Pink versus the Paparazzi

Pink has flogged photos of her baby to the media. But... it's not for money (she's given the cash to charity). It's in a bid to try and get the photographers out her baby buggy:

We will be donating the money to children's' charities, among them one of our favorites, the Ronald McDonald House, an organization that houses and cares for the families of sick children so they can be together during treatment, as well as Autism Speaks.

Like any parents, we believe our little girl deserves the right to have privacy and be protected, but unfortunately, this media climate doesn't seem to provide for that. I feel so grateful that after many years of hard work, music and motorcycles have elevated both Carey and me to such a place that the public has supported us in building our life and lifestyle together. We recognize that celebrity has its upsides and downsides and do our best to manage just being people without hiring stylists and bodyguards before one of us goes to the store to buy some milk. I've seen some photos of myself that make me smile and some that make me less smiley. But you see, it's one thing to harass and stalk us, the adults, the celebrity that signed up for this life, but children should be protected and safe. There should be a clear distinction between us.

In EVERY other country that I recall, children's faces are blurred out in magazine photos. Why is USA the only country that continues to financially incentivize intrusive paparazzi behavior to capitalize on photos of babies, infants and children?

It's not, of course, only the US. Happens a lot in the UK, too. I wonder if Gordon will mention this in his column tomorrow?

Here's the bottom line: we don't want you to take our little girl's picture. We don't want you to one day follow our little girl home from school. We don't want our little girl's picture in a magazine or on a blog. If you take or publish her picture, it is against our wishes, and without our consent as parents, as people.

That's a fairly explicit 'don't do it' request.

You won't see any snatched photos of Pink's baby on the Daily Mail website, though. They promised to never buy any more pap snaps way back in 1997 after the death of Diana:

"The proprietor of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening Standard announced last night that his papers will not in future purchase pictures taken by paparazzi

Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc said: 'I am, and always have been, an admirer of Diana, Princess of Wales, and nagged my editors to protect her so far as they could against her powerful enemies.

In view of Earl Spencer's strong words and my own sense of outrage, I have instructed my editors no 'paparazzi' pictures are to be purchased without my knowledge and consent.'"

Hang about, though... there's loads of long lens shots of Pink and family here. Presumably Viscount Rothermere must have okayed each one of those personally?