PressEthic

Ok, I'll admit it. Occasionally, I'll fire up the old Mozilla, and Google News will inform me that some starlet has once again wrecked her car. Totally useless information, sure. But I'll click on the link and read the story. (Due, of course, to my scholarly and voracious appetite for the news.) Hell, I may even check back later in the day for the breaking updates. I guess that's why the paparazzi makes the big bucks.

For those of you dutifully pretending you don't know what I'm talking about, Lindsey Lohan (Mean Girl and Mouskateer extraordinaire) was in a car accident this morning. Last time I was in a car accident, there was no one around for miles. Lucky insurance agencies-- when a star crashes, there's always someone on the scene, camera poised.

The first article I read-- which, my apologies, I can no longer find--was a seemingly truthful piece from AP, a reputable news source. It was very "poor Lindsey," and I believed it. There were eye witness quotes, and it seemed plausible. The young starlet was pushed into this accident by photographers leaping on her car and hounding her from every direction.

Moments later, I read an article on E! Online -- the exclamation point is meant to ensure just! how! serious! their journalism is--which proclaimed that Lindsey was driving too fast, and the press was merely loitering nearby, lucky to catch the incident.

I thought, well-- check out this biased journalism. I mean really-- E! has a vested interest in protecting paparazzi and their commando-journalism techniques. Turns out I was wrong. It turns out the AP story was giving the benefit of the doubt to Lohan's publicist.

The Sheriff involved has proclaimed that the accident was not the fault of the celebrity photographers.

Why all the excitement? Well, of course-- all things Lindsey cause excitement. The real corner of this story, however, is the new California law signed into action by Governor Schwarzenegger on Friday. It raises the bar for celebrity photographers, making their sometimes risky behavior easily punished in court. Beginning January 1st, photographers who in any way assault (think broad definition here) a celebrity attempting to photograph them may be easily sued and required to surrender their pay.

Pardon me if I do not weep for celebrities; I think this law can be chalked up to what you get when you elect an actor to be governor. Sure, the paparazzi take it to far. If they commit assault, however, there are all sorts of laws in place for that. Make it easier for pouty celebrities to take journalists to court? I'm not in favor of that. We saw it right away yesterday. A speeding actress rams into a busboy on his way to work. What does she immediately do? Have her publicist turn around and point a damning finger at the press. The press didn't make you speed, honey. And this law won't stop them from taking pictures when you do.

Making it easier to sue journalists (of all types) is just going to cause greater hardship for newspapers and print publications that are already struggling in our illiterate times. I'd suggest the governor of California grow a backbone and stop allowing rich celebrities (who depend on the paparazzi for their very careers) take advantage of the first amendment.

**For the record, the LA Times reports that last Thursday the governor "vetoed legislation that would have made it easier for class-action lawsuits to be filed against employers who fail to pay the minimum wage or obey overtime laws."