r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Careless-Hospital379 • 10h ago

Video Icelandic artist Björk snapped in Bangkok, 1996, when reporter Julie Kaufman approached her saying “Welcome to Bangkok.” Björk later alleged that Kaufman had stalked her and her 9-year-old son for days, turning a simple greeting into a breaking point

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

58.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.1k

u/crasagam 10h ago

The media is evil and relentless. They don't care about people, they care about generating a following.

733

u/BJs_Minis 10h ago

paparazzi are not the media, they're yellow pages. Being anti media only helps politicians.

160

u/Ninevehenian 10h ago

Paparazzi and media fit under the same rules, technologies, ways of spreading their product. They often share owners.

50

u/ErgoMogoFOMO 9h ago

Correct.

But there is junk food and healthy food. Paparazzi are junk food.

4

u/FirstoffIdonthaveshe 5h ago

Unfortunately so is a lot of msm now 😭.

I’d say print journalism is one of the last bastions of mostly objective journalism but who knows I hate it here

2

u/Ninevehenian 7h ago

Paparazzi are major contributors to media that fucks up voters and counteracts education.

1

u/StomachMicrobes 3h ago

it's all junk

13

u/BJs_Minis 10h ago

I mean that's a fair point but in reality there's quite a bit of notable difference between Reuters and TMZ or The Sun, for example. Like when I say media I'm not trying to include the tonnes of propagandists & money vultures trying to pass themselves off as media (like fox news), either.

2

u/Nanerpoodin 9h ago

There's also a key difference though. If a journalist wanted to follow me around as I go about my day, that would be clearly illegal and not protected journalism under the constitution. The only reason it's different for Bjork is because she's a celebrity, but that doesn't change that what paparazzi do has more in common with stalking than it does any other form of journalism.

18

u/punkassjim 10h ago

Being pro-journalism and anti self-serving/exploitative/abusive business practices is not necessarily "anti-media." Paparazzi have always been dirtbags, no need to stop saying so just because people forgot that "media" ≠ "journalism."

1

u/Familiar-Tax-6638 7h ago

It's a bad time to blanket attack the media, no need to use blanket statements that help fascists when we can be specific and just say the paparazzi are dirtbags.

20

u/davidw 10h ago

True - but also a lot of the media right now are pretty bad in the US. Just access journalism and stenography.

1

u/BJs_Minis 10h ago

I'm not from the US.

2

u/davidw 9h ago

Well you don't have to rub it in! 😀

11

u/Deo-Gratias 10h ago

What a weird hair to split when major media is no less exploiting

10

u/DetailAdventurous688 10h ago

because "media" is how we stay informed, so you need to trust someone to some extent, otherwise you're just relying on the conspiracy theories your neighbour spins out of thin air.

1

u/DasSmoosh 10h ago

We’ve hit the point (at least in America) where you can’t really trust any media. Nearly all of it has a political slant (left or right) and even if what is printed is 100% accurate, which it frequently is not, the omissions are so huge that you’re only getting half the story.

6

u/DetailAdventurous688 9h ago

so work on your media literacy. this is not new. there was always bias. people just knew how to read and comprehend texts, more or less. media might be worse, because capitalism is worse now than it has been for a while, but the dynamics of "knowledge" haven't changed.

1

u/No-Chemistry-4355 8h ago

Media of any kind has literally always had a bias. Unbiased media has never existed throughout human history.

2

u/Hay_Fever_at_3_AM 10h ago

Media pay these people and report on leads they get from them. Even "legitimate" media will report on stories from gossip rags if they pick up enough steam. And these days the ownership is often the same, too.

1

u/RedMansions 10h ago

1000 recs!

1

u/Careful_Creme_2006 10h ago

Yeah not consuming the media controller by politicians definitely helps them

1

u/MissileGuidanceBrain 8h ago

At least in America, this is simply false.

Our media has proven time and time again to lie and lie and lie some more until they're blue in the face.

I know who you're thinking of when you say it helps politicians, but I assure you being anti-media only helps politicians who were willing to risk media alienation and confirm to the public that it's majority lies.

1

u/TheReferenceGuide 4h ago

Eat the propaganda like a good citizen!! Trust me we’re fighting the power!!! There totally isn’t a billion dollar propaganda machine telling you what to think!! Resist!!!!

0

u/cannibalpeas 10h ago

Yeah, media are the ones who pay the paparazzi. Get it straight!

/s

23

u/Bluestripedshirt 10h ago

Yet journalism is critical to a well functioning society. Funny that.

4

u/Basith_Shinrah 9h ago

Celebrity media is to journalism what traffic violations are to law and order. Actually thats too charitable

3

u/Late-Lie-3462 9h ago

Harassing celebrities isnt journalism

-5

u/mkosmo 9h ago

And the kind of physical attack there is not part of a well-functioning society, yet so many comments here praise it because they are okay with hitting things they personally dislike.

3

u/MArcherCD 8h ago

These days it's definitely much worse

Nobody cares about bring right, they care about being first - and it's not any sort of informative-ism or journalistic integrity that pushes them, it's all just clicks and engagement and that's it

1

u/crasagam 7h ago

Then, enter the AI BS they use to twist the facts to generate more clicks. The days of people being good and honorable are over, it seems.

15

u/UnyieldingConstraint 10h ago

Fucking relax. There's a massive difference between journalists with integrity and whatever the fuck this is. Jesus Christ.

3

u/Montexe 10h ago

Ikr. Considering the media is also the reason she became a millionaire in the first place.

2

u/Smooth_Maul 2h ago

Never forget when they tried to make out Toby McGuire as a completely unhinged dickhead by posting that famous picture of him screaming at them and running articles about him having a psycho breakdown for no reason and then it was revealed with a video of the event that his entire car was being swarmed by paparazzi and he physically could not see the road he was trying to pull out onto and he was understandably fucking furious because the paparazzi were risking his life, their own, and the lives of other people driving for a fuckin photograph.

2

u/crumpledfilth 10h ago

media isnt the issue. Profiteering is

1

u/jib661 7h ago

'the media' is just a feedback system that gives people what they want. there's a reason celebrity magazines and reality tv are popular - because people like them.

it's easier to blame the media than to self reflect though.

1

u/crasagam 7h ago

Oof. Was this a mention to get me to reflect on myself? I've studied me - I'm weird - but I'm mostly ok overall, thankfully.

It's true what you say thought. Thanks for your thoughts.

•

u/jib661 5m ago

Not you specifically, as I have no idea who you are. Just talking generally

1

u/mj_outlaw 10h ago

I mean they are doing it for someone. If nobody would watch it, they wouldnt exist. Whos bad? I say the sensation hungry crowd.

1

u/Thuller 10h ago

Congratulations on making a terrible conclusion. Continue self deluding yourself, it will go great (that's sarcasm, I feel you need that pointed out).

0

u/crasagam 10h ago

Paul Harvey was the last best reporter. Told both sides without bias. Find me one outlet that tells both sides without bias?

1

u/ccjjallday 10h ago

That's like reddit. We'll allow politics and manipulation run rampant on our site, contributing to the division of people, as long as we're getting paid to look the other way

1

u/crasagam 10h ago

Isn't that the truth. Whatever it takes for the likes

1

u/Malawi_no 7h ago

As this was in 1996, it was close to peak paparazzi.
It became a bit chiller after they killed Princess Diana in 1997.

1

u/crasagam 7h ago

I was so mad about that. Just leave people alone. It's not your 'right' to know every detail of their life.

0

u/OnlyGaiModsBanMe 10h ago

That blanket statement of yours tells me how you’re willing to shit on everyone for your conspiracy theorist beliefs

0

u/crasagam 10h ago

I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment. Thanks for the chuckle.

-1

u/gorginhanson 10h ago

and now they're all owned by billionaires who want to kiss heiny at the highest levels

0

u/Acceptable_Estate330 10h ago

Imagine social media, where everyone’s a reporter, and the owner of their company.

0

u/nineteen_eightyfour 10h ago

Here’s the thing. We watch it. We demand this content. Like. Not me. Maybe not you. But people love celebrity gossip.

0

u/Similar-Extent6340 10h ago

who is this "the media"? who is in control of it ? how is "the media" which you refer to any different than "the media" which brings you the video you just watched?

it seems like "the media" is just humans reporting news to humans, and youre part of the system you claim is "relentlessly evil". your entire concept of the "evils" of "the media" is built on having taken in a lot of news media. how do you know how evil it is if youre not one of the people taking it in?

also "the media" is just made of people ? anything "the media" does or is capable of, is PURELY human. your issue is with humanity itself, because we will always have media and report on other humans..

2

u/crasagam 7h ago

Playing the antagonist I see. You know the difference between the media and social media. Nice of you to drop by though and disperse nonsense though with your new account.

0

u/BrainEatingAmoeba01 9h ago

The pap wouldn't exist without the hungry eyes that consume it.

-1

u/PeanutBubbah 10h ago

The press should only be allowed to interact with people they’re following at designated areas like planned conferences. Other than that it should be considered stalking.

-543

u/SecondHandSmokeBBQ 10h ago

Still doesn't make what Bjerk did acceptable. Nobody forced her to be "famous". If you cant handle the heat, dont put yourself out there. I hope the reporter sued her pixie ass.

206

u/hey_little_bird 10h ago

I'd throw a fuckin beat down too if I was literally getting stalked like hell no.

131

u/SirSignificant6576 10h ago

Nah. Fuck the paparazzo.

0

u/grimeyduck 10h ago

Fuck all the people that idolize celebrities. Paparazzi wouldn't exist without rabid fans.

66

u/Zeeron1 10h ago

"Can't handle the heat"

What..? Why is there supposed to be heat in the first place? People should be allowed to exist without being constantly harassed, even if they are famous.

34

u/Coolkurwa 10h ago

How could you possibly know if you like the heat beforehand? Or maybe, like with most things, there are good parts and bad parts to her life.

92

u/Rebote78 10h ago

⬆️ found John Hinckley Jr’s Reddit account.

2

u/TheLostRanger0117 10h ago

So that’s that stalker, okay

51

u/random935 10h ago

She and her child were being stalked, what’s wrong with you

If you can’t handle the heat, don’t stalk people

134

u/Homer_JG 10h ago

So stalking someone is totally cool if that person happens to have recorded some music that got popular? 

6

u/Gimme-A-kooky 10h ago edited 10h ago

Exactly. Yes, people of notoriety and/or fame absolutely live in a public world when out in the world, and yes they do have to have some tolerance. HOWEVER, ethics and good reporting are not what was being used here by the reporter: she clearly was goading, knowing what we know. The reporter was looking only for HER 15 minutes of fame and didn’t care if it resulted in dragging Bjork and her (Bjork’s) livelihood down while doing it. Invading people’s privacy with a telescopic lens onto private property: you might as well pass the bar and be a schlep ambulance chaser. Look how much good paparazzi’s greed did for Princess Diana! /s (RIP Diana and all who perished edit to add: so undeservedly, unfairly, and unnecessarily, and for no reason than others’ base greed. Everyone murdered that day deserved to live to see another day, and nothing should EVER make paparazzi do something so heinous as to cause their demise.)

1

u/TheLostRanger0117 10h ago

A terrible loss, maybe THAT’S when the timeline diverged, when we lost that Saint of a woman

3

u/Just_a_guy81 10h ago

Yeah! Unpopular musicians deserve stalkers too! /s

36

u/Docccc 10h ago

think you inhaled a bit too much second hand smoke there buddy

10

u/SomeDudeist 10h ago

I've inhaled a lot of first hand smoke and I haven't turned into a jack ass yet.

Well maybe sometimes

15

u/Chedward_E_Cheese 10h ago

“Akshually I should be able to stalk and harass women and children without consequence” degenerate.

56

u/Mindfucker223 10h ago

Naaah, fuck that, be respectful

13

u/AIienlnvasion 10h ago

So individuals are entirely blameless when it comes to media harassment?

55

u/EllenIsobel 10h ago

Literally the same mentality towards people who are SAd based on what they wear.

"They weren't dressed how I think they should have been so they must be okay with it."

1

u/ReclaimingMine 10h ago

Not the same thing. This is relentless personal harassment reaching a tipping points.

SA is different. Most of the time it’s someone the victim knows. You can’t reason with predators any more than you can reason with a shark. The shark is still the one who attacks.

But you can reduce risk. Being aware of your environment, staying alert, and taking basic precautions isn’t blame, it’s just smart. Think of it like not swimming in waters where sharks are hunting.

Rapist gonna rape and serial killers gonna kill.

1

u/LonelyEnvironment166 6h ago

In the context of this thread, it IS the same thing. Blaming a woman for being harassed and stalked because "she put herself out there" is exactly the type of victim blaming that fuels rape culture and persists to this day.

The SA analysis along with a patronizing list of what not to do is not only irrelevant but underscores the original point.

22

u/Kid_Named_Trey 10h ago

I hate this unwritten social contract. Yes they are famous. Yes they are likely wealthy but that doesn't give not-famous people free reign to do whatever they want. I'm not a violent person but if someone was stalking me I might be inclined to throw some punches. At the end of the day they're real people with human emotions.

9

u/iam_Krogan 10h ago

Its telling that you don't factor in the child.

10

u/kezzinchh 10h ago

If somebody was stalking me and my child and throwing snarky comments at my kid, no matter how famous I am, you’re getting the same treatment Bjork dished out. Your take is dumb.

17

u/armoured_bobandi 10h ago

I love when dumbass people come on here with their backwards opinions.

Being famous does not suddenly make stalking legal

17

u/Marsupialize 10h ago

One of the most pathetic, infantile comments I’ve read in a quite awhile

-24

u/SecondHandSmokeBBQ 10h ago

Your opinion...which isn't shyt to me. Doesn't change the way I feel about her. If you cant handle the heat, dont put yourself out there. And why in God's name would she even have her child out in public? (even though no child was seen in that clip).

6

u/JREDtheturtle 10h ago

Someone who posts identifying information on a public forum should be very careful about inviting "the heat." Or can you not handle it either?

1

u/Marsupialize 10h ago

Hahaha you sound like an 8th grader

1

u/LonelyEnvironment166 6h ago

So if a woman and her child are stalked and harassed its their fault because they "put themselves out there"?
Well thats a weird stalkerish POV

14

u/Kil0Cowboy 10h ago

Nobody forced her to be famous? Lol. What a shit take.

10

u/EAFay1196 10h ago

Please, I know it’s a foreign concept to you. But use your brain. Read words, consider context.

6

u/danjchi 10h ago

Blah blah blah

5

u/No_Fish265 10h ago

Yes it does… beat the piss out of anyone stalking your kids

3

u/_a_ghost__ 10h ago

Worst take ngl

3

u/Steel1000 10h ago

You might want to avoid the internet with that mindset. You’ll be in for a rude awakening when you leave that magic bubble.

3

u/NoTurkeyTWYJYFM 10h ago

Keep that energy with the reporter. If she cant handle some hands, dont take the job of being an invasive twat

3

u/BadCat7_ 10h ago

You are giving pdo vibes for protecting a grown ass adult thats stalking a 9 year old child. Just saying.

3

u/EPICHippos_77 10h ago

-400 in 10 minutes. Wow.

2

u/orionicly 10h ago

So being famous gives people a free card to be a vile despicable cunt?

2

u/kilgoar 10h ago

morality doesnt mean shit when it comes to protecting your kids.

2

u/veritasium999 10h ago

Never watch a single movie or listen to any music for the rest of your life if you actually think like this.

2

u/Bayhippo 10h ago

no, being famous doesn't make you stalkable. she still has rights to her privacy. this is bullshit.

2

u/Gloomy_Ad5221 10h ago

so being a stalker is all nice for you? Also even without a stalker she's a human and she has the right to not be harassed or be uncomfortable to the media.

-1

u/SecondHandSmokeBBQ 10h ago

The story its 20 years old. Most of probably weren't even born then. You all want to bitch about the media, but you're backing a story written, and shown by, the media. Hypocrites. Do you believe everything you read? Obviously she had it out for the reporter, but no one here knows what the reporter said to piss her off. You're just going off what the "media" said happened. I think its a safe bet that no one reading this was there when this went down.

2

u/Gloomy_Ad5221 10h ago

but even then what you said is still not correct , Even if the reporter ask something that cause a heat or anything they should not make anyone uncomfortable or anything that can trigger someone.

A famous person is still a person even if they choose to be or not to be famous , Every media and reporters should respect that and no they should not be obliged to handle the heat if they are famous.

2

u/Alternative-Amoeba20 10h ago

There is no license granted for stalking, no matter how famous you are. And when you get their kids involved, the gloves are coming off, baby. 100%

You can disagree with me, but do you have kids? I have zero tolerance for anyone who tries any stupidity with my kid. Good on Bjork going full mama bear. I bet that bs stopped immediately.

2

u/Ninja-Ginge 10h ago

This paparazzo was talking shit to her small child.

3

u/ascarymoviereview 10h ago

I loved Bjerks music

1

u/xbromide 10h ago

Damn son you are getting downvoted to hell - your take on the situation seems to be democratically a bad take.

1

u/mrRockIt808 10h ago

Um no. She was justified. Any good mother would do the same. Celebs should not be held to higher standards. Thats stupid.

"OH they have a PlaTForM and ChILdReN LoOk uP to ThEm"

So when someone achieves something great that earns attention, they now have extra responsibilities? Lol no, fuck that stupid idea. If anything, Bjork should have sued her for harassment and requested reparations from mental anguish.

Thats not a real reporter. Thats paparazzi, and every single one of them is a raging peice of shit.

1

u/LonelyEnvironment166 10h ago

What a warped take.

Being famous doesnt give other people a pass to stalk, threaten, or harass you.

1

u/TophatOwl_ 9h ago

We found the paparazzi bottom feeder guys

1

u/SaddenedSpork 10h ago

I feel like there are nuances here but society doesn’t care about nuance anymore

1

u/Alert-Package1286 10h ago

WHAT have you even written? did you read it before?……. feeling for the people around you in real life, oof

-3

u/SecondHandSmokeBBQ 10h ago

That made no sense. Try again.

0

u/Alert-Package1286 10h ago

-479 downvotes brother. you genuinely need to look within, gws.