I see and agree with both sides of the argument here to some extent. Those that flirt with the press and invite them in do ask to be followed everywhere, BUT at what point do they draw the line is what I wonder? When do they stop to think about the harm they are doing? I know as a human being I would not like to be involved in harming someone for the sake of a photo. The other thing is Britney is a young unstable girl and was brought into the media spotlight at a young age. She has made mistakes yes I agree but to make her suffer the misery she is now just seems wrong/

Some celebs manage to paps so well that you have to hold them up as examples of how to deal with things. The celebs you mentioned Girth are all good ones. Even when Becks was caught with that Loos' woman Victoria was able to turn things to her advantage. Sometimes saying nothing is the best course of action.

Erm....

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s...YSHON/5-64.jpg

Obviously not!

Exactly my point. They seem to have no moral code and get away with too much. Something has to be done before it is too late. At what point do they stop?

How do you propose it change when you have people like Jordan selling stories on how one of her children hits her and injures her. She's making her self look a victim at the expense of her own son. Where do you draw the line with scum like that? Britney was happy to pose nude while pregnant, go out with no knickers on and flash her bits everywhere, marry that ****** in Vegas and them have it annulled. Where do you think she wants the line to be drawn? When you find that out then you will know how to regulate the paps.

I just think that especially when people are sick, they should be left alone.

You got me with that one. I dont seem to be able to find any others though.

pwned

:puzzled:

:puzzled: [/quote]

pwned

A corruption of the word "Owned." This originated in an online game called Warcraft, where a map designer misspelled "owned." When the computer beat a player, it was supposed to say, so-and-so "has been owned."

Instead, it said, so-and-so "has been pwned."

It basically means "to own" or to be dominated by an opponent or situation, especially by some god-like or computer-like force.
"Man, I rock at my job, but I still got a bad evaluation. I was pwned."

OR

"That team totally pwned us."

Get with the times G!

If you say so mate. I suppose you have to take every victory you can get. Strange but I think you're yet to prove your point just about every poster can see what I'm saying. Anyway, off topic.

Why dont you ask Britney where the line should be drawn? When she tells the press how much attention she wants then they may treat her a bit better.

It's nothing to do with getting a victory. It was a joke. It's not about scoring points. I thought we were having a discussion?

We were. And still are. Whats up?

Nothing. Just pointing that out.

Anyway, do you really think the paps would lay off Britney a bit if she "had talks" with them?

Not really. She's set the bar for them and she's got to live with it. She shouldn't marry inappropriate men while p*ssed up, flash her bits in public etc. It alls adds up to the perception that wherever Britney is a story will follow shortly.

For what it's worth....

the best way to stop news stories like the ones about Britney, Amy et al, would be for people to stop buying rubbish like Heat, Closer, Now, Reveal, etc., etc., and stop buying into that kind of rubbish. If there was no demand for it, they wouldn't be supplying it.

In the case of Britney, I have to say, I found some of the recent footage of her distressing. However, the press is only so interested in Britney because she has gone out of her way to make sure that they are interested in her throughout her career.

There are so many genuine superstars out there, who hardly ever get papped. The press leave them alone because they don't court the press. I used the example of Johnny Depp in another post, but I'll use it again here. He is a massive star, with a huge fanbase. Yet, you hardly ever see pictures of him - because he doesn't go out of his way to get himself noticed. There was no big fuss when his daughter was ill in hospital last year. He spent his time at her bedside (and he didn't publicise the fact that after she recovered, he visited the hospital dressed as Captain Jack Sparrow and spent four hours at the hospital reading bedtime stories to other children who were patients).

You can bet that if that was Britney, Kerry Katona or Jordan - not only would there have been huge headlines all over Heat about the fact that their child was ill, but they would have also found time to squeeze in a few interviews, only to do an 'exclusive' interview with OK when the child had recovered (maybe not Britney, but KK or Jordan certainly would have done).

If the press backed off Britney and took no notice of her, I doubt she would be happy with that either.

Absolutely. As usual, Ruth keeps it real.

PS: Nice to have you back darlin'.

Nice to be back, honey:wink:

Please stay.:hug:

I really dont know where I stand on this one. Britney is clearly suffering mentally and I firmly believe she needs to stay away until she sorts herself out. Its the only way she is going to cope with her distressing life.

However, I also see where G is coming from. She did court the press and has manipulated them for her own person gain and success. I happened to be channel hopping the other night and caught a program on her where the papz where following her (as usual) and she hopped out of her car and stripped down to her bra and knickers and when for a dip in the sea while being photographed. She knew what she was doing and I found that pretty low to be honest.

You cannot bite the hand that feeds you. If you allow the press into 'that much' of your life you have to roll with the punches.

However, I dont believe that a celeb should be hounded and followed at speed...like diana!

I agree Kiz. I'm not completely heartless but I dont have anywhere near as much sympathy as Baz.

Britney has used the media when she wanted to and been very happy to do so. As I stated earlier, someone needs to ask HER how much publicity is too much publicity.

The whole point to this thread was about censoring pics of celebs in distress etc. I agree with this and I think you all do too. Britney has done some pretty low things in her life to be in the media spotlight and courts the press. This we are all aware of. The point is that I do not think there should be motorcades of paps following her to the hospital and taking photos of her in the ambulance. That is the whole point to this I am trying to make. Anyone disagree?

For sheer safety, I wish that the paps wouldn't chase vehicles through the streets.

As I said before, the best way to stop these sorts of pictures from appearing would be for everyone to stop buying mags with them in. There's only a supply because there's a demand. Why people are that interested in Britney, I don't know. It's not pleasant to see some of the images of her that have been shown lately. I switch over the channel when it comes on the news, and I never buy Heat and magazines of that ilk.

All in all though, I am against censorship of anything that is not illegal, so as unpleasant as these images are, I don't believe they should be censored.

Of course, the gossip site that it censoring the paps is only doing it on their own site as far as I'm aware, which is fair enough. If enough sites did this, the demand would die down.

Incidentally, I've just had a look at holymoly out of interest (I'd never even heard of the site before this thread), and they've got a pretty nasty article about Britney on there right now.

I do. I'd like to see a few pictures of Jordan in distress. She definitely deserves some unwanted press intrusion.

I think we'll all agree that motorcades of paps following a celebrity is over the top but thats not what this thread is about either. I think this censorhips will be yet a furhter step toward the press mollycoddlng celebrities. Lets see these celebs with warts and all.