People magazine joins 'pedorazzi' ban

CANDICE CHUNG
Last updated 14:29 26/02/2014
Babypap

NO PEDORAZZIS: Celebrity gossip site Just Jared and People magazine are the latest to join the ban on paparazzi photos of kids.

Relevant offers

Celebrities

Courtney Love and Dave Grohl bond over strippers Gossip: A tale of two duchesses Watch: Channing Tatum as a teen stripper Ian McKellen's epic message to students Glee's Matthew Morrison marries Taylor Swift 'calls in feline matchmaker' Nicole Kidman navigating a 'rocky road' Why Bono wears sunglasses Charlie Sheen splits from fiancee Jude Law's ex is pregnant with his baby

Earlier this month, new parents Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard declared a war on paparazzi by starting the hashtag "pedorazzi".

It's a rallying cry against photogs who would do anything to get photos of celebrity children -- even if it means aggressively stalking and traumatising everyone in the process. 

Not surprisingly, the Twitter campaign quickly gained traction among the stars. Celeb parents like Katie Holmes, Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck publicly lent their support and shared stories of harassment. The reality, they admitted, is that while they have chosen to live public lives, their children haven't. And like regular kids, they deserve the right to be protected from the press. 

Tweeting gossip mags and gossip websites, Bell said: 

She also called on fans to boycott all magazines and websites who pay for pap photos of children, urging gossip outlets to implement a 'No Kids Policy'.

Well, looks like the vigilant tweeting actually worked. Last week, ET became the first media outlet to boycott pap photos of children. And now, People magazine and entertainment blog Just Jared have followed suit. In a genius move leading up to the ban, Bell appealed to People magazine's vanity, saying the magazine "better than their trashy weekly counterparts". 

So will we cease seeing ALL celeb baby pics on People? Um, not exactly. 

People Editorial Director Jess Cagle clarified that the magazine "would not publish photos of celebs' kids taken against their parents' wishes, in print or online." It's hard to say what exactly "authorised" means. Since, as Cagle adds, "there may be rare exceptions based on the news-worthiness of photos." 

Either way, this seems to be a (baby) step forward, even if it's just in an effort to get on the right side of an internet campaign. For what it's worth, Cagle said Bell has "made the media more sensitive to the brutal tactics some freelance photographers use to get even the most innocent-looking shots of celebs' kids at play." 

Ad Feedback

Now let's see how long they stick with the Suri and North-West free policy, shall we?

-Daily Life

Comments

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content