Yesterday I had the opportunity to guest lecture at my alma mater, SDSU (that's South Dakota State University, not San Diego State). This is something I do a couple of times a year - instead of giving money to the department, I give of my time and experience.
During a question and answer period, I was posed with a question I had never encountered before. The question: "Are there things you think the media overcovers and are there things that you don't care to shoot."
I had to think for a short while. There are things like natural disasters and forest fires that I would rather not have to cover - simply because I would rather not see the destruction or people suffering. As a photojournalist though, these are things I have to cover. These are stories that need to be told, and hopefully the way I tell these stories will ease the suffering and raise public awareness of these situations.
As for things the media overcovers, celebrities. Period. Anytime a paparazzi can get $60,000 for a picture of J-Lo and her boy toy of the week, something is out of whack.
I have a great distain for anything paparazzi shoot. If a paparazzi wants to endanger his or her life to get a picture, fine. But when you endanger the lives of your subjects and the general public, you are a menace to society.
The First Amendment protects these morons the same way it protects legitmate media and I don't believe there is anything that can, or should, be done by lawmakers. That would just chip away at our constitution.
The solution; quit buying tabloids and other media who pay the big dollars for these photos. Want to kill the beast - quit feeding the beast - the beast will waste away.
So is this blog going to stop the paparazzi? In all reality, no. But, I figure if I plant enough seeds in enough different places, something is bound to grow eventually.