See The Instigators? Just Go To A Mirror Deeper Into Sleaze Those Tabloids Are Purchased By People We All Know.

A famous couple decide to meet in a major city to get married. The newspapers get wind of it. Photographers and reporters stake out the couple’s hotel and the county courthouse, hoping to ambush the love-struck couple. One photographer goes as far as hanging out the window of a neighboring hotel for an “intimate” picture. The couple decide not to run the gantlet and don’t tie the knot. They never marry.

Princess Di and Dodi Fayed in 1997? No, Howard Hughes and Katharine Hepburn in 1937.

They weren’t called “paparazzi” then, but the photographers of the time, including those of many “mainstream” papers, were just as aggressive and unsympathetic to celebrities as paparazzi are now. Why did those people exist in 1937? For the same reason they exist now: The public wants them to.

The recent blurry photo of Princess Diana and Dodi kissing fetched the lucky photographer a reported $5 million. The money was not paid because of its quality or news value. The money was paid because the tabloid that bought the photo knew it would bring in that much or more in sales. And those tabloids are purchased by people we all know.

Some now are calling for change, for restrictions on photographers, for boycotts. A letter to this newspaper called for a ban on publishing pictures of people without their approval (organized crime would like that) and on printing stories with anonymous sources (that, too). That’s throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Regulating paparazzi leads us down a slippery slope. Who is to distinguish between a reputable photojournalist and a paparazzo? Who is going to decide the “right” way to obtain a photograph? Who will decide the definition of a celebrity? Louis Freeh? Elton John? Clarence Thomas? Some unnamed Washington bureaucrat?

What happened in Paris is a tragedy. But celebrity photographers exist because consumers want their wares. Consumers’ purchasing decisions invited tabloids deeper into the gutter of voyeurism and sleaze. Tabloids know their market. They know - and supply - covers that sell.

So it’s hypocrisy for the public to turn on the paparazzi or pretend shock and disgust at a phenomenon that public tastes created. Especially since tabloid sales probably will soar in weeks and months to come.

, DataTimes MEMO: For opposing view, see headline: Tell tabloid press where to get off

The following fields overflowed: SUPCAT = COLUMN, EDITORIAL - From both sides