- Partage ce devoir avec tes amis !
Sujet du devoir
sujet: les médias ne respectent pas toujours la vie privé des stars. Partagez vous cet avis ?voila J'AI PRESQUE FINI MAIS JE BLOQUE SUR MA 1ER PARTIE je ne voit pas ce qu il faut mettre! Et aussi il me manque la traduction.
AIDER MOI svp
Où j'en suis dans mon devoir
IntroductionLa presse a scandale, est incontestablement la plus lue et la plus vendue. Mais depuis quelque temps la guerre judiciaire qui oppose les stars aux magazines à sensation redouble d'intensité car la presse people est au centre d'un problème éthique. Effectivement, les paparazzi, pour obtenir leur scoop disent travailler au nom de la liberté d'expression mais s'opposent alors au respect de la vie privée. C'est sur cette opposition que notre intérêt s'est porté et nous avons donc voulu approfondir cette problématique.
Partagez-vous cet avis ?
1 partie
2 partie
Nous voyons évidement que la vie privée est totalement violée, car la célébrité est photographiée à son insu. Par conséquent, elle n'a aucun contrôle sur son image. De cette manière, les photographes sans scrupule, peuvent facilement nuire à la réputation de la personne. Cependant les photographes, qui prétendent agir au nom de la liberté d'expression, violent en fait les principes de la loi, qui consiste à donner son avis personnel. Dans ce cas la liberté d'expression n'est pas restreinte, mais au contraire on en abuse, puisque le paparazzi ne se réfère pas aux restrictions que la loi prévoit pour protéger la réputation ainsi que les droits des autres. En plus de violer la vie privée et la liberté d'expression, le photographe ne respecte pas les devoirs moraux de la déontologie de ce métier. Dans ce cas les vedettes crient à l'injustice et la plupart du temps intentent un procès contre le magazine. Un exemple qui a fait beaucoup de bruit est celui de la journaliste Claire Chazal, présentatrice du 20-Heures de TF1, à la parution des photos, s'est retournée contre Voici et a porté plainte pour atteinte à sa vie privée. Elle s'est alors retrouvée au tribunal face au magazine et a gagné son procès sans aucun problème. A la suite du verdict, la revue Voici à dû verser des dommages et intérêts à cette personnalité. La liberté d'expression n'est pas du tout restreinte dans ce cas puisque toutes les informations voulues sont divulguées.
Il existe aussi des arrangements entre les stars et les magazines. Un des plus grand " coup " de ce système fut le reportage effectué par le magazine Hola! sur le second mariage de la star française Jean-Paul Belmondo qui épousait Natty, le 29 Décembre 2002. Le magazine fit un de ses plus gros chiffres d'affaires en obtenant l'exclusivité du mariage. Belmondo a choisi pour couvrir l'événement ce magazine français, comme seul témoin de la presse. Un contrat a été établie au préalable entre la vedette et le magazine. Dans ce cas sans l'intermédiaire d'une agence de presse. Il a accepté de se faire interviewer et photographier dans la plus grande intimité de son mariage pour la somme d'environ 100'000 euros.
Dans ce cas, la vie privée est respectée. L'intimité n'est pas violée car tous les reportages et photographies sont réalisés avec l'accord de la star qui a vendu elle-même ce moment de sa vie familiale. Son droit à l'image ainsi qu'à une vie familiale et sentimentale normale est alors respecté. Pour la liberté d'expression, il n'y a également aucune violation.
Conclusion
Effectivement le respect de la vie privée est bien souvent violées, mais les vedettes s'en réjouissent et invoquent leurs droits pour se faire encore plus d'argent qu'elles n'en ont. Je trouve très hypocrite de la part des stars de se plaindre que la presse à scandale entrave leur vie privée, alors que dans bien des situations, elles l'utilisent pour faire leur publicité et, au passage, s'enrichir. Ce n'est donc plus au nom de la morale, ni de la justice qu'ils agissent mais au nom de l'argent. Dans tous les cas l'argent et la promotion jouent un grand rôle. De plus, l'hypocrisie de la star se voit par le fait qu'elle va se confier à un magazine (et décide donc de ne pas avoir une vie familiale ou sentimentale dite normale en l'étalant au grand jour) et souvent, comme dans l'exemple de Alexandre Anthony et Sahra Marshall, elle attaque simultanément un autre magazine qui publie les mêmes confidences, mais sans l'accord préalable de la vedette. Elles invoquent alors leur droit à une vie privée qui n'était déjà plus tout à fait privée par leur propre volonté, d'où leur hypocrisie. Les stars utilisent donc la violation de la vie privée comme un simple prétexte.
1 Partie
Thèse: les médias et liberté d'information, accès a l'info ....
5 commentaires pour ce devoir
5
j'ai changé un peu :
Celebrity magazines are undoubtedly the most popular sold and read press in the world. But we have recently seen that more and stars have sued popular celebrity magazines because the people press has raised many ethic issues. Indeed, paparazzi are able to do anything to get a scoop by claiming to work for the freedom expression but in reality they do not respect the private life of the stars. We have decided to tackle this issue in depth and to outline the reasons of this contradiction.
Do you agree with us ?
2nd part
We have obviously seen that the private life is violated because the celebrity is photographed against her will.
Therefore, she or he does not have any control on her or his image. In this way, photographs with no scruples, can easily harm his or her reputation. Nevertheless, the photographs, who claim to act in the name of freedom of expression, breach the law that consists of giving one’s opinion. In this case the freedom of expression is not restricted but on the contrary misused because the paparazzi does not refer to the restrictions of the law aiming to protect the reputation and the rights of a person. In addition to violating the private life and the freedom of expression, the photographer does not respect the moral duties and the deontology required by his work.
That’s why many celebrities cry fool and some of them will sue the magazine that has released the pictures. For example; Claire Chazal, the journalist at TF1 who sued Voici for violation of private life for the release of some pictures. She went to court against the magazine and won her trial without any problem. Following to the trial, the Voici magazine had to give her some money. The freedom of expression is, in this case, not restricted because all the wanted information is released.
There are also some settlements between stars and magazines. The biggest deal of this system was the report made by Hola magazine on the French start JP Belmondo’s second wedding who married Natty on December 29th, 2002. The magazine made big money by obtaining the exclusivity of the wedding. Belmondo chose that magazine as the only media witness to cover the event. A contract was previously made between the star and the magazine. In that case, without the press agency; he accepted to be interviewed and photographed in intimacy for about 100000 Euros.
The private life was then respected. The intimacy was not violated because all those reports and pictures were released with the agreement of the star who sold in a certain way at that moment the life of his family. His right to image as well as a family and private life were respected. With respect to the freedom of expression, there was no violation.
Conclusion
On the whole, we can assert that the respect of the private life is often violated but stars play with this and use their rights to make more money than they have. In my opinion, this is very hypocritical for stars to complain about the celebrity magazines harm their private life. In many situations they have used them to both make the headlines and make money. This is not in the name of moral or justice that they act but for greed. In all the cases; money and promotion play a big role. Their games are so obvious. The star will make confidence to a magazine and decides not to have a private and family life by telling it to everybody. As a reminder, Alexandre Anthony and Sarah Marshall sued a magazine that had released the same confidences without her agreement. They hint at their right for privacy but there was no privacy anymore because they had previously released that information in another magazine. Therefore, according to me stars use the violation of private life as a pretext.
Celebrity magazines are undoubtedly the most popular sold and read press in the world. But we have recently seen that more and stars have sued popular celebrity magazines because the people press has raised many ethic issues. Indeed, paparazzi are able to do anything to get a scoop by claiming to work for the freedom expression but in reality they do not respect the private life of the stars. We have decided to tackle this issue in depth and to outline the reasons of this contradiction.
Do you agree with us ?
2nd part
We have obviously seen that the private life is violated because the celebrity is photographed against her will.
Therefore, she or he does not have any control on her or his image. In this way, photographs with no scruples, can easily harm his or her reputation. Nevertheless, the photographs, who claim to act in the name of freedom of expression, breach the law that consists of giving one’s opinion. In this case the freedom of expression is not restricted but on the contrary misused because the paparazzi does not refer to the restrictions of the law aiming to protect the reputation and the rights of a person. In addition to violating the private life and the freedom of expression, the photographer does not respect the moral duties and the deontology required by his work.
That’s why many celebrities cry fool and some of them will sue the magazine that has released the pictures. For example; Claire Chazal, the journalist at TF1 who sued Voici for violation of private life for the release of some pictures. She went to court against the magazine and won her trial without any problem. Following to the trial, the Voici magazine had to give her some money. The freedom of expression is, in this case, not restricted because all the wanted information is released.
There are also some settlements between stars and magazines. The biggest deal of this system was the report made by Hola magazine on the French start JP Belmondo’s second wedding who married Natty on December 29th, 2002. The magazine made big money by obtaining the exclusivity of the wedding. Belmondo chose that magazine as the only media witness to cover the event. A contract was previously made between the star and the magazine. In that case, without the press agency; he accepted to be interviewed and photographed in intimacy for about 100000 Euros.
The private life was then respected. The intimacy was not violated because all those reports and pictures were released with the agreement of the star who sold in a certain way at that moment the life of his family. His right to image as well as a family and private life were respected. With respect to the freedom of expression, there was no violation.
Conclusion
On the whole, we can assert that the respect of the private life is often violated but stars play with this and use their rights to make more money than they have. In my opinion, this is very hypocritical for stars to complain about the celebrity magazines harm their private life. In many situations they have used them to both make the headlines and make money. This is not in the name of moral or justice that they act but for greed. In all the cases; money and promotion play a big role. Their games are so obvious. The star will make confidence to a magazine and decides not to have a private and family life by telling it to everybody. As a reminder, Alexandre Anthony and Sarah Marshall sued a magazine that had released the same confidences without her agreement. They hint at their right for privacy but there was no privacy anymore because they had previously released that information in another magazine. Therefore, according to me stars use the violation of private life as a pretext.
C'est quoi ta première partie.
Ecris les principales idées et je te la rédige en anglais
Ecris les principales idées et je te la rédige en anglais
Merci pour ta traduction, tu m aide beaucoup et pour repondre a ta question, je ne voit pas ce que je peut dire en 1 er parti !!!
Peux tu m aider ???
Merci d avance
Peux tu m aider ???
Merci d avance
pour la 1er parti meme en francais je bloque et c'est urgent car je doit le rendre mercredi !!
Je penser dire: les medias et liberte d'information, acces a l'info... mais je ne voit pas comment faire les phrases ...
Peux tu m aider
MERCI !
Je penser dire: les medias et liberte d'information, acces a l'info... mais je ne voit pas comment faire les phrases ...
Peux tu m aider
MERCI !
Ils ont besoin d'aide !
- Aucun devoir trouvé, poste ton devoir maintenant.
Do you agree with us ?
2nd part
We have obviously seen that the private life is violated because the celebrity is photographed against her will.
Therefore, she or he does not have any control on her or his image. In this way, photographs with no scruples, can easily harm his or her reputation. Nevertheless, the photographs, who claim to act in the name of freedom of expression, breach the law that consists of giving one’s opinion. In this case the freedom of expression is not restricted but on the contrary misused because the paparazzi does not refer to the restrictions of the law aiming to protect the reputation and the rights of a person. In addition to violating the private life and the freedom of expression, the photographer does not respect the moral duties and the deontology required by his work.
That’s why many celebrities cry fool and some of them will sue the magazine that has released the pictures. For example; Claire Chazal, the journalist at TF1 who sued Voici for violation of private life for the release of some pictures. She went to court against the magazine and won her trial without any problem. Following to the trial, the Voici magazine had to give her some money. The freedom of expression is, in this case, not restricted because all the wanted information is released.
There are also some settlements between stars and magazines. The biggest deal of this system was the report made by Hola magazine on the French start JP Belmondo’s second wedding who married Natty on December 29th, 2002. The magazine made big money by obtaining the exclusivity of the wedding. Belmondo chose that magazine as the only media witness to cover the event. A contract was previously made between the star and the magazine. In that case, without the press agency; he accepted to be interviewed and photographed in intimacy for about 100000 Euros.
The private life was then respected. The intimacy was not violated because all those reports and pictures were released with the agreement of the star who sold in a certain way at that moment the life of his family. His right to image as well as a family and private life were respected. With respect to the freedom of expression, there was no violation.
Conclusion
On the whole, we can assert that the respect of the private life is often violated but stars play with this and use their rights to make more money than they have. In my opinion, this is very hypocritical for stars to complain about the scandal sheets harm their private life. In many situations they have used them to both make the headlines and make money. This is not in the name of moral or justice that they act but for greed. In all the cases; money and promotion play a big role. Their games are so obvious. The star will make confidence to a magazine and decides not to have a private and family life by telling it to everybody. As a reminder, Alexandre Anthony and Sarah Marshall sued a magazine that had released the same confidences without her agreement. They hint at their right for privacy but there was no privacy anymore because they had previously released that information in another magazine. Therefore, according to me stars use the violation of private life as a pretext.