NationStates

[title] Paparazzi Popping Outta Nowhere

[desc] Famous celebrity @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@'s wife, @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@, was photographed with a black eye when getting the mail. This caused the media to have a field day and accuse @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@ of bashing his wife. By the time the police had established that she had indeed walked into a book case, @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@'s reputation had been irreparably damaged, and career on the verge of destruction. Concerned citizens have gathered in your office to discuss freedom of press.

[validity] must allow cars, must allow marriage, must allow free press, must be capitalist

[option] "This is disgusting @@LEADER@@!" complains @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@, the celebrity in question. "Thanks to these scumbags, I haven't been cast in anything for over a month!" He shows you the original article with last week's date on it. "See, it's their fault. And I'm a celebrity, I can take it! I've heard stories of private citizens whose lives had been completely destroyed by the media publishing crimes before their court cases find them innocent. Allow us to sue the media if they harass us!"
[effect] media cannot report on criminal cases until all possible appeals are executed

[option] "You think you've got problems?" cries 22 year old musician, @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, as her tears flood your office. "These people follow me everywhere! I can't even crash my car into a tree without the pap taking photos! And that time that I put on a few extra kilos and they thought it was a baby bump! Can't these pests leave us alone!" ZMT magazine photographs her tears as she leaves your office.
[effect] news outlets may only report the weather to avoid violating privacy law

[option] You finally go and take a lunch break, when a paparazzo photographs you. "Say cheese! Perfect! This is going on the cover. How fun was that! I mean come on @@LEADER@@, celebrities love the lime light, that's why they became famous! If they didn't want us to photograph them, they shouldn't pick their nose! I'm just give the people what they want. And we don't even touch private citizens unless we're at least 35% sure they're guilty. If these crybabies don't want us to photograph them they shouldn't've become famous or committed crimes!"
[effect] stalking is only legal when cameras are involved

Famous celebrity @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ was accused of getting into a drunken rampage in a pub and driving home drunk, causing the media to destroy @@HIS@@ reputation and @@HIS@@ career, before @@HE@@ was found innocent in a court of law.

This passage from the description sounds contradictory. If this person was innocent, it seems s/he did not get into a rampage and drive home drunk. Then why do you start writing the issue by saying that? To impersonate the fake-news paparazzi?

Also, how exactly did the paparazzi falsify this news? Did they just report stuff verbally? Paparazzi are actually mostly criticized for taking illegal pictures of celebrities, not much for spinning false tales about them (though both often co-exist). What I am trying to say that in such a case where they claim someone got into a drunken rampage, I kinda expect to see some pictures of them showing the rampage. Do you see what I mean?

Also, how could they be found innocent in a court of law? How exactly? Did the court demand a blood test? Footage from security cameras?

It's not that the idea is bad, but I find the description of the issue a bit floppy.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:

Famous celebrity @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ was accused of getting into a drunken rampage in a pub and driving home drunk, causing the media to destroy @@HIS@@ reputation and @@HIS@@ career, before @@HE@@ was found innocent in a court of law.

This passage from the description sounds contradictory. If this person was innocent, it seems s/he did not get into a rampage and drive home drunk. Then why do you start writing the issue by saying that? To impersonate the fake-news paparazzi?

Also, how exactly did the paparazzi falsify this news? Did they just report stuff verbally? Paparazzi are actually mostly criticized for taking illegal pictures of celebrities, not much for spinning false tales about them (though both often co-exist). What I am trying to say that in such a case where they claim someone got into a drunken rampage, I kinda expect to see some pictures of them showing the rampage. Do you see what I mean?

Also, how could they be found innocent in a court of law? How exactly? Did the court demand a blood test? Footage from security cameras?

It's not that the idea is bad, but I find the description of the issue a bit floppy.

Thanks. This is actually about trial by media and paparazzi. I guess I gotta fix the description. Thanks!

Second draft is up

Thanks for the help FuF!

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:This passage from the description sounds contradictory. If this person was innocent, it seems s/he did not get into a rampage and drive home drunk. Then why do you start writing the issue by saying that?

You still haven't quite cleared this up, the description still needs working on. Plus I think it would be better if the speaker in option 1 is the same person as in the description.

Been thinking about this one. The problem is drunk driving is pretty black or white. You need a premise with a grey area. How about: Celebrity's wife is photographed with a black eye. Media instantly label the celebrity as a spousal abuser, however, turns out she really did hit herself in the face when opening a cupboard. By then it's too late, his career has been affected and his social likeability has taken a hit that can't be recovered from.

Baggieland wrote:Been thinking about this one. The problem is drunk driving is pretty black or white. You need a premise with a grey area. How about: Celebrity's wife is photographed with a black eye. Media instantly label the celebrity as a spousal abuser, however, turns out she really did hit herself in the face when opening a cupboard. By then it's too late, his career has been affected and his social likeability has taken a hit that can't be recovered from.

Oh, I like that, thanks!

Third draft is up, thanks!

Australian rePublic wrote:[desc] Famous celebrity @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@’s wife, @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@,

You'll want to be more careful to establish that only the last name is kept across both macros, not the first name, though I'm sure the editors can fix that once they get their hands on the issue.

Australian rePublic wrote:By the time the police had established that she had indeed walked into a doorknob,

How many doorknobs are at eye level?

Australian rePublic wrote:Concerned citizens have gathered in your office to discuss freedom of press

You're missing a period at the end of this sentence.

Australian rePublic wrote:I haven't
t

Do I need to explain?

Australian rePublic wrote:"I've heard stories of private citizens who's lives had been completely destroyed by them."

"Whose", not "who's".

And how often does the media report gossip on ordinary non-celebrities? While their lives being harmed by false crime accusations can certainly still happen, I wouldn't expect it to usually be the paparazzi's fault.

Australian rePublic wrote:22 year old musician

"12-year-old".

Australian rePublic wrote:, @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, as her tears flood your office

Another missing period.

Australian rePublic wrote:"And we don't even touch private citizens unless we're at least 35% sure their guilty. If these cry babies don't want us to photograph them they shouldn't've become famous or commit crimes!"

"They're", "crybabies" (no space), and "committed".

You got "shouldn't've" right, though, props for that!

Trotterdam wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:[desc] Famous celebrity @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@’s wife, @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@,

You'll want to be more careful to establish that only the last name is kept across both macros, not the first name, though I'm sure the editors can fix that once they get their hands on the issue.

They don't have to have the same last name. I thiught the macros would produce different names

Australian rePublic wrote:By the time the police had established that she had indeed walked into a doorknob,

How many doorknobs are at eye level?

Good point, thanks

Australian rePublic wrote:Concerned citizens have gathered in your office to discuss freedom of press

You're missing a period at the end of this sentence.

Thanks

Australian rePublic wrote:I haven't
t

Do I need to explain?

Australian rePublic wrote:"I've heard stories of private citizens who's lives had been completely destroyed by them."

"Whose", not "who's".

And how often does the media report gossip on ordinary non-celebrities? While their lives being harmed by false crime accusations can certainly still happen, I wouldn't expect it to usually be the paparazzi's fault.

Not if the drum into the world

Australian rePublic wrote:22 year old musician

"12-year-old".

Her fans are 12. Doesn't mean she is. In fact, most musicians who appeal to 12 y/os are much older than that. Also, what 12 y/o drives?

Australian rePublic wrote:, @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, as her tears flood your office

Another missing period.

Australian rePublic wrote:"And we don't even touch private citizens unless we're at least 35% sure their guilty. If these cry babies don't want us to photograph them they shouldn't've become famous or commit crimes!"

"They're", "crybabies" (no space), and "committed".

You got "shouldn't've" right, though, props for that!

THANKS!

I am guessing the wife would have the good sense to cover her black eye with concealer/ foundation before walking on the red carpet. She must have been photographed secretly, while she thought she wasn't being observed. For example, in the backyard of her house or something.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I am guessing the wife would have the good sense to cover her black eye with concealer/ foundation before walking on the red carpet. She must have been photographed secretly, while she thought she wasn't being observed. For example, in the backyard of her house or something.

Hmmm... how about going for the mail?

Australian rePublic wrote:

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I am guessing the wife would have the good sense to cover her black eye with concealer/ foundation before walking on the red carpet. She must have been photographed secretly, while she thought she wasn't being observed. For example, in the backyard of her house or something.

Hmmm... how about going for the mail?

Works for me

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Hmmm... how about going for the mail?

Works for me

Excellent. Thanks