug-and-sex-laden conspiracy. Celebrities are never innocent of criminal charges.