At War with the Paparazzi Benjamin Biwer 4320316 JOUR3745 (Section 001)

“I can’t go to war with paparazzi” (Craig). This statement, made by Daniel Craig, unintentionally (and unknowingly) references the power struggle between celebrity spin machines and the paparazzi. In his piece, “On the Function of the United States Paparazzi: Mosquito Swarm or Watchdogs of Celebrity Image, Control, and Power”, Andrew Mendelson analyzes the function of paparazzi and the role these popular culture fixtures have on society and celebrity. Specifically, Mendelson examines the “war” between highly controlled celebrity images and candid, raw offerings provided by the paparazzi. While an argument can, and should, be made regarding privacy issues, pictures obtained by paparazzi provide a necessary checks-and-balances system to the cunning world of celebrity and entertainment (Mendelson). To this end, Mendelson’s argument that journalists (i.e. the paparazzi) should “look more deeply” into celebrities and popular culture events is completely valid. This paper will provide arguments that support Mendelson’s view of the paparazzi – first, by exploring the issues presented by celebrity-controlled personas; and second, by reinforcing the need for fact checking, as exists in political and professional realms. Mendelson provides a thought-provoking piece that challenges conventional wisdom on the paparazzi (i.e. privacy and boundary issues). The most poignant of his arguments describes the tactics the media can use to report on celebrity – ignore them altogether, position them as little more than tabloid fodder, comply with the carefully constructed images, or report on them with a critical eye. Mendelson seems to advocate for the last option by believing that the paparazzi offer candid, if not critical, insight into a celebrity’s reality. In fact, he goes as far to say that the paparazzi act as a “moral light” that illuminates unsavory behavior. Moreover, he argues that paparazzi are extreme

investigative journalists with the power to shatter seemingly perfect images put forth by a celebrity and his or her publicity team. Although Mendelson analyzes the paparazzi in terms of image control, he also addresses the privacy and boundary issues that are most commonly associated with the paparazzi. Mendelson writes that the majority perceives the paparazzi as “the worst kind of media, taking advantage of the First Amendment in order to harass people.” However, this privacy approach reinforces carefully constructed images as it allows celebrities to position themselves as a group requiring empathy from society, instead of a group that holds the power to control how society perceives them (Mendelson). To this end, Mendelson’s piece identifies the conflict between celebrities and paparazzi as the “terrain of struggle” wherein both groups battle for control over the images and personas presented to consumers. Ultimately, Mendelson argues that paparazzi act as the perfect storm by providing a stark contrast to the carefully constructed confines of celebrity. The paparazzi provide a necessary checks-and-balances system to celebrity and the entertainment industry. In order to analyze the discrepancy between perceived (i.e. public) persona and actual (i.e. private) personality, one must understand the front and back regions that comprise a celebrity. As defined by Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, the front region encompasses a celebrity’s public persona and emphasizes behaviors the celebrity wishes to convey to the media and audiences; the back region refers to a celebrity’s actual personality and often times encompasses behaviors and personality traits that conflict with a celebrity’s front region (Mendelson). Goffman suggests that the back region allows the celebrity to “step out of

character” and serves as a forum to construct a desirable persona to offer media and audiences in the front region. The use of the word character solidifies the first main point of this paper – issues arise when audiences believe a celebrity’s back region is synonymous with his or her front region. In other words, if a consumer of popular culture believes a character is an authentic entity, it can be argued that he or she will try to emulate behaviors that would be detrimental to his or her health, reputation, or perceived self-worth. There is perhaps no greater distinction between the front and back regions than that of Beyoncé Knowles. By many accounts, Beyoncé is considered a modern day feminist; a crusader for women; empowering her fans to look and feel their best, regardless of societal norms. She has built a successful career that has earned her financial independence and encourages her female fans to attempt the same. Beyoncé participated in the “Ban Bossy” campaign, spearheaded by Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, to empower women to succeed in their careers. Beyoncé has solidified her front region as a positive influence on her female fans. However, a video released by TMZ in May 2014 offered a rare glimpse into her back region, which stood in stark contrast to the persona put forth to the media and the audiences. The video showed a physical altercation between Solange Knowles and Jay Z, which, while controversial in its own right, was overshadowed by Beyoncé’s seemingly submissive behavior. Beyoncé’s actions, or lack thereof, left the media and many of her fans confused – this woman, supposedly a crusader for women, stood idly by while those close to her engaged in behavior unbecoming of dignified human beings.

Herein lies the consequences of concocting an image vastly different from reality – the paparazzi, by way of TMZ, brought Beyoncé’s back region to the forefront and exposed her as far from the feminist she claims to be. This is dangerous for impressionable fans that take Beyoncé at her word and seek to emulate the behavior presented in her front region, only to find out it is, for all intents and purposes, a myth. The footage released by TMZ suggested that Beyoncé does not take issue with violence and that female submission in relationships is acceptable and healthy, especially when taking action has consequences (i.e. disrupts her brand). It also delivered a crushing blow to Beyoncé’s fans, leaving them to question her credibility and integrity. This powerful example highlights the dangers in presenting a carefully concocted image that stands in stark contrast to reality. It also reinforces the old adage that ignorance may indeed be bliss – by not practicing what she preaches, Beyoncé sent the message to fans that outward appearances are more important than reality. In other words, an intact, albeit fraudulent, front region supersedes authentic behaviors and actions. As discussed in class, the function of journalists in a society is to inform citizens and to act as watchdogs (Williams). To this end, paparazzi can be viewed as investigative journalists. They provide a necessary checks-and-balances system to celebrity and entertainment news. This only seems justified as similar systems are imposed on almost every other segment of news and class of public figures (i.e. politicians, notable businesspersons). For instance, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is tasked with regulating businesses; court systems across the country are tasked with evaluating claims made by businesses to determine

the veracity of these claims. From a journalism perspective, broadcast news sources, such as Fox News, frequently fact check statements and speeches given by politicians to ensure that they are based in fact and are not misleading. Why, then, are celebrities and entertainment news not held to the same standard? In fact, Mendelson introduces this idea of watchdogs in the title of his paper. The paparazzi act as informal watchdogs and function much like the SEC, as they substantiate (or debunk) a celebrity’s front region (Mendelson). This function can be observed by analyzing the paparazzi’s role in the Tiger Woods scandal – in November 2009, media outlets reported that Tiger Woods had been involved in an accident outside his Florida home. Initially cited for careless driving, it was soon revealed that Tiger Woods was far from the wholesome family man he appeared to be. His front region imploded, as the paparazzi and the tabloids debunked Tiger’s solid image and illuminated his back region. Although devastating for his wife and children, Tiger Woods should be expected to maintain the decorum expected of the common citizen and be held accountable for his actions. This framework can be applied to the entire entertainment industry – operating under the guise of a fraudulent, albeit meticulously crafted, image is the equivalent of false and exaggerated claims made by businesses. The only difference is that businesses are held accountable and penalized for making erroneous claims. Shouldn’t celebrities abide by the same set of rules and laws? In fact, presenting a character as reality should be more regulated than businesses, as the actions of this elite group could pose a direct threat to vulnerable audiences. Without the paparazzi acting as a watchdog (much like the SEC or Supreme

Court), celebrities would go unchecked and would not be held accountable for their behaviors and actions. In conclusion, celebrities are at war with the paparazzi (Mendelson). While many protest the privacy and boundary issues these photographers pose, Mendelson examines the function of the paparazzi from an image-control perspective. To this end, the paparazzi play a vital role in society as a watchdog; they provide a necessary checks-and-balances system to an otherwise superficial world (Mendelson). The idea of the front region and the back region serve as the backbone of this argument – issues, and potentially dangers, are presented by celebrity-controlled personas for a vulnerable consumer that seeks to emulate the behaviors/actions of his or her favorite celebrity (Mendelson). Similarly, the paparazzi are a necessary byproduct of fame, as they provide a fact-checking function that is imposed on politicians and businesses. The paparazzi have the power to shatter fraudulent personas by putting a celebrity’s back region on center stage. For this reason, it can be argued that Daniel Craig was entirely correct in saying “I can’t go to war with paparazzi.” It seems that the paparazzi will always hold control as long as celebrities continue to manufacture images that stand in stark contrast to reality.

Works Cited Craig, Daniel. "Daniel Craig." Interview. Time Out. N.p., July 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. Mendelson, Andrew L. "On the Function of Paparazzi in the United States: Mosquito Swam or Watchdogs of Celebrity Image Control and Power." Visual Studies 22.2 (September 2007): n. pag. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. Williams, Jennifer. "Celebrities & Pop Culture." 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. Williams, Jennifer. "Entertainment News." 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.