Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1.    #1  
    Did anyone else see this show on Fox? I watched because I will admit it is interesting, but it felt like Fox was being a little two-faced about the whole thing.

    They made Paparazzi out to be horrible scum eating vermon (I can agree) and that the only reason they exist is because people will pay for the footage or stills. But they obviously had to pay for the footage and stills they used on thier show! Therefore creating demand......

    I am know I am just off on a tangent....I should go to bed. But it just felt like they were saying one thing and doing another.
    Ryan Clayton
    <A HREF=""><IMG SRC="">
  2. #2  
    Imagine that!*sarcasm* The press being two faced

    Good point Ryan, but lets take it one step further and add the fact that:

    1. you watched it
    2. which created the demand
    3. which paid the "vermin"
    4. to continue the cycle

    Been there, done that and I can totally agree with your thoughts.
  3.    #3  
    Oh yeah, I did forget to mention I watched it....guilty as charged. But it was entertaining....LOL
    Ryan Clayton
    <A HREF=""><IMG SRC="">
  4. #4  
    i'm just surprised they didn't name the show "when cameras attack!"
  5. #5  
    I ended up with a photojournalism degree from college, and just happened to be flipping thru when I saw that show. So I stuck around and watched most of it with a bad taste in my mouth.
    The paparazzi have stained a honorable craft.
    I think Princess Diana's death has dramatically heightened the awareness of stalk-arazzi photographers (still and video). People are becoming much less tolerant of their collective indiscretion. There's a blatant disregard for the human code of conduct in that "profession".
    Woody Harrelson (Cheers, White Men Can't Jump) punched a photographer because the guy wouldn't stop taking pictures of his daughter. I'd be pissed, too.
    I've heard that the term "paparazzi" means insect or pest in Italian. How apropos is that? =)

    They've given the entire craft a bad image ... I work for a major metro daily newspaper (no longer as a photographer) ... Shooters today are on even par with lawyers: would you trust either? No. It shouldn't be that way.
    Pro photogs can take pictures that bring you to tears, or make you burst with laughter, or help you see the injustice in someone's eyes. They take pristine landscapes, wonderfully artistic portraits and more.
    They SHOW you emotion. They humanize a topic.
    The aren't paparazzi.

    Phew! Sorry for the rant. It's been a bad day at the office and this ended up being my outlet!
    Maybe I'll zap my PortaMonkey ... that always helps!

    [Edited by brijoco on 10-20-2000 at 12:00 PM]
  6. #6  
    Don't you just love Fox? They don't pretend to be something they are not. They show shows that we are all embarassed to admit we watch, but all secretly love.

    I thought it was just great when they didn't show one of the presidential debates!

    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  7. #7  
    a quote from the simpons comes to mind- the episode was a flash-forward to 20 years in the future:

    marge: "wow-- fox turned into a hardcore porn channel so slowly I never even noticed!"

    I have a webcomic. You should read it, or I may do something rash. <b><a href=>Drive-by Loitering</a></b> is updated every monday, wednesday and friday.

    <!img src= alt="Soundsgood is too elite for the punks."><img src= ><!img src= alt="Soundsgood is too elite for the punks.">
  8. #8  
    Fox News has got to be the worst news show on TV, period! I have seen it many times and always regret it. Once, I watched the ancher dude laugh when he was reporting the death of a child! I am not making this up, it really happened.

Posting Permissions