« Big Snow Game (OT) | Main | One That Got Away »

Monday, 14 January 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, you got me -- I can't figure out which part shows you're not a journalist. It reads like the little press blurbs in the free newspaper I read on the subway, except that your news blurb actually tells a story instead of burying everything in passive voice and bone-dry, sleep-inducing prose.

The fact that the photo is blurry and that no product marketing is apparent in it suggests that you have a lot to learn about celebrity news coverage.

The part about international laws enabling celebrity rude behaviour is either satire or deeply depressing. (That sentence was satirical; or was it ironic?)

I live in fear that one day I will be innocently shooting pictures somewhere and a celebrity will walk by and incorrectly conclude that I am taking photos of them and assault me. Since I live in Canada, not California, I won't be able to sue for lots of money. There wouldn't even be enough in it for a book deal.

What shows you're not a real *celebrity* journalist is that you didn't obsess over and wildly speculate about the identity of Bjork's "companion."

What shows you're not a "real" journalist (I supposed) is the "Naturally, ..." barb.

Ha, that's my girl. I love my Bjork. Have you ever seen her on a stage? She's one of those people who can take an expansive stage and make everyone feel like they are watching her at her home, skipping around, singing in the kitchen...dressed as a bird.

Ok good but she blew it, she should have given him a major wedgy and then talked talked about his mama.

The presence of these photogs is a messy issue. If I was in Bjorks shoes, at some point, I'd be doing the same thing, I'm sure of it. They asked him to stop, he didn't...consequence time, he's lucky she didn't bust his nose.

You use two many complicated polysyllabic words: mercurial, wordlessly... no real journalist would ever do that!

Also somewhat amusing: "I took a couple of pictures and I got about three or four frames of her," which seems to suggest that in NZ, "a couple" is at least 3 or 4...

What's a Bjork?

The last paragraph is editorializing. Real journalists do not speculate or offer opinion.
Funny though!

Maybe the lack of a dateline/byline? Of course, "lack of" implies that they're not there, so that may not qualify as a "portion of the story above". You got me stumped.

I suppose a "real journalist" would have grabbed a shot of her flat on her arse holding the torn sweatshirt.


Sorry lads, you're all wrong. It's the skateboarder emerging from her skull.

You spelled Auckland wrong?

Forget the journalism. I have absolutely no idea who the characters are or what the story's about. I guess I'm very out-of-touch with something...but I think I'll just leave it that way.

Extra credit: Identify the portion of the story above that shows I am not a real journalist.


No photo credit? That and or the last sentence.

I wonder how I'd react to the "press" were I a famous man?

"As she did this she fell over, she fell to the ground."

Would that be a Swan Dive?

It couldn't be how you spelt Auckland, could it?

Naturally, "real" journalists don't talk about what celebrities can or cannot do. :-)

Why should she put up with a camera pointed up her nose? D

As an advertising shooter for 25 years who is disgusted by the antics of today's swarms of 'celebrity photographers', I just wish Bjork had been armed.

I figure that paparazi know what they sign up for when they decide to be a pap,... if I was getting off a plan after many hours cooped up in a sardine can, I might lash out a pushy pap too (but the paps aren't too intrerested in me).

Interesting... however (not that I'm implying this is the point of the article) I can't see this as a sign that taking photographs in public is increasingly frowned upon. If the journalist was indeed asked by the two not to take pictures of them, what he did was just remarkably rude...

"What's a Bjork?"

An Icelandic sugarcube.

Mike J.

"The last paragraph is editorializing. Real journalists do not speculate or offer opinion."

You got it. I also almost used the f-word in that sentence, but I'm never sure who that might offend. On the one hand, I realize that the avoidance of profanity is very middlebrow/bourgeois; on the other, I subscribe to the notion that "profanity is the inarticulate mind attempting to express itself forcefully."

Mike J.

She looks pretty damn old these days. Wouldn't dare to take pictures of her. And it is Björk not Bjork, you cy-bjork.

Easy -- a real journalist (tm) would have used the phrase "Bjork allegedly attacked" instead of "Bjork wordlessly attacked" in the opening paragraph...

You didn't explain what/who a Bjork is.

Yay! Recognition at last!

Aside from the editorializing (which is apparently acceptable practice on Fox TV News-but that isn't journalism), you might have used the term "assaulted". Personally, I believe the term "counter-attacked" might be more correct here.

Attacking a journalist or anyone else for taking your picture is inappropriate, and unfortunately for the celebs, having your picture taken is almost a given in a public place.

Considering he was asked not to take photographs, the photog's actions were rude at best. If a person explicitly makes it clear they don't want their picture taken, and the event isn't otherwise newsworthy, where does the term "fair use" enter into this?

btw, shouldn't you cite your source? And to be fair you should try to seek comment from Bjork (sic) or a bystander/witness to avoid looking biased.

The toggy was not a paparazzi, he was an acredited photographer working for a national paper who was sent to cover Bjork's arrival in NZ and promote her tour.

I find it quite amusing to see how many people advocate violence against photographers and journalists in these situations then get worked up about them getting killed in places like Burma.

And I have not published a few of the more violent comments.

I'm surprised that people who read this blog would not be on the side of the photographer. A photographer might make him- or herself obnoxious by taking pictures (although it has *not* been established that the photographer in this situation did so), but that does not excuse a physical attack, any more than a woman dressed provocatively invites rape.

Mike J.

Cyril: While "couple" indicates "two", "A couple of", according to most dictionaries, is defined as: "more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few". So his use is correct in this case.

You distinguished yourself from a UK tabloid journalist with this part:

...brilliant but mercurial Bjork wordlessly attacked...

Which should have read:

...brilliant but mercurial Bjork, 42, wordlessly attacked...

Nah if it had been a headline in The Sun it would have read


They're big on alliteration and simple sentence structures. Average reading age of Sun readers is 6 after all.

The police won't press charges until a formal complaint is laid. Unless the photographer (or someone else) lay a complaint, the matter will go no further.

I find it strange that anyone with Internet access insistently asks who Björk is. But I have to accept that are people out there who don't like music. ;)

"Big Time Sensuality" is the name of the early video that the picture in this post was taken from. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUKzR9Kh-A

Neither this incident should lead to a "newspaper story" nor Glenn Jeffrey can be considered a photo journalist. The amount of thrash people consider as journalism these days...

Jose Duarte,

Thanks for posting that link, an excellent introduction to my darling Bjork. I love her so much and that put a huge smile on my FACE.

Cool music that comes out of Iceland. Sigur Rós is next to my head as well.

Somebody should mention that she's done fine work as an actress as well. "Dancer in the Dark" is an amazing movie.

Mike J.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007