News

Tabloid photography through the eyes of the Czech Press Photo Jury 2011

4th Jan 2012

Tabloid press is very popular due to the publication of sensitive and sometimes voyeuristic photographs. Some Czech celebrities resort to attacking tabloid press photographers. Photographers defend themselves by saying that they are only doing their work and if they don’t do it, someone else will. Can paparazzi and voyeuristic photography be regarded as a legitimate profession or is it a misuse of one of the pillars of democracy – freedom of the press?

Daniela Mrazkova, Director of Czech Press Photo

Today, paparazzi are a part of our lives and especially a part of famous people’s lives. VIPs have to be aware of paparazzi. If they try to pretend that they don’t exist, then perhaps they are not intelligent enough to understand that, logically, they have to stay in the public eye through the tabloids. As far as voyeurism is concerned, that’s of course very bad. It’s bad to hunt people and spy on their private lives. But if someone photographs the prime minister with his lover, without permission, and not at a public event but perhaps when he walks with her on a public street, then the prime minister has no reason to be angry – he must know that something like that may happen.

There is the magic formula - that he or she are publicly known figures. And the prime minister is paid from our taxes, an actor generally not....

It doesn’t matter where his salary comes from. If he is an important public figure, he has to be aware and watch his behaviour.

What are the limits for a photographer? When is his behaviour acceptable and when not?

Everyone should decide their own limits, whether he makes his living as a paparazzi or investigative photographer, which sometimes looks the same but the objective is different.

Tomasz Gudzowaty, photographer, Poland

“When I don’t do it, someone else will” is never a good excuse. Personally, I am neither a consumer nor a producer of voyeuristic photography. Even if it were ok and legitimate - for example to satisfy some justifiable legal need – for me it is simply revolting and uninteresting. In any case it has nothing to do with the freedom of the press, which nowadays is threatened by the constantly increasing monopolisation of the media. Voyeurism is only a symptom of a general problem, which is the lack of interest in practically everything. It’s much easier to look at photographs of celebrities than something that needs an active involvement or need to comment. The freedom of the press, at least in Europe, is today threatened more by apathy than any anti-democratic leanings.

Celina Dunlop, picture editor The Economist, Great Britain

There are photographers who are professionals and there are people who have cameras. The opportunity to photograph celebrities was first explored through the media a few years ago and ‘people’s photojournalism‘ was born. Everyone with a mobile phone can photograph a celebrity if they see one. At the same time they can send this photograph immediately to a number of websites, which specialise in this type of photography.

I don’t believe that a real photographer would defend himself by saying that if he doesn’t do it someone else will. Tabloid voyeuristic photographers are not regarded as true photographers on the photography market. They are opportunists whose interest is to make money with pictures of celebrities. I don’t think it has anything to do with the freedom of the press. It has to do with the protection of personal data, the right to a private life, to be able to go and have a coffee with a friend without being photographed. It is a question of the law, not a question of the freedom of the press. They are two completely separate things.

Petr Josek, photographer Reuters, Czech Republic

Tabloid photography has to be divided into several groups. For example, a paparazzi can on occasion, keep politicians within the limits of acceptable behaviour. Public personalities are paid with our tax money and so they should live by some code of conduct. When someone catches them doing something they shouldn’t be doing, then the photograph is useful and I can only condone it. People can’t preach morality and not live what they preach. But as long as we talk about voyeurism, when someone photographs someone else taking their clothes off in front of a window, then for me it’s an infringement of privacy, which is unlawful and that’s unacceptable.

Then there are situations when a number of celebrities seek the paparazzi... Often it is because they are not so popular anymore and any mention in any newspaper keeps them alive. But I would like to stress that everything depends on the moral and personal qualities of each photographer. Just as there are moral people and immoral people, there are moral and immoral photographers. Some have limits and don’t go beyond those and there are others who have no limits.

Lee Yong-Hwan, pedagogue Chung-ang University, South Korea

We don’t have tabloid press in South Korea. We had it and then it disappeared again. People were taking tabloids to court and also were committing suicide because they saw their pictures in newspapers. And so the government changed the privacy laws. The media are looking for a new way of attracting readers –iPad newspapers, iPad magazines, etc. The newspapers struggle for survival. They are not making enough money; everything is in chaos.

Marian Pauer, pedagogue, publicist, curator, Slovakia

We used to divide western press between that which creates public opinion and the tabloids. After 1989 we naively believed that it would be the same here. But sadly, the owners of newspapers that create public opinion soon discovered what sells well. And they started to adjust to the market. So it’s hard to speak about whether there are still any media here that influence public opinion. And it’s hard to say whether there is any difference between the media, which can influence public opinion and the tabloids. There should be a difference but unfortunately it is diminishing, year by year and even media which influences public opinion take on tabloid practices. Voyeurism is definitely not a legitimate job, and the misuse of the freedom of the press by tabloids can be seen in a wider context. If politicians and personalities were not giving journalists the opportunity to exploit their behaviour voyeuristically, journalists would not be initiating voyeuristic opportunities.

Mladen Antonov, photographer, editor-in-chief AFP Photo, France

The owners of tabloid press and their journalists satisfy their readers’ interest with gossip and photographs of people’s private lives. The limits were overstepped a long time ago. In our agency we distinguish what is and what isn’t a public space. We try to respect other people’s privacy and avoid too much infringement into politicians, VIPs and famous people’s private sphere. I am saying that because there still are photographers and journalists who respect privacy.

It is a market created by tabloids. The tabloid press wouldn’t exist by itself. There are readers or buyers who pay to read gossip. It is not about the freedom of the press. Photographers have no right to photograph someone on the toilet, for example.

Peter Korniss, photographer, World press Photo Advisory Board, Hungary

It is a difficult question because people have to make their money somehow. If you don’t do this, you need to do something else. You go to a war or you do photographs with a social focus, documentaries about Somalia...or you go to photograph celebrities for the tabloid press.

It all depends on the culture of individual countries. For example in Hungary we don’t have paparazzi, but in England they are accepted. In Italy,too. Last year we had Antonello Zappadu from Italy on the jury who secretly photographed Berlusconi in his villa and had an exhibition here. I didn’t like it. He couldn’t exhibit that in Hungary. But maybe with globalisation, it will get to Hungary too. It wasn’t a tradition in your country either and now you have it here.

Voyeuristic tabloid photography and press are unfortunately a part of democracy; extreme political parties can also be heard. It is a tragedy. Personally I am very upset about it, but when you vote for democracy, you have to accept this as well – the existence of political extremism, paparazzi and glossy gossip magazines with celebrities.

Andrej Reiser, photographer Bilderberg, Czech Republic

In my opinion it is not the misuse of the freedom of the press – one of the pillars of democracy – but the misuse of a basic human right, guaranteed by the constitution - protection of the private sphere of public life.

Silvia Olmedes Alegre, curator, pedagogue, publicist. Spain

If it doesn’t have an anthropological reason, tabloid photography is only a job like cooking or making advertisements. Tabloid photographers work for money, not because they are interested in the human aspect. They don’t contribute to creating a culture. For me, a good photograph has to inform, create emotions and pose questions. What questions do celebrities pose? But to be a paparazzi is a normal job. When one offers and the other buys, it is work. Many people would say that it is the law of the market. And morals? That’s what we think is right...and that depends on individuals. There is an audience for everything.

Cvetan Tomcev, photographer, Chairman of Bulgarian Press Photo, Bulgaria

In Bulgaria the tabloids put more and more emphasis on sleazy stories about VIPs. People are tired of politics and they want to see photographs from the private lives of celebrities. And if the tabloids publish such photographs, they make more money.

The public has a right to know how a politician is behaving on a yacht for example, when he invites girls there.... Antonello Zapadu, member of last year’s jury CPP, photographed your Prime Minister Topolanek in Berlusconi’s villa. But I feel that there are limits. To get pictures from behind a closed door or climbing through a window should be taboo for photographers. But to photograph VIPs on the street is normal.

Walter Bergmoser, pedagogue, curator, Germany

Freedom of the press? That’s not the right question. If I think about what happened to the Kennedys in the 60s, I would say that the paparazzi have always existed, and so has pressure on photographers to produce tabloid type images. I think that this will always exist and it will always be exactly the same. The problem is not the freedom of photography or the freedom of the press; the problem is in the readers’ expectations. “We want this type of photography” ... and so someone has to provide them. There will always be someone who will take these types of images, be it a photographer or neighbour. The important thing is that not too many rules get broken. The problem is not the press or journalism. The problem is us, people, because we are the ones who want to see all this.

The author wishes to thank to Liba Taylor and Johana Tumova for the translation.

← Back to news