That girl's mental. No wonder's Goldie's got no teeth left.
Elfin Icelandic chanteuse Bjork has sealed her reputation for laying into the press by attacking a New Zealand Herald snapper at Auckland International Airport yesterday. The battling warbler set about the Herald's Glenn Jeffrey when he photographed her arriving at 7.50am. The shaken lensman recounted: "I took a couple of …
I've heard that Bjork once went after a photographer for trying to take pictures of her kid. That I can understand... not sure what's up with the 'welcome to bangkok' thing though!
Then again, it makes sense to steer clear. She lives on a mountain - and what's more, likes to throw little things off. Or so I hear. Pretty loopy!
Björk IS Iceland... ice and fire together. Whoa! And here we thought it was a once-off in Bangkok. Evidently not. Good for her.
The pap even admits that she was escorted by someone who asked him NOT to take photos. What does he do? Take 'just a couple of' photos. Idiot. 25 years of photo experience didn't mean much there, did it?
... you step off a plane after too many hours, there's plonkers waving mobile phones in your face. You're tired, and the kids are probably whiney. Then some **** journalist tries to interview you. Snap!
What The Reg didn't mention was that one of her "people" asked the guy not to take photographs, and he did anyway. So, tough on him.
I have a soft spot for Bjork but have to admit, she is as mad as a box of frogs. This kind of behaviour seems to go against the love for nature she has but as has already been said, she was probably knackered and wouldn't have appreciated some fella sticking his lense up her nose.
Reading just the comments here it seems that the same guy who took the pics is sometimes a "journalist" and sometimes a "papparazzi".
Now I despise paparazzi as much as any other human being that is not a celebrity does, but hey, if he's a journo then it's not the same thing. I give much more credit to journos than to papzs (actually, I give journos some, papzs none), so I really would like to know. Was the photographer a journo from a respectable journal doing his job in a professional manner ? Or was he a piece of slime out for some celeb shot ? Or was he some piece of slime trying to pass off as a journalist ?
I think that a real journalist does not take pictures if he is asked not to. So that would make the guy a papz. If so, I'm not really sorry for him.
But still, I think events like this are going to be fewer are far between as the word gets around in the photographic circles : Björk is a no-no ! Wherever she is, whatever she is doing !
What will be funny is the day she actually wants her picture taken (like for PR-related business, album launch, whatever) and, in protest, nobody takes one.
In my book, Björk can pretty much get away with anything. She's Björk, after all. Just because many celebrities are total cam-whores it does not mean paparazzi can treat everyone the same way and get away with it. Even more so if the "target" travels with kids, and especially when asked to cut it.
Go get 'em girl!
You crazy, crazy lady! While I'm inclined to let her away with anything because she is such a genius, I bet the guy actually did have it coming. So many people just accept it when the paps get up in their face - or try to run away - or worse still, complain about it while secretly loving it and invite it back in their lives when their celebrity has gone off the boil (I'm looking at you Heather Mills). Not our Bjork. She'll just launch a crazy ass attack on them like a demented flailing cat. Not exactly Crouching Tiger kung foo - but I pity the fool who gets in front of that! "Declare independence" indeed!
If you're in any public place you have zero expectation of privacy. (Except perhaps a nudie beach.)
Anyone is perfectly entitled to take a picture of anyone if they are out and about, if you take exception to this and do something about it you are guilty of Assault.
If you think about it every shop etc are taking images of you continuously in the shop and even on the street outside and theres feck all you can do about it.
I hope he sues her, or at least got a good photo of her.
"What will be funny is the day she actually wants her picture taken (like for PR-related business, album launch, whatever) and, in protest, nobody takes one."
I think you are asuming she would accualy care. I get the feeling she wouldent mind at all. And as for Papz, I think entering your personal space in that way should count as assault.
I would love to know if this guy was a Pap, of a jurno taking photos in a profesional way, but being at an airport at that time on his own I am asuming the first untill proven otherwise.
I thought I was going to read about how much she enjoyed an exotic lunch, there probably more cod than snapper fished in Iceland, red or otherwise.
As for the Bangkok incident, when you are teaching english as a foreign language, the first thing to do is explain how not to ask for a Coke.
"If the guy was a real journalist he would have respected her expressed wish not to be photographed."
Exactly. As an ex-professional photographer I agree completely. If this was a newsworthy moment (as in 'Need to Know' as opposed to the whiny, slimy justification 'Right to Know' we get from the tabloids) then it would be a different matter.
Good for Bjork!
So what? That doesn't mean some git-for-profit MUST invade your privacy. Perhaps if a few more idiots got Bjorked they'd back off.
Anybody noticed how legalese ('expectation of privacy') has crept into everyday speech and thought?
The PH icon because I can.
"There is a big difference between paparazzi and the press photographer for the largest newspaper in nz. You can't just attack people 'cause you're feeling grumpy..."
i agree but she's got form. the one person you want to actually ask (politely) 'do you mind if i take your picture?' is her. he must've been hiding under a rock not to have known she flips like this.
The thing is, while it's all very big and clever to grab/hit some pap scum, there's always the 'what if' scenario.
Like what if the person you attack retaliates?
And what if they're rather more successful & skilled in their attack than you were?
After all, you probably know nothing about them, what their background is, what kind of person they are, how bad a day they've had etc. etc.
And you've just made the first move, and put yourself in easy reach with your security probably not in a position to do anything immediate to help.
A crushed larynx wouldn't exactly help a singing career.
(Not that I would ever advocate anything like this, but it's always possible and a risk people just don't seem to consider)
Whatever they've done to annoy you. There are too many people around (quite a few on here, I notice) who think violence is acceptable if they sympathise with the perpetrator.
The photographer's made a complaint, so the cops are obliged to take some action. I hope she gets busted.
"A photo being taken in a public place, against your wishes, does NOT give you the right to assault someone. Full stop."
No, it doesn't. But I can see where having thousands of pictures taken might put someone on edge.
And think of it this way: Celebrities images are worth something. Do they get a cut from these clowns or their employers? I don't think so. So maybe this could be regarded as a form of theft and the celebs are defending their property?
Oh wait. They're rich and successful so they should just have to put up with this crap. And they should be grateful for the attention no matter how annoying it is because they wouldn't be successful without allowing others to profit from their success. Huh? What? They wouldn't be getting the attention unless they were already successful.
Funny what unsuccessful people think successful (and rich) people should have to put up with.
> Funny what unsuccessful people think successful (and rich) people should have to put up with.
How is success/income relevant? If someone took photos of me while I walked down the street (even if they took lots of photos) I wouldn't be allowed to attack them.
I might be able to take out a restraining order but I can't just go over and punch them in the face. Would that change if I was rich?
"I don't see being assaulted as I'm working as a press photographer as an acceptable thing"
IOW: "But it's my job!". So let's see: any sort of behaviour (harassing people in public, chasing people through tunnels, chopping down pristine old-growth forests, harpooning whales, persuading people to accept dodgy home loans) is ok as long as someone is paying you to do it.
If I know I'm gonna pop some camera- wanger in the lens cap after a long flight, why wouldn't I spare myself (and my kids, fer crineouts) the hassle and make arrangements for some kinda VIP incognito/ secret- exit escape from the airport? In an ideal world, sure, no one would be taking pictures without permission but sadly, this is not an ideal world, and whether Bjork likes it or not, she qualifies as "news". OTOH, if this is all a gimmick to boost ticket sales ("there is no such thing as bad publicity"), have at it. Paris icon for celebs behaving badly.
"Whatever they've done to annoy you. There are too many people around (quite a few on here, I notice) who think violence is acceptable if they sympathise with the perpetrator."
While the rest of the world goes ever more pansy, whinging and whining about how violence is always wrong, I would like draw attention to the fact that this was a tiny little girl giving a fully grown man a slap for doing the very thing he had been asked not to. What was she supposed to do after he had ignored her request, ask again and again while he continued to take photos?
Violence in this situation was the simplest and most direct method of reacting. The fact that the photo guy has got the gall to lay a complaint and that the police are even considering it is crying shame.
Yes, that's just the sort of attitude the governments are begging people to take....it'd make it much easier for them to convince everyone that their lives are better when permanently monitored.
Besides which, Bjork is as mad as a box of smashed crabs, so if the pap was surprised then he's not exactly well informed is he? In fact, if he's real paparazzi then he might well have done the whole thing to try and make her react, knowing her prior reputation.
should be arrested for aggression/provocation/even theft of privacy
unless the person who is being photographed WANTS IT, then they should NOT have the automatic right to do it!!
where did this idea that paparazzi, and their uncouth abuse of their 'subjects' is ok?
it is not
if i am out clubbing and a photographer starts photographing me, i give him a hard time!!!
and i AM a photographer (who believes that paps and their 'fuck you' attitude, have forever harmed my profession)
Shouldn't there be some sort of legal barrier to prevent people loitering about outside airports? I won't argue that the guy wasn't assaulted, but I would say that it was provoked. It's not exactly photojournalism to snap someone walking out of an airport is it? That screams of cheopo-pap-tactics to me.
Anyway, I'll always side with Bjork because she is the only person I would ever consider idolising.
It still makes me laugh that the same people who were outraged by the paperatzi chase that resulted in Dianas death were the same as those who couldn't get enough of the pictures taken by the same photographers and published in the same "news" papers those would have been destined for.
If I was that famous, I'd get some sort of super powerful flash device made so I could blind all the photographers.
> By Jim Lewis
> Posted Tuesday 15th January 2008 12:00 GMT
Well, well ... the creationists even manage to get in their three-ha'p'th on an item about Bjorg ripping a photographer's shirt!
Sorry, Jim, although the "1996 volcanically induced glacial mega-flood in Iceland" (the subject of your URL) was a pretty impressive geological event, it ...
a) wasn't nearly enough to wipe out all life on the Earth's surface, and
b) wasn't God's vengeance on Iceland for one of their singers hitting a journalist.
It has no relevance to the behaviour of Bjork, nor to the myth of Noah.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019