We like to think that the paparazzi today is something new but it is really more of an evolution over time. For instance, the Jan. 13, 1909 NYT reports on the marriage of one John J. Evers. That name probably doesn't evoke a lot of interest from the average person. Perhaps the name is more recognizable after a hint from the baseball refrain "Tinkers to Evers to Chance"?

John Evers, the famous Cubs second basemen got married on January 12, 1909 and merited a total of 17 lines of text in the NYT. Here is the entirety of the story:

John J. Evers, the second baseman of the Chicago Cubs, this afternoon was married to Miss Helen Fitzgibbons, one of Troy's most popular young women. The ceremony was performed at St. Joseph's church by the Rev. Father Leo O'Haire, in the presence of relatives. The pride was attended by Miss Ellen C. Evers, a sister of the groom. Edward Wansbro of Albany, a cousin of the groom, was the best man. The second baseman's gift to his bride was a pair of diamond earrings. He gave the bridesmaid a diamond brooch and the best man a diamond stickpin.

Mr. and Mrs. Evers will spend their honeymoon in New York, Washington, and Palm Beach. They will return home Feb. 1.

Granted, this is a lot more information than was ever printed about my wedding, but I am not nor ever will be a famous second baseman.

An interesting question is why we have so much more paparazzi today than we did a century ago. Clearly there are influences on both the supply and the demand side. On the supply side there are two distinct influences: first the technology to distribute information about Britney and Paris is much more developed today than a century ago. Thus the costs of providing information about the rich and famous has declined. Ceteris paribus, we would expect a lower cost of production to lead to more coverage.

However, this is not guaranteed if those who are the subject of paparazzi focus truly wanted the paparazzi to go away. The rich and famous could lobby for legislation that would restrict the paparazzi snooping around their private lives, or they could continually sue individual paparazzi or their sponsors to drive up the cost of providing coverage of private lives. The fact that there are so few law suits in this area (regardless of the true legal standing of the claim), suggests to me that a) those who are the focus of paparazzi are resigned to their fate or b) are not that torn up about it. It seems, on the surface at least, that those subjected to paparazzi treatment often seek out the "coverage" in an attempt to improve their marketability, improve their image, or simply to "have a gas" at being in the magazines in the grocery store.

There are enough counter-factuals that suggest that famous people can keep a low(er) profile if they wish - I don't hear much about the daily goings-on of Clint Eastwood. Admittedly there seem to be times when famous people wish to keep a low profile and this desire is seemingly ignored, such as the case of Princess Diana. However, cases such as Princess Diana seem to be relatively rare. On the contrary, it seems the paparazzi provide a middle-man service to those members of the rich and famous who want to have some portions of their private lives exposed to their "fans." In return, the rich and famous pay for this service by suffering the "snooping." Perhaps the endogenously determined "price" between the paparazzi and the rich and famous leads to a natural limit for how far the paparazzi can go. If true, this would partially explain why the Diana-type scenario seems relatively rare.

On the demand side, there are a lot more people in this country who seem to have an insatiable appetite for other people's business. This is clearly not unique to the modern era, but the number of people and their willingness and ability to pay for information about where [insert name here] had a latte seems different than a century ago. Perhaps this is a function of affluence and increased leisure time which is filled with liviing vicariously through Tom Cruise rather than through Cousin Melba.

Another thought experiment is whether there is feedback between all-star salaries of athletes and actors and the interest people have in their daily lives. The feedback would arise if some/enough individuals feel a sense of "ownership" of their favorite athlete or actor, perhaps because they directly contribute to the athlete's/actor's high salary by attending games or movies. As interest in the private actions of the actor/athlete increases, this could cause an increase peoples' interest in the public/professional actions (such as games or movies) thereby increasing the salary of the athlete/actor.

While some condemn the paparazzi for invading the privacy of individuals, in many cases it is less clear whether paparazzi coverage is truly an "invasion." Both supply and demand-side effects seem to encourage more revelations of what might have been considered private or uninteresting behavior in the past.