She's here to help

Why don't we see more pics of stars misbehaving?

Sat., Jun. 10, 2006 12:00 AM PDT by Leslie Gornstein

If so many celebrities behave badly and are constantly hounded by photographers, then why don't we see more pics of them doing nasty things?

By: Laura, Penticton, Canada

A.B. Replies: For the same reason that a member of Hollywood's Hottie Squad recently was able to snort a line of coke off of a PDA in front of three print reporters with no qualms whatsoever. That star knew the reporters would never document the incident, because most editors don't want the hassle that goes with such explosive material.

The same basic principle applies to paparazzi photos. Most editors don't want the drama that comes with running photos of stars in their angrier moments. The magazine's office phones would start ringing at 6 a.m., lit up by squadrons of livid Hollywood minions--publicists, managers, other publicists--all breathing fire into their little wireless headsets.

Those minions already call tabloid editors eight times a day, screeching about all manner and class of outrage--no need to feed those flames, thanks.

More important, ugly photos reflect poorly on their messengers--the photographers, the photo agencies and the editors who publish them. And celebrity journalists are well aware of that.

"Photo agencies almost never send those kinds of photos over to us," says David Caplan, deputy editor at Star magazine's New York office. "Most readers wouldn't take a look at an angry picture of Jennifer Aniston and say, 'Geez, she's nuts.' They'd look at the photo and say, 'What did the paparazzi do to get her so angry?' "

Yes, Caplan says, a crunked-up photo does occasionally slip into the inbox--remember that Star cover photo of a hippo-size Kirstie Alley flipping off the camera?--but running a picture that could damage a paparazzo's reputation usually isn't in the magazine's best interest, either.

"We have a working relationship with these photo agencies, and we have to respect their newsgathering," Caplan explains to this B!tch.

The one exception would be if an angry photo is part of a news story, like Cameron Diaz's alleged criminal assault on a paparazzo a few years ago.

Finally, most readers don't want to look at nasty celebrity pictures either. In the news world, photos showing subjects interacting with photographers--happily or otherwise--is considered too "inside baseball" for most casual readers, who really only care about the stars.

"People just want to see celebrities in their natural environment, or celebrities with other celebrities," Caplan says.

"Readers love conflict, they love drama in their stories. A story may say, 'Angelina furious!' But they still want to see that gorgeous photo of Angelina right next to it."

Really. Like there's any other kind.