http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-09/entertainment/sunshine.access_1_paparazzi-car-chases-celebrities?_s=PM%3ASHOWBIZ
In this CNN Entertainment interview, Ken Sunshine, a publicist for some major celebrities, tells us his view on the paparazzi.
Here are some things to consider:
1. Just by the title, "Why Paparazzi are Wrong", we know what the author is trying to persuade us to believe. How does Sunshine or the author trying to persuade you that paparazzi are wrong?
2. As a magazine buyer of magazines, whether it's Sports Illustrated or People Magazine, does Sunshine speak to you? Does he make you want the paparazzi to stop? (Also consider your interest in magazines and how magazines affect or influence your life)
3. Why does this article not include the prospective of a magazine buyer or a celebrity?
4. How does this relate to our theme "Public vs. Private"?
This article "Why Paparazzi are wrong" tries to persuade us to believe that paparazzi often behave wrong and that they extravagate the border of privacy. To persuade us he tries to involve the reader into the event by asking us "How would you feel when...?". By doing so the reader can follow Sunshine's thoughts easily. Further he uses a lot of negative examples - for example that Lindsey Lohan nearly got killed by a "lunatic" - which show what can happen if paparazzi behave too aggressive and blindfold. But who can tell if that "lunatic" really was a paparazzi? He just tries to make the paparazzi as bad as possible, because he works for celebrities, who want more privacy. That means he is limited in his view, because he cannot say something that does not appeal to his clients. Finally he uses an anaphora ("There's something...There's something...") do underline his opinion that something is not right with paparazzi.
ReplyDeleteBecause Sunshine is a publicist for some major celebrities, I think he tries to appeal to the paparazzi to be more careful or especially more thoughtful about their behabvior. But I also think that he wants to speak to us - to normal people - that we need to be aware of the circumstances when we look at all the pictures in the magazines. He tries to say that it's not always easy for the celebrities to handle the photographers every day, every hour and every minute.
This article relates to our theme "Public vs. Private" because paparazzi are people who work for the public by interrupting famous people's privacy. When you dicuss about paparazzi you always need to come up with the questions: How much information can paparazzi provide for the public? Where does the privacy of celebrities start?
I think you are on the right track with his use of vocabulary. When reading the article words like "lunatic, weird, crazy, and outrageous". This attracts the reader and makes them relate these words to paparazzi. The effect of Sunshine's tone in this article sets a negative view towards these "stalkarazzi".
DeleteAgain, I agree with you on his motives. I think he is doing so because he works for celebrities that face a battle with the exposure of their private lives.
I agree with you the point that Sunshine describes paparazzi negatively. It's so obviously that he tries to leave readers a bad impression on paparazzi. It seems like the article includes too many his person strong viewpoints.
DeleteIn addition, I think you help me answer the question that how does this article relates to the perspective of magazines. I agree with your point on this question. He wants to tell us that we need to be aware of the pictures on the magazines since they may be took by paparazzi. These pictures may have affected celebrities' privacy alredy.
I agree that Sunshine is trying to leave the readers with a negative view or paparazzi. He uses names and even says that a person could die. These are all tactics to help persuade the reader.
DeleteAs Nadine had said, Sunshine uses a lot of negative words and comments to describe the paparazzi making it too clear that he is trying to persuade us to believe that paparazzi are bad. One of the tools that he uses to persuade us is by giving us examples of what paparazzi does to a celebrity. But I also notice that in all of the examples that he uses he always refers to a particular one, the one about Lindsey Lohan on the Hollywood hills. The primary reason for him to use it so many times is because it is really bad. Thus, by using it he can persuade others really easily, but if he uses it extensively does it mean that he does not have any other cruel examples to use. Doesn’t that mean that the paparazzi are not doing these things all the time; if they were even paparazzi that is.
ReplyDeleteThis article relates to our theme of private vs. public because, well, paparazzi are invading the privacy of celebrities. But as Sunshine points out some celebrities want this kind of attention. So the celebrities are also using the paparazzi as a tool. In that sense who is invading who?
wow, Nadine did a very good job!
ReplyDeleteSunshine arises readers' empathy, uses bad words and anaphora ending and talks within publist's motivation.
keep going!
"Somebody's going to get seriously injured or killed in a car accident unless something is done about these car chases." is it just a prediction?
we can also see from the article that the author mentions celebrities' children. what do you guys think of that?
By mentioning the celebreties' children Sunshine brings in a emotional aspect. Everybody is worried about children and does not want them to get hurt. Because of this Sunshine gets more agreement or a bigger understanding from the readers.
DeleteThe statement "Somebody's going to get seriously injured or killed in a car accident unless something is done about these car chases." is kind of a far-fetched statement without evidence. He wants to underline his position about paparazzi by giving a worst-case scenario to the reader. It can serve as a shock or a wake-up call for the reader to notice that a discussion about paparazzi is not an unimportant or funny thing - no! - it is a serious topic and that's what Sunshine wants to point out.
Yi, I'm glad you pointed the quote out because I was going to mention about this particular quote as well.
DeleteAs you can see, it's in the very beginning of the article, and when I first read that quote, I was so shocked because I never thought the things these paparazzis do could (physically) kill someone... When I think of paparazzis, I always think of people who take pictures of the personal lives of celebrities.. I never thought of such extreme effect of paparazzis on celebrity. And I do not think it's just a prediction because this quote is followed by an example of Lindsey Lohan getting almost kiilled by a lunatic... Here is the quote "Lindsay Lohan almost did get killed by some lunatic that purposely rammed her car."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Yi’s post, often people stay away from photos and articles that say something bad about children. Many pictures or articles about children are about how cute they are or how they feel bad for their situation. In the article, Sunshine makes it sound like it is creepier to stalk celebrities’ children’s lives than to stalk adult stars and their every move. Making a child look bad will not please an audience, but paparazzi make big money if they reveal Kim Kardashian’s latest scandal. I think Sunshine wants us to think, why is this and what makes us feel bad for child stars, but love reading about the hardships that adult celebrities, who have feelings just like us, face in their lives?
ReplyDeleteSomething else to think about: Why does the author feel the need to add that Sunshine is the publicist for Ben Afflack, Ben Affleck, Justin Timberlake and Leonardo DiCaprio? Does this make his opinions more valuable in the eyes of readers?
The article has a strong viewpoint that paparazzi are wrong. There are many negative aspects and behaviors about paparazzi listed in the article. The author used Ben Affleck, Justin Timberlake and Leonardo DiCaprio's publicist Ken Sunshine's words to persuade us celebrities need private room and personal time. They don't want to always be a star under the flash light. Sunshine use repetition word “weird" to persuade us what the paparazzi's behavior is totally invading the celebrities' normal private life. However, I feel kind of weird that why does he has a big complaint about the paparazzi. Does his words imply something. I also think about the question that Lauren asked “which is the need to add that Sunshine is publicist for Ben Affleck, Justin Timberlake and Leonardo DiCaprio.” Does he made an advertisement for these three celebrities?
ReplyDeleteThis article relates our theme "Public vs. Private", because public's curiousness about celebrities' has actually invaded celebrities' private life, no matter how the celebrities protect their private information, the paparazzi still have the method to disclose their personal information.
As long as there is a market for the private lives of celebrities there will be paparazzi capturing personal information on celebrities. Just as any industry, the paparazzi industry has its flaws, but from the tone of the article there seems to be many people that have had enough with its antics. The people that dislike the paparzzi though are greatly out-numbered by those that crave celebrity information. It is an inherent job risk with being out in the public eye all of the time, but when they want to escape they have the means to do so. As for messing around with the children of celebrities, and family in general, there must be a line drawn as was stated in the article. It is abhorrent for the family to be drawn in and to have their lives spoken about across the country. As what was done with the Palin and the Bush family for example was absolutely detestable. The celebrity is the only one that should be written about.
DeleteJiachu, good job pointing out Sunshine repeating the phrase "There's something weird about somebody whose..." because this reminded me of the analytical method we just discussed in class this week. This shows the kind of strategy Sunshine is using to tell the readers what the main idea of this article is. According to WA, "whatever repeats is what the thing is about." It's clear that the last three sentences Sunshine tells us focus on the crazy behaviors of paparazzis that are out of control, which is relevant to the title of this article.
DeleteOverall it's obvious that the author portrays paparazzi as evil based on their actions towards celebrities. But like Nadine mentioned this could mainly be due to who wrote the article. Because Ken Sunshine works for the celebrities he is very biased in his response to them and can use very biased dialect and harsh words. That being said they might not be as bad as they're made out to be in the article. The examples used, such as Lindsey Lohan almost getting killed, are very drastic and probably dont happen as often as one might think. I do believe though that the paparazzi are going overboard with how much they follow celebrities around "stalking" them. When paparazzi go as far as to involve the children into it there should definitely be something done about them. The media and the American population should stay focused on who's the famous one, not the lives of their children.
ReplyDeleteRelating to the issue of "Public versus Private" because the celebrities(private) lives are being interrupted and invaded buy the paparazzi(public). It makes it hard for celbrities because most of their inforamtion is out in the open becasue of the paparazzi, the media, and the internet.
I agree with my peers that Sunshine has quite an extremist view point on the paparazzi. Obviously, he works in the field where he has to deal with the paparazzi on a daily basis, thus he is likely to be very negative toward them. Mostly, this article is focused on Sunshine's negative view points. I don't think I can find one place where he actually says anything positive about them. Therefore, the article is quite biased.
ReplyDeleteRelating to the course theme of private vs. public, Sunshine does bring up a pretty valid point. Sunshine is showing that data isn't only accessible through the internet, or public records, they are always "stalking" these celebrities to get information.
Sunshine also brings up a valid point about celebrities children.
Do you guys think that the author is trying to convince us that the children may also have to deal heavily with this issue of private vs public just because of their parents?
I do believe that the children are subject to this because of their parents. They probably have to learn about Public vs. Private at a very young age. I don’t follow celebrity gossip very closely, but I know that its always a HUGE deal when a celebrity either has a kid or adopts a child. From the start of their life as the child of a celebrity, they are being watched and probably have to deal with it on a daily basis.
DeleteI think that it is unfortunate for kids to be born into an environment where they have to be subjected to flashing lights from day one. This is completely unacceptable and needs to be dealt with. But, the emotional aspect of having a child endure such publicity is definitely a point in which Sunshine and the author can play off of. When innocent children who have done nothing more than being born into their family life are being taken advantage of because of who their parents are, there is a fundamental issue glaring out at the public. No reasonable person should have half a mind to be okay with kids being publicly scrutinized or shown off because of their parents success.
DeleteAccording to the title of the paragraph, obviously, the author wants to tell us celebrities' privacy are seriously affected by paparazzi. By interviewing to Sunshine, we can know some more details about why paparazzi are outrageous. They take pictures to those celebrities which can make them feel embarrassed. They give us some examples of how celebrities play with paparazzi like driving up or down the Hollywood Hills or having a team of desperate lunatics. Sunshine reveals more details in paparazzi's dark aspect, which make readers hold the bad impressions toward paparazzi.
ReplyDeleteI also hate paparazzi very much especially they reveal some negative news of my idols. I think celebrities are the same as a ordinary person when they are off stage. They also should have the rights to walk around on the street without anyone disturbing. But paparazzi make it impossible. They make celebrities try every way possible to get rid of paparazzi, which makes me hate paparazzi. I think the law should also try to protect celebrities' privacy.
It relates to our topic 'Private vs. public' since it tells the issue that celebrities' privacy get invaded. They have to keep a good image when they are in public. But they also have to keep it when in private in case of paparazzi. The article is talking about public is invading the private on celebrities. So I think it relates pretty good with our topic.
good jobs!! and thanks!
ReplyDeleteafter seeing Laurren's question and Jiachu's respond, i began to think about Sunshine's motivation. He strongly critices paparazzi's bad behaviors with three celebrities' names, whom he represents, in the very begining of the article.does this indicate that paparazzi dig out something very attractive about those three celebrities, which, to some degree, would arise audiance's curiousness to find out what was discovered, which, happens to draw people's attention to them and make them more famous? i guess so.
the author or Sunshine try to keep paparazzi away, but what they do would actually get more stalkers come.
I agree with your opinion that the more they try to get away from paparazzi and the more they get stalkers come. We ordinary people are curious about what is happening in celebrities’ life when they are off stage. We want to compare our life to theirs and see what is different. Perhaps not only do paparazzi work for money, but also they work for ordinary people's curiosity. Since we are willing to buy this kind of magazines, they can make money by spying on celebrities’ life. Thus, when celebrities try to keep away, it makes paparazzi think that there must be something happening. It can draw more attention.
DeleteI can clearly know what the article is trying to say by just looking at its title “Why paparazzi are wrong”. The tittle is based on the form of a question. It is obvious and direct with the purpose of persuading readers to believe paparazzi are bad guys and they are doing something wrong by just asking why. When I start to read the whole article, I notice that the article is the form of questions and answers which come from an interview of Sunshine. This is an effective way to draw readers’ attention because people want to know the answers. I also notice that all these questions are asked with some intention. For example, the first question is “Are the paparazzi going too far? ” . It is presented in a negative way. Although it is just a question, it leaves me a bad impression about paparazzi by saying “going too far”. Moreover, these questions are all yes or no questions except for the last one. They are highly biased because the answers for them are either yes or no. According to Sunshine’s answers, he heavily use negative words like “injured” “killed ” “dangerous” to portray celebrities as vulnerable groups due to “abusive behavior” of those “lunatics”. When readers read these words, they would probably show their sympathy for celebrities and think why paparazzi do such bad things.
ReplyDeleteAs a publicist for those super stars, Sunshine has his own perspective to defense his clients and try to convince us that paparazzi are wrong. I think he also wants us to know that although celebrities enjoy a lot, they suffer more.
In regard to our course theme, I think that at one hand celebrities are presented as public figures in front of people and at the other hand they have their own life with families and friends. Their public parts are exposed to people and private parts are invading by paparazzi.However, a lot of people are interested in celebrities' personal life. What causes this happen? Is that because we want to see how celebrities live as ordinary people?
It is obvious that the author and Sunshine dont care too much for the paparazzi. They use very negative words and the worst negative word when it comes to people and that is death. The way Sunshine calls the paparazzi stalkarazzi makes it seem even worse. He uses that to show how crazy and obsessed these people are because most people would think of a stalker as someone that is crazy and has something wrong with them.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the celebrities that have to deal with this but also their families like the article mentions the children. If a mother or father is reading this they would feel more sad for the celebrities than before because they can relate. No mother or father want some middle aged adult following their kids around and taking pictures of them.
This relates to our topic of private vs. public because even though the celebrities our out in public they would like to have their own privacy. Their privacy is then taken away from them from the paparazzi so its the public invading the private in this case.
Sunshine's diction obviously indicates a strong bias against the paparazzi, like when he calls them the stalkerazzi, desperate lunatics, and weird. Also, his use of hyperbole reveals his bias as well, such as when he accuses them of putting their cameras two inches away from celebrity faces. However, the author of this article appears to be bias as well, as indicated by the loaded questions. There are probably some people out there who rely on being a paparazzo to support their family, who don't appreciate these personal attacks from Sunshine. I believe his wording in this article is unnecessary and unprofessional. Although I don't read magazines or Hollywood gossip articles in any medium, a lot of people really like reading that stuff for some reason. As long as that continues being the case, paparazzis will continue to be a needed part of that market, so celebrities are just going to have to deal with them. I'm sure many celebrities have already realized and come to terms with this fact, and I also believe many people who read these magazines realize the importance of paparazzis. That is why I think the author of this article only talks to Sunshine, to get just one opinion. Part of being a celebrity is having people see parts of your life that you don't want to share, because for some reason, people are interested in that. An unfortunate invasion of public on private.
ReplyDeleteAs has been frequently stated and identified in the above comments there is a strong “anti-paparazzi” message, but what makes this message even more effective is that it is delivered through a captivating format of journalism and through the eyes of a authoritative witness. The “question and answer” style formatting creates a want in the reader to see a response, and thus the reader is absorbed into the article. With the interview taking place with a professional in his field of expertise, the celebrity agent industry, the message is made out to be more believable and, in turn, much more vivid.
ReplyDeleteThis strategy was exploited then by the author to persuade the reader that paparazzi are dangerous, out of control people. Of course not all of Hollywood's celebrity photographers are bad, but this article was constructed to create such an idea that they certainly are. Using Mr. Sunshine's personal experience and beliefs on the subject of paparazzi the readers begin to feel that paparazzi are indeed people without moral, and lawful, boundaries. The author uses Mr. Sunshine's aggressively adamant attitude and harsh, accusative diction to display a perspective of contempt.
So that the negative perspective on paparazzi is not hindered throughout the rest of the article the author chooses not to interview other celebrities or magazine consumers. It is much easier to remain in control of the emotions of an article by interviewing an opinionated professional than it is to enter a variety of accounts with people that may not share such a strong opinion. It also saves the author from appearing more biased than if he were to not use any accounts that were not as degrading towards the paparazzi.
This article flows with the theme of Private versus Public as it does an excellent job in showing that paparazzi are intruding into the family, homes, and plans of celebrities, and often violently. These few accounts that were described show that peril is also awaiting celebrities off set. These encounters can be dangerous and embarrassing, however, celebrities do have authority in the matter of being public and private. Those houses atop the hills and shores of St. John in the USVI are examples of their needed privacy found.
Excellent point on how the author not only is being biased but how journalism made this an extreme. The author makes this feel like the person isn't reading but more so listening to a conversation. This draws the reader into the article and engages them. Once engage a reader is simply up for grabs for any persuasion. Also with using such a high named publicist makes his beliefs and idea more believable and persuasive again.
DeleteBefore even reading the article, I inferred a certain bias towards paparazzi in general from the title. This was definitely not an article meant to be completely neutral in appearance or meaning and was written for the purpose of putting a negative spin on the paparazzi profession. Now, during the article, the author and Ken Sunshine portray the paparazzi in nothing but negative light and make no effort to defend the people who try to make a living by photographing/videotaping celebrities during their daily life. One of the most influential points brought up is the one regarding photographing celebrities and their children. This can strike a chord with any parent who is protective of their kids and plays off of ethos, or the emotional side of the audience.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't believe that Sunshine is speaking to me personally, but rather he is speaking for his clientele base which is completely justifiable. He puts his client's daily lives into perspective by depicting how they try and live as normal as possible while fanatical paparazzi consistently try to create a scene. Sunshine does a good job by making the paparazzi situation into something life-threatening and inherently dangerous which make me wonder, "Are these people really going too far? Should this be allowed?"
This article is a great example of privacy vs. public as it explores the ridiculous nature of some people's lives and how they can not have a waking minute of their day to themselves. It is a shame that celebrities can't have the privacy we all expect, no matter their status in society or not. It all comes down to money and how the prospect of making money from catching very personal moments overrules a very basic need/want to have private time.
Great comments everyone! After reading this article again, I wondered why Sunshine was so extreme on his view towards paparazzi. As a publicist, (“a person responsible for publicizing a product, person, or company” (Dictionary.com)) Sunshine’s job is to publicize or make celebrities widely known. Aren’t the paparazzi helping him do just that? Although sometimes the main goal of paparazzi is to get a juicy story and try to destroy the images that celebrities hold; even with that in mind, I still ask the question, why does Sunshine talk about paparazzi extremely negatively? Their jobs are almost the same: to make celebrities known to the world. Yes, their motives may be different, but why would a publicist and a paparazzi cameraman be enemies? To me, this article relates to private vs. public because as a publicist, Sunshine often sees the more real, private side of celebrities’ lives and can relay information to the public about maybe what that star wants to be known by or who they really are. On the opposite end, paparazzi only capture the public, more candid side of star’s lives, which can be interpreted in thousands of ways.
ReplyDeleteThe author is extremely persuasive throughout of this article. The biggest way he does this is the use of a question and answered style of writing. This engages the reader because instead fo reading its more like listening to a conversation. Also another thing the author and Sunshine does is they never talk about the both sides. They only mention how they are bad and never try to look at it from the paparazzi's side. Only showing cons and bad stories about the paparazzi persuades the reader instantly to believing. Sunshine also has another persuasive method that is more hidden. He gives a ton of scenarios that are one sided and people can relate to . He says how they sit in trees looking into peoples houses. Usually we call that a stalker so when he says they do this the reader instantly has a negative thought. Also the story with Lindsey Lohan is a extreme scenario and with all theses stories he has does make the reader want the paparazzi to stop. The article doesn't mention the magazine buyer, especially the tabloids, because they are the ones who demands the latest gossip about celebrities. Those people don't care how the information is obtained, but more so on what is obtained and as long as they do receive it. This article is showing how the paparazzi, the public, is invading the privacy of the celebrities. Our course theme is who is invading whom and this is showing how the public is invading the private.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very compelling. Sunshine talks about how the act of chasing down the celebrity is dangerous. By Sunshine adding the statement that the celebrities are in danger, helps his argument. Whenever danger is discussed makes readers review the topic with a closer view. Sunshine also makes the point that the paparazzi have become "stalkerrazzi". By adding this phrase Sunshine added something that can be used whenever the word paparazzi is heard.
ReplyDelete