Our Secret Need for Paparazzi Revealed!

In trying to determine whose version of the truth is correct -- the Hollywood publicist or the paparazzi person -- I’m stumped. Why would either of them fudge? Probably just a case of two honest brokers seeing things differently.

All we know is that a Mercedes that actress Scarlett Johansson was driving last week clipped another woman’s vehicle in the Disneyland parking lot. Johansson blamed paparazzi for the accident, while an owner of one of the photo agencies said his people weren’t close enough to Johansson to have distracted her.

I can’t think of any dispute in which I wouldn’t take Johansson’s side, because she’s a fabulous actress and I want her to like me. And speaking on behalf of everyone in the O.C., come back soon, Scarlett.

So I’ll go with her version unless the paparazzi make me a better offer. But what about the business of paparazzi, in general? Do they have a right to follow international superstar actresses down I-5 from Los Angeles to Orange County, as they did with Johansson, just so they can take pictures of them?

Yeah, they do. That’s assuming, of course, they don’t tailgate her at 70 mph or force her off the freeway and then photograph the wreckage. Not that that wouldn’t fulfill their greatest fantasy.

The photo agency owner told The Times that two of his photographers had been following Johansson for four days and were hot on the trail when she got to Disneyland. So was a photographer from a rival agency. No doubt you could cut the competitive tension with a knife.

Can you blame them? They know their audience. Just imagine the thrill you’d get seeing a photo of Scarlett under this caption: “Scarlett Johansson Seen Drinking Lemonade at Disneyland.”

If it takes four days to get a shot of that, so be it.

Would most normal people feel good about themselves spending four days waiting to get a photo of someone -- even a celebrity -- doing something totally non-newsworthy? Probably not.

But if a magazine or newspaper sells more copies because Scarlett is in it, can you blame them for wanting to snag her? Did paparazzi invent the celebrity culture, or did we, the star-struck public?

And let’s not pretend the stars don’t like the attention. If we never saw Scarlett Johansson, or any other movie star, except for when they showed up on movie screens, would they retain their fame? Maybe, maybe not. Most celebs like the publicity, but on their terms.

Therein lies the rub.

No matter how big a star you are, you don’t want to be jumped by a photographer when you go to the grocery store. I have no doubt Scarlett would love to buy her own groceries; the poor dear just can’t take the chance. If she needs munchies late at night, she runs the risk of being followed by men in minivans.

Sort of takes the fun out of a chocolate attack.

We the fans are even more hypocritical. We gobble up the paparazzi’s product but give them no love. We see them swarming a helpless star and consider it a violation of something we all hold sacred -- our space.

Still, whenever I feel sanctimonious about people’s privacy, I recall a moment in the newsroom of a paper I worked at 25 years ago. In the middle of the room, one of our editors collapsed in a heap. We feared a heart attack. As nervous staffers huddled around him, one of the staff photographers started snapping pictures.

An indignant staffer told him to stop, to which the equally indignant photographer said, in effect: “This is what I’m asked to do every day of my working life.”

He was absolutely right. How dare we ask him to thrust himself into other people’s private lives but then rebuke him when he photographs one of ours?

The paparazzi are merely feeding the beast. When the beast loses its taste for celebrities, the paparazzi will stop tracking them to Disneyland.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.