|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Every day we see thousands of pictures printed in newspapers, magazines, on the internet and on television. These could be pictures cars, animals, members of the general public famous public figures or international media stars. We can have a passing interest in the photograph but it does not generate much reaction unless it is presented in such a way it grabs our attention. These pictures are generally of private moments or embarrassing situations, often taken without the awareness or permission of the person photographed. There are of course instances when coverage is welcomed. Actors do want to be recognized at movie premiers or charity nights as this is part of their public persona and relates to how they make their money. However these pictures do not have the same market value as the sensational ‘snapshot’. People who specialize in taking this type of picture are termed ‘freelance’ photographers, otherwise known as the ‘Paparazzi’. They believe, as a former British newspaper editor put it, “the earnings from a single photograph could turn them from paupers to men who never needed to work again''. It would seem that the more famous a celebrity is may indicate how much money a freelance photographer will receive if they take pictures of them. This often leads to an invasion of privacy. An example of this was the way the press treated Princess Diana.
Approximate Word count = 877
Approximate Pages = 3.5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|