Millions of views, zero fact checks: Why a paparazzi post is not journalism

A photographer posts a short clip of a celebrity outside a restaurant. Within hours, it has more views than most news articles will see in a week. The page that posted it has millions of followers and is treated as a source of entertainment news. Does that make it journalism? According to Dale Bhagwagar, it does not, and publicists who confuse the two risk building campaigns on the wrong foundation.

Bhagwagar founded Bollywood’s first PR agency Dale Bhagwagar Media Group in 1997. He also spent more than a decade as a journalist before moving into PR, which gives him a view of the distinction from both sides of the desk.

Part of the news ecosystem, but not the same thing

Bhagwagar does not dismiss paparazzi content. “Paparazzi material can become part of the news ecosystem,” says the entertainment PR maven. But he draws a firm line. “Taking a photograph and practising journalism are not necessarily the same thing.”

His position is that a photograph can carry information. “A photograph can provide information or become the trigger for a legitimate news story,” he says. Whether it counts as journalism, though, “depends on the context, verification, framing and editorial treatment around it.” On that test, he adds, “I would not automatically call every paparazzi post journalism.”

What journalism adds

Those four elements are the ones a news desk supplies and a posting page often does not. Context explains why an event matters. Verification checks whether it is true. Framing decides what is emphasised. Editorial treatment applies standards about fairness, accuracy and accountability.

A paparazzi page may offer none of these, or only some, and still look authoritative to its audience. Bhagwagar has also said that new-age Bollywood news portals operate with very different content ethics compared to legacy and veteran outlets.

Influence is real, but it is a different asset

He is careful not to understate the power of these platforms. “The paps have acquired a degree of influence because audiences actively consume their content,” he says. “Influence and journalistic credibility, however, are not identical concepts.”

He puts the distinction plainly. “A paparazzi platform can have enormous reach and cultural influence without necessarily operating according to the same standards as an established news organisation. That distinction needs to remain clear.”

How the power shifted

The reason the question matters now is structural. The Bollywood PR expert explains that earlier, photographers supplied images to publications, and the publications controlled which ones they were willing to buy. Social media removed that gatekeeper. “Today, a photographer can effectively become the publication,” he says.

Many paparazzi are now publishers and content creators. “They can shoot, edit, caption, publish and distribute it themselves,” Bhagwagar notes. Power has been redistributed, relationships have become more direct and the speed of narrative building has increased considerably.

What this means for a publicist

For Bhagwagar, the practical lesson is to use each channel for what it does best. A paparazzi platform offers reach, speed and a sense of informality. A news article, an interview or an editorial feature offers context, verification and weight. A strong campaign uses both, and does not expect one to do the other’s job.

He also reminds publicists that a relationship with a photographer is not a guarantee of how the material will be read. “You cannot outsource your reputation to somebody else,” he says. That is why PR control and oversight remain necessary if a publicist wants to steer a client’s image in the right direction.

For the public, the lesson is simpler. A post that reaches millions has proved that people are watching. It has not proved that anyone checked the facts.