Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

Helen Lewis

News and views about writing, eating, gaming and watching

Syndicate contentRSS

What can the Leveson Inquiry do about the paparazzi?

While the rest of the press practises its "contrite face", the paps are unabashed.

How low can the paparazzi go? The lower the better, in the case of the "upskirt" shot beloved of the bottom reaches of the tabloid press. There's an incredible scene in a Channel 4 documentary about the Sunday Sport in which the paper hires a dwarf photographer for exactly this purpose, and he still had to lie on the floor to get the required amount of groin in the frame. (At his job interview, the tact and sensitivity you'd expect from a paper that ran the headline "Rose West ate my guinea pig" was on full display. "Can we call you Phil the Mighty Midget?" asked one of the journalists. "I'm not a midget," Phil replied, stonily. He was eventually named the "Dynamo Dwarf".)

On Fleet Street, the "paps" have long been regarded as the wildest tribe of all - hunting as a pack, spending weeks camped outside celebrities' houses, or employing ever more unwieldy lenses to capture the unwary in an unflattering bikini. A hand-held 300mm camera can provide decent pictures at more than 100 metres, but if you've got a bigger lens, a teleconverter, a tripod and a bit of patience, you can record the special moment an American reality TV star pulls her knickers out of her bum crack from more than a quarter of a kilometre away.

Back to pap

Even as the rest of Fleet Street has been sobering up and practising its "contrite face", the role of the paparazzi has been ignored. It's as if, having had our fit of guilt in the wake of Diana's death, we've used up our quota of outrage. But the paps are still using many of the tactics that troubled us then. There's a photo of the day of Amy Winehouse's funeral, with a knot of photographers wobbling on stepladders, the better to get a shot over the wall of Golders Green Crematorium.

In his evidence to the Leveson inquiry into press standards on 21 November, Hugh Grant has written of the experience of Tinglan Hong, the mother of his baby. He says that photographers "besieged" her house, "ringing repeatedly at her door". As he said: "I asked them if there was anything I could do or say to make them leave a new and frightened young mother in peace. They said: 'show us the baby'. I refused."

After trying the Press Complaints Commission - it circulated a warning to editors, which apparently deterred some, but not all, of the photographers - Grant successfully applied for an injunction against them.

The NS's legal correspondent, David Allen Green, speculated that while the PCC ruling might have made newspaper editors call off the hunt, it was unlikely to have the same effect on photo agencies and freelance paparazzi: "the intrusions - and risks - are effectively outsourced on a commercial basis by the tabloids".

It is worth noting that the impetus for the Leveson inquiry - phone-hacking at the News of the World - was also caused by a paper "outsourcing" legally and ethically dubious tactics, in this case to private investigators. Any press reform must tackle not just the sitting targets of Fleet Street, but the shifting, quicksilver world of those they pay to do their dirty work for them.

Tags: Leveson Inquiry  Phone hacking scandal  News of the World

13 comments

Dickie1's picture

"...moment an American reality TV star pulls her knickers out of her bum crack from more than a quarter of a kilometre away."

Money well spent eh! woof woof.

But on a serious note I don't think taking pictures is the problem; people will always want to see things like Amy Winehouse's funeral (above) and if they are take with permission then fine. It's the tapping of phones, the intrusion, and most disgustingly the willful disregard for how people are effected by actions like hacking that is the problem.

Paparazzi Reform Initiative Inc's picture

We, in America, appreciate the lead you all have taken on reining in the out-of-control paparazzi. We have gotten a couple of paparazzi-reform laws passed here in California, but it is tough going. We love all the testimony coming out of the Leveson case.
www.paparazzi-reform.org

Ian5's picture

1) Adopt the French no pictures in the street.

2) breaches? a compulsory fine of twice any revenue received for the picture

3) Beef up sub judice rules

4) Retractions should have same space and location as original article. and same font....might change spurious front page headlines???

That will do for a start.

swatantra nandanwar's picture

b****r all., is what Levinson will. do.
The Enquiry should have been extended to not just the Press but Visual media as well.
Nothing is more disgustng than the sight of 200 Media cameras parked outside a celebs home, or someone in the news. Leave them alone You don't need actual pictures to tell the story. And any Editor found in possession of a picture or information obtained illegally imprisonment for 6 months.
As DAG has pointed out, strenghten the Law on harassment; nail these stalkers, heavy fines confiscate equipment and imprisonment. You have to nail the Editors otherwise it won't stop. The stories about Mosley or Grant or Miller could have been told without those pctures.

Gareth's picture

I'd hate to see photography banned in public, without street photography, we'd be without some amazing visual histories of this world.
Paps are a disgrace to photographers, though.

People need to not buy the drivel they produce, that is the only way I fear we will stop these papers printing the images.

Ian5's picture

Dear Paparazzi Reform, not sure which of our nations infected the other with this vile condition....I blame the aussies, but it needs to be eradicated. Are your methods working?

swatantra nandanwar's picture

People are queing up to see Leonardo at the National Gallery. And Leonardo never had a camera, apart from the camera obscura.

Ian5's picture

Gareth, street photography is not banned per se, but the publication of the material is.

swatantra, thats naughty..

SpudMiddleton's picture

"What can the Leveson Inquiry do about the paparazzi?"

Easy...introduce massively punitive privacy laws. Split the whole of humanity into two categories: "the human beings" and the "celebs". The massively punitive privacy laws will apply only to a breach of a human beings's privacy. It's open season on "celebs" 24/7/365/6.

Here's how the split works: "human beings" is basically everybody...it's a birthright. "Celeb" status is immediately and automatically acquired the second you endorse anything for payment...or make a statement concerning morality (in a pretty broad sense) and fall foul of your own standards...a reasonably public, frank and suitably abject apology and the transgressor's acceptance of his/her own hypocrisy will restore "human being" status...however, the press will retain the right to reveal all they can find about said transgressor for a further period of 31 days to stop the potential for abuse of the re-instatory stipulation by nipping 'stuff' in the bud.

SpudMiddleton's picture

"a human beings's..."

Now I'm sounding like fuckin Gollum...as sure a sign of obsessive derangement as is possible to be signposted.

and yet..

Briar's picture

Nothing, as long as the public gobble up the dirt they dish up.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets