Hugh Grant bugged a paparazzo talking about how NOTW bugged celebrities

wenn3251014
It’s safe to say that Hugh Grant has some issues with the paparazzi. In just the past few years, he’s hauled off and thumped one over the head with a tub of baked beans as well as kicking a photog in the crotch seemingly just for giggles. To be utterly fair, Grant’s got a pretty understandable reason to dislike the tabloids and their paps, for he was one of the thousands of public figures targeted within the huge wiretapping scandal involving the Rupert Murdoch-owned News of the World and The Sun. That particular scandal went down a couple of years ago, and it’s such a huge mess that we’ll probably not see the end of it for quite some time.

Hugh’s story picks up a few months ago when he was merrily driving along in his Ferrari (he calls it “my midlife crisis car”) and broke down on the side of the road. Shortly thereafter, a bloke stopped to help him but then pulled out a long-lens camera and commenced snapping away. At some point, Hugh realizes that this guy is Paul McMullan, a former News of the World pap and one of the key whistleblowers in the aforementioned wiretapping scandal. McMullan now bides his time running a pub, but that certainly didn’t stop him from selling the photos and story about finding a broken-down Hugh to the Daily Mail.

Hugh then later contacted McMullan and, unbeknownst to the former pap, recorded their conversation, which is now published in New Statesmen for all to see. Amongst many other revelations recorded by Hugh, McMullan actually thanks Hugh for breaking down on the side of the road and helping him make £3000 for the story, and also for being “a very good earner” for him in the past. McMullan goes on to claim that, in the past, Daily Mail was also just as bad about tapping cell phones as the two tabloids that got popped in the wiretapping scandal. He also bemoans the fact that the days of analogue mobiles have since passed, for that was a time when it was incredibly easy to use a cheap scanner and record the full phone conversations of Princess Di, Prince Charles, and the like. The entire article details a rather riveting discussion, which is well worth reading in full, but here are some relevant excerpts pertaining to McMullan’s former employ under NOTW:

Grant: Murdoch, yes . . .
McMullan: So I was sent to do a feature on Moulin Rouge! at Cannes, which was a great send anyway. Basically my brief was to see who Nicole Kidman was shagging – what she was doing, poking through her bins and get some stuff on her. So Murdoch’s paying her five million quid to big up the French and at the same time paying me £5.50 to f*ck her up . . . So all hail the master. We’re just pawns in his game. How perverse is that?

Grant: I suppose the fact that they’re dragging their feet while investigating a mass of phone-hacking – which is a crime – some people would think is a bit depressing about the police.
McMullan: But then – should it be a crime? I mean, scanning never used to be a crime. Why should it be? You’re transmitting your thoughts and your voice over the airwaves. How can you not expect someone to just stick up an aerial and listen in?
Grant: I’d rather no one listened in, to be honest. And I might not be alone there. You probably wouldn’t want people listening to your conversations.
McMullan: I’m not interesting enough for anyone to want to listen in.
Grant: But celebrities you would justify because they’re rich?
McMullan: Yeah. I mean, if you don’t like it, you’ve just got to get off the stage. It’ll do wonders.
Grant: So I should have given up acting?
McMullan: If you live off your image, you can’t really complain about someone . . .
Grant: I live off my acting. Which is different to living off your image.
Him Yeah, but you’re still presenting yourself to the public. And if the public didn’t know you . . .
Grant: They don’t give a sh*t. I got arrested with a hooker and they still came to my films. They don’t give a f*&@ about your public image. They just care about whether you’re in an entertaining film or not.
McMullan: That’s true . . . I have terrible difficulty with him [points to pap shot of Johnny Depp]. He’s really difficult. You know, I was in Venice and he was a nightmare to do because he walks around looking like Michael Jackson. And the punchline was . . . after leading everyone a merry dance the film was shot on an open balcony – I mean, it was like – he was standing there in public.
Grant: And you don’t see the difference between the two situations?
McMullan: You can’t hide all the time.
Grant: So you’re saying, if you’re Johnny Depp or me, you don’t deserve to have a private life?
McMullan: You make so much more money. You know, most people in Dover take home about £200 and struggle.

[From New Statesman]

All of these admissions essentially speak for themselves, and the paparazzo comes off looking like a huge douche. Of course celebrities (especially those like Johnny Depp, who would never sell wedding photos to a tabloid) don’t deserve to have their private conversations targeted by hackers. The argument always exists whether people who purposely seek out fame even deserve privacy, and to a degree, they necessarily give some of it up by not being able to walk down a street without having their photograph taken. And of course, they shouldn’t be stupid enough in this day and age to put nude photos on their cell phones, but they don’t deserve to be hacked.

Photos are from September and December, 2010 and March, 2011. Credit: WENN.com

wenn3000937

wenn5587128

wenn2988151

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

33 Responses to “Hugh Grant bugged a paparazzo talking about how NOTW bugged celebrities”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. brin says:

    Grant, Hugh Grant, international spy and man of mystery.

  2. x says:

    I actually think the reporter has a few valid points; I don’t think he comes off as a douche.

    There’s a matter-of-fact way of speaking in his dialogue, and I think it’s sort of refreshing….

  3. Melissa says:

    Team Hugh, that is awful.

  4. mln76 says:

    It looks like Hugh has become a muckraker good for him…paps are douchebags and creepy (as are media moguls like Rupert Murdoch who funds them)…but what I want to know is who was Nicole screwing while she was filming Moulin Rougue (she was still married to Tom at the time)

  5. You don't say says:

    The pap admits to trying to “get something” on Kidman and stalking Depp when he was off work and being upset. Being rich and famous does not mean you should have no privacy, I just don’t and can’t equate the two. Many in the entertainment business go out of their way to get photos taken. Go chase them. Creepy is as creepy does.

  6. gobo says:

    Never expected myself to say this but… GO HUGH!

  7. tapioca says:

    Meh… the paps only exist because they’ve a product we – the great unwashed – want to buy. So really the stalking and the long lens shots and the phone-tapping is down to our hunger for gossip. Plus, it would hardly seem fair if there was no price to pay for fame & fortune, so there’s a certain amount of warm, cuddley schaudenfreude attached to gawping at pics of slebs in no make-up and being caught with their pants down!

  8. Moe says:

    I actually think the reporter has a few valid points

    HUH?!!? Like what?! Going through her trash because she is an actress?!?! Are you serious? Grant is right: most are not trying to live off an image, they’re trying to live off their acting. “Get off the stage”??? They’re supposed to give up their creativity because of these rabid photographers?!!?

  9. Moe says:

    but what I want to know is who was Nicole screwing while she was filming Moulin Rougue[sic]

    You understand that this is part of the problem, right?

  10. curmudgeon says:

    They don’t deserve ALOT of privacy, but there is a line. Hacking them, stocking them outside their homes, and chasing them in ways that endangers everyone within a few hundred feet crosses that line.
    But if you really feel sorry for celebs and don’t want them bothered, stop reading tabloids. That’s the bottom line.

  11. Nanea says:

    This scandal that Mr Murdoch, proud owner of Faux News, has on his hand, is so big.

    Not only were many people’s phones hacked, but until a few weeks ago the higher-ups at his company denied that any hacking/wiretapping/accessing voice mails had happened, and if it did, it was the work of a lone free-lancer who has since been fired.

    Turns out that also the editors-in-chief and the publishers knew, and the British Prime Minister’s director of communication was let go because of this. He was a former editor of Murdoch’s own News of the World, and he had sanctioned some of the actions against actors, politicians, artists and the assorted Royals.

    There’s speculation at the Guardian Newspaper (that helped clear this whole thing up) that Murdoch made sure that Andy Coulson went to work at Mr Cameron’s office because of former ties Murdoch and Cameron had.

    It’s a dirty mess, and I’m pretty sure much of it sadly won’t see the light of the day – again because of Mr Murdoch’s huge power in controlling news and bending the truth.

    Hats off to Hugh for actually carrying out his plan, and helping shed some light on this whole scandal.

  12. mln76 says:

    @Moe I do understand that’s part of the problem but then again I don’t buy tabs and I never have and while I visit gossip sites I don’t usually go to any that seem to use questionable tactics …I also don’t approve of phone hacking but I think half of the problem is the syncophantic media and stars (including the ones I actually like) who only are willing to put out a false ‘perfect’ image. We all know most of the mainstream interviews and stories are bullshit so we end up going to disreputable sources for info. I do think that when a celebrity is selling a false image (a marraige that is a sham in this case) it’s only natural instinct to want to know the ‘ real ‘ story.

  13. TheMango says:

    What I am interested to know is, who WAS Kidman boning back at Cannes? Shame, doucherazzo, you revealed so much,you could passed on that juicy bit as well.

  14. mln76 says:

    @Nanea thanks for putting this into perspective. Murdoch’s reach is bigger than gossip so it has a lot of implications.

    @curmudgeon absolutely agree.

  15. Moe says:

    We all know most of the mainstream interviews and stories are bullshit so we end up going to disreputable sources for info.

    They are disreputable except when they are giving you the “real” story?? They lie, cheat and steal so that they can tell you that your favorite celeb is cheating? Putting aside the ethics (as they always do), why would you believe anything told to you by someone who rummages through garbage?

  16. anti says:

    damn! right on, hugh!

    hugh got a little wikileaks on us. much respect to him for that. i like how he used his own scandal to prove a point.

    @Nanea – you’re right it’s creepy stuff. the “So all hail the master. We’re just pawns in his game.” line made me think of british series “the prisoner”, it’s just sad abuse of power stuff playing with other people’s lives.

  17. Catherine says:

    Ha! I love this man.

  18. garvels says:

    Stars and paps both use each other. I have no sympathy for either one.The poor movie stars can’t live in peace with their mutimillion$ homes,jets etcc..-cry me a river.

  19. operagirl says:

    I really love Hugh. LOL.

  20. mln76 says:

    @Moe First off I said I don’t buy tabloids (especially not Brit ones) so no I don’t believe the people picking through garbage, I don’t think every gossip writer resorts to those methods. My perspective (you can agree or disagree) I don’t trust any one media source whether it’s gossip related or news related because ALL media these days are corrupt, biased, or too chicken shit to be accurate. If you soley read People and listen to a celebrities’ publicist you aren’t getting the full story. If you soley read one blog without taking into account their personal biases you also will get false or planted stories(Ted C is an example of an unreliable egomaniac many people feel the same about Lainey but I sort of trust her sources) but if you happen to browse around and remember things and take everything with a grain of salt you can make educated guesses and eventually pieces of proof will come out. A great example is Tom Cruise alot of the smut that was printed about him and Scientology has clearly been proven accurate because it was backed up by a Pulitzer Prize winning author in the New Yorker.

  21. Tia C says:

    Love me some Hugh, but oh my, he’s looking haggard.

  22. The Truth Fairy says:

    In all fairness, there is a HUGE difference between

    “celebrities” like Johnny Depp, who is an actor by profession and only communicates with the press out of obligation to the production company who made his latest movie,

    and “celebrities” like Kim K, Paris, etc, who are known for nothing more than being a celebrity, and who use the press because they WANT their entire lives documented in the tabloids because if they weren’t they’d become irrelevant.

    This whole – reality TV – anybody can be famous – phenomenon has completely skewed the definition of what is a celebrity. So the Johnny Depps get lumped into the same category as the Kim Ks. To the tabloids they are all the same because to them it’s all about the $$. But to the celebrities in the first category, the actors who want to have a professional relationship with the press, the invasion of privacy is patently unfair. And then we wonder why people like Sean Penn and Hugh smack the crap out of these paparazzi? It’s sick!

  23. Zelda says:

    “They don’t give a sh*t. I got arrested with a hooker and they still came to my films. They don’t give a f*ck about your public image. ”

    hahahahaha
    This is why I love him. Badass.

  24. Ann says:

    Damn. He looks awful.

  25. Ari says:

    I believe that reality “stars” should be papped 24 hours a day. Its how you earned your living, deal with it. If you are an actor or actress and you just want to make a movie and promote a film when necessary. I don’t need to see you shopping for pringles like I do in my jogging pants because then the allure is lost and then you become a normal person and then that means I can do what you do and then I try and go on Funny and Die or Youtube and POOF! I become a reality star and the goddamn circle of never-ending modern social bullcrap turns again.

  26. chasingadalia says:

    Whoa, when did Bedhead start writing over here?

  27. Trashaddict says:

    Indeed Hugh looks haggard, but I just realized he has the good sense and style not to go flashing his moobs about. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a nasty shirtless moob picture of him (no doubt someone will correct me on this).

  28. flutters says:

    This scandal that Mr Murdoch, proud owner of Faux News, has on his hand, is so big.

    @Nanea, great post and I completely agree.

    Good job Hugh Grant by doing this, I hope it gets more attention in the US. I was hoping CB would pick it up.

    Ted C is an example of an unreliable egomaniac many people feel the same about Lainey but I sort of trust her sources

    @mln76: They’re both the same in that they both favor certain celebs whose publicists work them over and also have certain celebs they relentlessly target where their sources are crap. They’re both shills, they both purvey planted items for good and bad, and neither is reliable.

  29. Emily says:

    I think that in entering a profession where fame is a given (like acting or singing), you do need to expect to give up some privacy. Like, your photo will be taken without your permission in public. i have no time for celebrities who bitch about that. But to hack their phones or computers-that’s illegal, and it should stay that way, no matter what your profession.

  30. P.M. says:

    Instead of going after actors & actresses why don’t they go after our elected politicians & the people that pay for their campaigns? I’m glad that Hugh is not going under the knife or the needle even is it means he looks a little “haggard”.

  31. flutters says:

    @P.M. And CEOs though I guess that’s covered by your people who pay for campaigns comment. Wikileaks has some possibilities in that regard.

    @mln76: I just reread your comment and realized I agreed with your main point which is that if you read around and filter out the biases then you can make decent educated guesses about gossip stories to figure out what’s planted, what’s spun, what’s exaggerated, what’s made up, and so on and so forth.

  32. Sakyiwaa says:

    “Grant: So you’re saying, if you’re Johnny Depp or me, you don’t deserve to have a private life?
    McMullan: You make so much more money…”

    Wow, ain’t this weird? just this morning, i was wondering to myself something along these very lines. i was thinking that THIS….the fact that the public thinks that you have NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY…and that having NO PRIVACY these days sells…THAT is the thing that would bother me the most if I were a celebrity…
    It makes me sad for the Grants, Kidmans, Depps, Jolie-Pitts, etc. of the world at times, cos for celebrities today, being wealthy, famous and successful is as much their PUNISHMENT as it is their PRIVILEGE.
    There’s nothing else to be said…

  33. jemshoes says:

    @ brin (comment #1) – LOL!!!

    That’s what I first thought, too: Hugh Grant as James Bond – awesome! 😀

    I watched a riveting UK docco about paparazzi last year and I remember one paparazzo making his point while staking out his target across the street. He shrugs as he shoulders his camera and says that, yes, he’s scum for doing this job, doing what he does – but then he also says he wouldn’t be doing this kind of job if nobody wanted the photos, the dirt. He says something to the effect of, “If I’m scum, you’re scum, too [“you” as in the general public]. We’re all scum.” And a part of me doesn’t disagree with his assessment / opinion.