Titillation Tabloids
Sorry, I should have posted this a couple of days ago, but I got sidetracked drooling over new kitchen colour schemes. Gotta get my priorities right you know.
Yet another from the thrashingly good Serious Hat Series
In case anyone out there missed it (unlikely), F1 boss Max Mosley won a legal action against a Sunday newspaper over claims that an orgy he took part in had Nazi overtones.
Mosley never denied that the sado-masochistic sex session with five prostitutes occurred, but he denied that it had a Nazi theme. The paper's story was based on a secret video and photographs from one of the women who took part in the sex session. The High Court found that the paper had indeed breached his privacy, that Mosley showed no evidence of Nazi leanings, and that it was just a typical S&M session between consenting adults. The judge said privacy should be expected for “consensual sexual activities albeit unconventional." Hurrah, justice for Mosley! Paparazzi journalism caused his wife and children major humiliation and wrecked their lives. As he said, "It also shows that that they had no right to go into private premises and record adults engaged in activities which are no-one's business but those of the people concerned."
When is it in the public interest to reveal a person’s private details, regardless of how famous they are? Are kiss and tell stories wrong? When does investigative journalism cross the line into invasion of privacy? Should paparazzi journalism be banned? Is it even proper journalism to begin with?
The press argues that such stories are in the “public interest” of course. Paparazzi journalism is big money. The British media is a fetid cesspit of amorality, manufactured and maintained by the readership, but this area of photography and reportage is the only part of the magazine and newspaper world that actually makes a profit. The western world has an insatiable curiosity for reading the sordid details about the personal habits (be it diet, sex, whatever) of their fave celebs. I’m no exception here. I find Edward Weston’s rather adventurous love life as interesting as his photographs, which means I’m no better than the rest of the general population in my desire to know the seedy personal details of my icons. What does that say about me? About any of us?
Most celebrities concede that some invasion of privacy, especially from paparazzi photographers, is inevitable. Sometimes it can even be good marketing. Darryn Lyons, founder of celebrity photo agency Big Pictures (the biggest in the UK with £7m a year turnover) never feels guilty for his paparazzi job. He says “If celebrities didn’t have my machine behind them, who would go watch their movies? Anyway, unless you want to be in a dungeon getting whipped, you shouldn’t be worried by us.” I guess Mosley was right to worry then.
As a highly dodgy model who would have a great deal to lose if her raunchier photographs were ever “named and shamed” by the popular press, I’m afraid I’m firmly on the side of privacy. I turn down magazine interviews if asked (two last year from women’s magazines) and I’m militant about protecting my personal i.d., for my family’s sake if not my own. Of course there’s a limit to the level of privacy one can achieve with a public blog and one’s ass plastered all over the blogosphere, but I do what I can.
Every individual has the right to a personal life. A man should be able to be whipped in private if that’s what floats his boat, without fear of reprisal. It’s the whole essence of what privacy is about. If Mr Mosley wants to waste his money on hookers then it is entirely up to him and none of our business. Some skeletons should just be allowed to stay locked in the closet.
Journalism should respect the principles of integrity and decency, not just think about lining wallets. The UK media would do well to report real news, rather than concentrate on the modern cult of fame and celebrities, and we would do well to mind our own business.
Whipped Cream?
Yet another from the thrashingly good Serious Hat Series
In case anyone out there missed it (unlikely), F1 boss Max Mosley won a legal action against a Sunday newspaper over claims that an orgy he took part in had Nazi overtones.
Mosley never denied that the sado-masochistic sex session with five prostitutes occurred, but he denied that it had a Nazi theme. The paper's story was based on a secret video and photographs from one of the women who took part in the sex session. The High Court found that the paper had indeed breached his privacy, that Mosley showed no evidence of Nazi leanings, and that it was just a typical S&M session between consenting adults. The judge said privacy should be expected for “consensual sexual activities albeit unconventional." Hurrah, justice for Mosley! Paparazzi journalism caused his wife and children major humiliation and wrecked their lives. As he said, "It also shows that that they had no right to go into private premises and record adults engaged in activities which are no-one's business but those of the people concerned."
When is it in the public interest to reveal a person’s private details, regardless of how famous they are? Are kiss and tell stories wrong? When does investigative journalism cross the line into invasion of privacy? Should paparazzi journalism be banned? Is it even proper journalism to begin with?
The press argues that such stories are in the “public interest” of course. Paparazzi journalism is big money. The British media is a fetid cesspit of amorality, manufactured and maintained by the readership, but this area of photography and reportage is the only part of the magazine and newspaper world that actually makes a profit. The western world has an insatiable curiosity for reading the sordid details about the personal habits (be it diet, sex, whatever) of their fave celebs. I’m no exception here. I find Edward Weston’s rather adventurous love life as interesting as his photographs, which means I’m no better than the rest of the general population in my desire to know the seedy personal details of my icons. What does that say about me? About any of us?
Most celebrities concede that some invasion of privacy, especially from paparazzi photographers, is inevitable. Sometimes it can even be good marketing. Darryn Lyons, founder of celebrity photo agency Big Pictures (the biggest in the UK with £7m a year turnover) never feels guilty for his paparazzi job. He says “If celebrities didn’t have my machine behind them, who would go watch their movies? Anyway, unless you want to be in a dungeon getting whipped, you shouldn’t be worried by us.” I guess Mosley was right to worry then.
As a highly dodgy model who would have a great deal to lose if her raunchier photographs were ever “named and shamed” by the popular press, I’m afraid I’m firmly on the side of privacy. I turn down magazine interviews if asked (two last year from women’s magazines) and I’m militant about protecting my personal i.d., for my family’s sake if not my own. Of course there’s a limit to the level of privacy one can achieve with a public blog and one’s ass plastered all over the blogosphere, but I do what I can.
Every individual has the right to a personal life. A man should be able to be whipped in private if that’s what floats his boat, without fear of reprisal. It’s the whole essence of what privacy is about. If Mr Mosley wants to waste his money on hookers then it is entirely up to him and none of our business. Some skeletons should just be allowed to stay locked in the closet.
Journalism should respect the principles of integrity and decency, not just think about lining wallets. The UK media would do well to report real news, rather than concentrate on the modern cult of fame and celebrities, and we would do well to mind our own business.
Whipped Cream?
posted by Lin at 8:08 AM
11 Comments:
As you will no doubt anticipate, I am in complete agreement with you here. Nice explication of the situation and conundrum.
In this case you've written complete and utter bollocks!
Leaving aside the morals of the NoW, or the culture of celebrity that seems to have consumed our society, Max Moseley deserved everything that the NoW exposure brought upon him. He was in the truest sense of the phrase; the architect of his own downfall... except he escaped with the connivance of the British judiciary.
It wasn't paparazi journalism that caused his wife and children major humiliation and wrecked their lives. It was his own actions that did that. Do you think his wife is angry at the NoW, or at the deception and shame that has been brought on her and her children, by her own husband's deception?
And to suggest that a prison scenario, with German uniforms, and German language had nothing to do with some sort of Nazi role play is also a complete travesty of the situation. Why was it a German scenario and a German prison? Why not an Irish one? Or a Swedish one?
The fact that Mosely's father was a founder of the British Fascist Party, and a Nazi sympathizer makes the NoW's defence of public interest valid. In addition, the fact that Max Mosely is President of the FIA, making him one of the most powerful people in a massive organisation with millions of members, makes the public interest defence perfectly legitimate.
The point is not that he was being spied upon, or that he was indulging in behaviour that is, in my view, entirely his perogative, but that he was/is in a position of immense power and influence, in a world that maybe doesn't accept that "any behaviour is acceptable."
As someone who values your right to free speech, you have so far missed the point of this judgement, as to be on a different planet.
The fetishes that Mosely enjoys are not in any way new, or unusual, or even abhorrent. Millions of people probably partake of similar on a daily basis, but they don't find themselves in the NoW, or even on the radar of the media. (The government is another matter...)
You may find the actions of the NoW, appalling or at the very least banal, but make no mistake, this vicious judgement was about curtailing the right to free speech.
And you're railing against the fact you have just had your right to free speech curtailed? That is incredibly difficult to understand from someone who normally writes from what I assumed was a generally well informed point of view.
Remember what Niemöller said: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Think further than the end of your own simplistic, parochial views and you may start to grasp the importance of what's happening around you.
By the way, the blog is very readable; the photographs are very repetitive.
Sorry!
“Auntie Mame [is] a froth of whipped cream and champagne and daydreams and Nuit de Noël perfume. She's not mortal at all.”
Patrick Dennis
Great images. Must have been fun.
D.L. Wood
Dear Rosebud,
I'm very sorry that you find my images repetitive. However, I feel I must point out that I don't take my photographs to please you, I take them to please me. And they do.
If you wish to see a more varied selection of images on this blog then I am available to shoot to your requirements subject to commission payment.
Please send all requests and accompanying CHEQUES to .....
Thank you for your candour Rosebud.
1. There is no evidence that Mosley was a nazi. None. You can’t convict a man because of the sins of his father. I agree facism is evil, no doubt about it, but go down to your local fancy dress shop and see how many nazi costumes there are for hire. It really is a very common fantasy. *Makes metal note never to do a nazi shoot*
2. Every person in the land has a right to a private life, from the Queen right down to the lowliest pleb like you and I. Yes what Mosley did was tasteless and repugnant, but it is still his private life, and since the occurrences in no way affect his ability to do his job, I cannot see why this story is in the public interest. Do those in the public eye have a moral duty to set an example to the rest of us by living pure and untainted lives? Well, humans are not like that in reality. Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone
3. My father worked in the newspaper business for twenty years. I was raised with it. The tabloids aren’t remotely interested in the public interest or freedom of speech, they are interested in profit. That’s it. The News of the World was interested in tittilation and humiliation, rather than loftier motives, and the court spotted that.
4.There is no right to free speech in this country. I thought everyone realised that. It was taken from us many years back with the introduction of the totalitarian state. The media are owned by puppets of the government and largely restrict what we read and see. There are many true stories I would love to tell on this blog, but am afraid to do so. Yes, afraid, because fellow UK bloggers who try to exercise their freedom of speech have had their servers seized and one I know even had violent threats from men in black. If you think that the Mosley judgement took away a genuine freedom that previously existed, then sir, it is you who are simplistic and parochial, not I.
5.Lastly, I was surprised to see your negative comment regarding the photographs on this blog. I would like to respectfully point out that you broke a cardinal rule of the photographic blogging world. You never ever criticise the artist. It is rude and uncalled for, and I expect better manners from my fellow countrymen.
Forget the erotica. Tell me about your new kitchen color schemes, please.
You were the influence for this one Dr L. I'm thinking something nice and cheerful, so have decided on Fruit-flavoured-Lifesaver-Yellow. Lemon walls...yum...although the orange flavour is tempting too.
Richard,
I've long given up hope of seeing images other than the ones you post. And I wasn't asking you to please me, I was merely voicing my opinion.
But hey, sorry if I've bruised your ego. That wasn't the intention.
Lin,
Post rationalisation is rarely effective.
I do apologise for breaking the cardinal rule of photographic blogging. I hadn't realised what a cloistered and precious pastime it is for some.
In fact I apologise for voicing an opinion and offending both Richard's and your sensibilities.
Given your responses, and tha fact that you actually approved my comment, I can only applaud your support for freedom of speech.
I wish you great success with your writing. It is often very inspiring and occasionally just bollocks.
"Whipped Cream?"
Love it!
Cheers
Wolf
Oh, do go with the lemon...it's so TART.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home