Papar-nasty

It evokes a James Bond film with explosions and sports cars flying into the sea. This car chase may have been tamer than what you have seen in the cinema, but some say that the royals were at serious risk.

On Wednesday a spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex revealed that they had been hounded by "a ring of highly aggressive paparazziPhotographers who take photos of celebrities as they go about their normal lives to sell to newspapers and magazines." for over two hours on their way back from an awards ceremony in New York City.

They alleged that the photographers pursuing them caused "multiple near collisions involving other drivers on the road, pedestrians and two NYPDNew York Police Department. officers". The chase was described as "near catastrophic".

It would be a harrowing episode for anyone. But some see it as symbolic. Prince Harry's mother Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed in a car accident in a tunnel in Paris in 1997 amid a paparazzi car chase, unleashing a worldwide outpouring of grief.¹

An inquest ruled that Diana was "unlawfully killed" due to both the reckless driving of her chauffeur and the paparazzi pursuing her car.

However, polls conducted in 1997 found that 43% of the British public thought that the paparazzi were responsible, whilst only 33% blamed the chauffeur. Prince Harry has long been an outspoken critic of the paparazzi. 

The term "paparazzi" was coined by an Italian film producer, who said it reminded him of "a buzzing insect, hovering, darting, stinging". His 1960 film La Dolce Vita features a dogged and pushy photographer called Paparazzo who is determined to get the perfect shot.

Some see the paparazzi as an essential part of the entertainment ecosystem. Although the most famous stars are pursued without their consent, more minor celebrities rely on the profession to raise their profile.

But for others, the paparazzi are the ultimate parasites, robbing others of their privacy to make a quick living. 

Then again, none of us live in a private world. Nobody is safe from being captured by a blurry phone camera lens, or in the background of a viral reel. Anybody might be hounded on the street by a TikToker asking them what song they are listening to. Why should celebrities be any different?

Yes: We stand to lose nothing by banning the paparazzi. They contribute nothing to society other than vacuousSshowing no sign of intelligence or sensitive feelings. entertainment at the expense of others' privacy.

No: It might be argued that the paparazzi should be less trigger-happy when it comes to invading celebrities' privacy, but ultimately they provide a form of entertainment like any other. And in many cases, their subjects are consenting to the distribution of their pictures.

Or... None of us have any privacy nowadays, and the problem goes further than professional paparazzi. We need to more firmly regulate people's right to privacy and their own image.