Paparazzi Do Not Practice Journalism

Dear Ann Landers: Since the tragic death of Princess Diana, there’s been a lot of rage against the thousands of us who are professional photojournalists. I feel the hurt of her death as deeply as anyone, but since that terrible crash, I have been screamed at, spat on and even had my camera strap twisted around my neck.

Every time a photojournalist meets a new editor, the request is the same: Show me your previously published work. This means we must build trust day by day and assignment by assignment. Of course, we all dream of capturing that heart-stopping, history-making photo that will propel us to fame and fortune, but meanwhile, the majority of us make only a modest living with our cameras and reporter’s notebooks. We do it mostly for the love of our craft.

The paparazzi may make thousands of dollars chasing movie stars and royalty, but the income of a legitimate photojournalist is modest at best. We are the ones who photograph the opening of your new business and the PTA carnival at your kid’s school. We keep our “day jobs” to help pay the bills.

Finally, I would like to respond to the remarks of one of the paparazzi who really ticked me off. He said the celebrities know what they are getting into and they deserve this treatment. He said the paparazzi are fulfilling a need and “giving the people what they want.” Well, really? Nobody goes into public life to die.

I would like to remind that self-appointed spokesperson that there is also a marketplace for cocaine, child pornography and even murder-for-hire. Does that justify making money “fulfilling” any of these needs? We professional photographers think not. - Maureen McCloud, Culver City, Calif.

Dear Maureen: Your letter in defense of your craft is sane, solid and sensible. Photojournalism is an art and should be regarded as such. Crawling over walls, hiding in bushes and chasing yachts with long-lens cameras is not “journalism,” and it would help the cause of decency if publications would not buy such trash.

So, as you can see, there is enough blame to go around. Thank you for a provocative letter that gave me a chance to speak my mind on this subject.

Dear Ann Landers: When I read the letter about the woman who drove everyone in the office crazy with her gum-cracking, I had the perfect response. I don’t know who wrote it, but here it is:

Bucolic Bliss

The gum-chewing student

And cud-chewing cow

Look quite alike, but they’re different somehow.

And what is the difference?

I see it all now.

It’s the intelligent look

On the face of the cow.

- Floyd Camp of Brownfield, Texas

Dear Floyd: I printed that little poem in my column many years ago. Thanks for reminding me that it was time to do it again.

Dear Ann Landers: That “Faux Wife in Tulsa” who didn’t realize she wasn’t legally married may have a lot of company. As a tax consultant, I have amended returns for one young man who genuinely believed his wife had gone through with the divorce only to learn years later that she hadn’t. I also dealt with a couple where the husband thought he was divorced, but his wife knew otherwise.

The moral of the story is - get it in writing. - Enrolled Agent in Oregon

Dear Agent: Thank you for your excellent advice. I hope my divorced readers will make sure all their papers are signed and filed, and if necessary.