I said this on Instagram already, but it needs repeating here:
- Jorginho's story never establishes the guard was working for Chappell. He could be a hotel employee for all we know.
- The story literally describes said guard making a bad call, but somehow the headline is about Chappell Roan's character. '
- There's the possibility that CHAPPELL WASN'T EVEN AWARE OF ANY OF THIS HAPPENING.
Everyone on social media is filling in the blatant gaps this story has with their own conclusions about Chappell and it's pissing me off. WAIT FOR THE WHOLE STORY BEFORE CONVICTING SOMEONE WHO WAS JUST EATING BREAKFAST.
Recently, there has been some confusion over how celebrity photographers/paparazzi work. You can blame our good friend Kelly Piquet for that, as two new paparazzi photos of her dropped recently. For some reason, gossip blogs are insisting that Kelly didn't call the paparazzi (which we know she does) or that her victim Max Verstappen had to approve them before release.
THAT IS NOT TRUE. That's not even REMOTELY how paparazzi work. And today, I feel obligated to set the record straight with a quick, no-nonsense explainer.
I'm only going to say this once. Let's get this over with:
Let's start with the general paparazzi image pipeline. To put it simply: A photographer captures a picture of a celebrity, they upload it to an online agency (like Backgrid), outlets buy the licenses, and the picture gets distributed. The shooter/agency keeps the rights, and the outlets get a chunk of spending money from the views.
But like many things in this world, the practice is easily exploitable. This is an open secret in the celebrity and journalism worlds—one veteran paparazzo in England said as such a few years back in The Guardian, and a young influencer admitted to calling the paparazzi on herself in the same article.
As someone who regularly encounters media licensing and the strange world of celebrity in my day job, I'll be blunt. The idea of celebrities calling the paparazzi on themselves isn't even remotely false or a conspiracy theory; it's absolutely true.
Think of the celebrities that NEVER appear in paparazzi photos. Daniel Craig only comes to us through red carpet premieres or official photoshoots. Googling "Chappell Roan paparazzi" gives you the same results—save for a Just Jared article of her cycling around New York City. You rarely see "candid" paparazzi pics of them because they don't buy into the system.
But the ones you see all the time, even if you barely know who they are? They do. And here's how they feed the beast:
Tip-off the time and place. A publicist (or the celeb) gives a reliable window and exact spot, like a coffee walk or a valet, The paparazzi have plenty of time to arrive.
Run predictable beats. Same café, same route, same hour. Shooter camps once, agencies get fresh frames weekly.
Dress the frame. Pap-friendly styling (logos forward, new ring, headline tee) so the article writers have something to talk about.
Feed the agency copy. Let details "leak" ("seen leaving X after Y", for example) so captions sell the storyline for you across dozens of outlets.
Amplify without owning. Repost the set via fan pages or Stories, let blogs embed and aggregate; the media pipeline does the rest.
We've seen this time and time again with Kelly Piquet, especially since she has the yacht now at her disposal. She can give the paparazzi a time and place they can see her on the boat, and she'll be ready to perform for the camera.
And before you come at me with "But Max HAD to have approved them!!!!", no he fucking didn't. Agencies don’t send JPEGs to boyfriends for sign-off; they sell licenses to outlets. Max is notoriously private, and of the two pics that sparked this post, only one even had him in frame— and he was likely asleep.
Don't forget that a vast majority of the paparazzi pics OF Max come when he's AROUND Kelly and her associates. SHE'S the one calling the paparazzi, NOT him!
Because let's be for real here—what fucking Joe Normal gives a single shit about the women dating athletes?
TL;DR: Pap pics are a licensing business, but the pics are usually coordinated beforehand. No boyfriend approval button. No subject veto. Just shooter → agency → outlet.
On Jimmy Kimmel (and the American Television Hellscape)
Hey gang, it’s Flowergothic. Normally, I don’t talk explicitly about politics. And why should I? Most of y’all are here for my spicy Kelly Piquet takes, not a depressing view into the crumbling world of the United States.
But this week, something unprecedented in American history happened. Something that not only points to the rise of a fascist autocracy, but could have a ripple effect on several aspects of American media, including my real-life job.
So let’s talk about it.
Monday, September 15, seemed like an ordinary day. That was definitely the case for American comedian and TV host Jimmy Kimmel, who spent the afternoon taping his highly-successful ABC talk show, Jimmy Kimmel Live!
Now, one thing you need to know about Kimmel is that he’s very outspoken about his politics. He’s always been. He pleaded for healthcare reform in 2017 after his son needed lifesaving surgery. He expressed his support for gun control that same year after the Las Vegas Massacre. And he’s well-aware of how his views affect his reputation. In a 2022 interview, he mentioned how he lost half of his fanbase due to his anti-trump views, but that he didn’t regret it. In fact, he added he’d rather walk from the show than soften his stance.
Which brings us to what happened Monday. During his opening monologue, Jimmy Kimmel brought up the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He started with what happened over the weekend, specifically how republicans were trying to characterize the shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson:
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
He also joked about how president Donald Trump seemed unmoved by Kirk’s death, despite considering him a friend:
“Yes, [Trump’s] at the fourth stage of grief: construction. Demolition, construction. This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend; this is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish, OK?”
And then, he moved on. He made fun of politician and Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene. He recapped his time at the Emmy Awards the day before. It was your standard, run-of-the-mill monologue covering what happened over the weekend.
It’s even still up online if you want to take a look for yourself:
But the fallout from the monologue was… concerning, to say the least.
A quick lesson on how American “over-the-air” TV works before I continue. The “big four” networks (NBC, ABC— who carries Kimmel’s show, CBS, Fox) don’t directly own most of the TV stations that carry their programming. Instead, they’re affiliates— local stations owned by separate companies that sign affiliation contracts to carry a network’s schedule.
Why? The United States is a big country. What’s happening on the west coast might not immediately concern the east coast, and vice-versa. Networks provide national programming and advertising; affiliates provide local news, weather, sports, and local adverts. These affiliates also have the right to preempt (take over) the network’s programming to an extent. In fact, U.S. laws explicitly protect a station’s “right to reject” any network program it believes is unsuitable or contrary to the public interest—or to substitute something of greater importance (i.e. a major weather event).
That brings us back to Monday’s fallout. On Wednesday, the country’s biggest broadcasting company—Nexstar Media Group— ordered its ABC affiliates to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! from their programming indefinitely. Company leadership defended the move by claiming Kimmel’s comments weren’t in “the public interest.” Of the over 200 ABC stations in the country, Nexstar owns 32– many in rather sizable cities (Nashville, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, etc). That’s a large chunk of American viewership suddenly unable to watch Kimmel’s show.
Within hours it was a domino effect. Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr praised Nexstar for “doing the right thing”. The country's second-largest broadcast company (Sinclair, Inc) also pulled the show from its ABC stations. By that evening, ABC made it network-wide: the show would be preempted indefinitely.
This isn't the first time affiliates have preempted programming deemed controversial. Back in 2004, Sinclair pulled a report on the Iraq War from its ABC stations, stating the discussion of war casualties "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq". Later that year, Sinclair joined Scripps Howard and smaller affiliate companies in preempting an uncut ABC screening of Saving Private Ryan, claiming they feared FCC indecency penalties after that year's big Super Bowl controversy.
But, a network indefinitely suspending its own late-night flagship over affiliate and political pressure is almost unheard of. Trade and mainstream coverage framed this week as exactly that: an affiliate revolt that escalated into a national suspension, with the FCC chair cheering from the sideline. A single company's decision to deprive over 30 markets of their Jimmy Kimmel fix causing the ABC ecosystem to collapse.
I must stress, I don't like Jimmy Kimmel or his namesake show. I think his monologues are painful to sit through. I disagree with how he incorporates young children—including his own—into Jimmy Kimmel Live! I even have a design on my merch shop that encapsulates how I feel when I have to watch Kimmel—a big "Kill Me" in the show's title font.
Despite my disdain for Kimmel, I highly disagree with the decision to suspend his show. It's common knowledge (or should be common knowledge) by now that when Disney and ABC officials discussed the controversy, they found nothing wrong with the Monday night monologue. But, they bent to pressure from the Trump Administration—pressure that arrived publicly, fast, and with leverage attached.
The worst part? Kimmel's not even the first late-night television host to get into hot water this year. Just months ago, CBS announced it would end its flagship talk show, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, at the close of the 2025–26 season. Officially, it was a "financial decision". But, the announcement came just days after Colbert bashed CBS parent company Paramount for settling a lawsuit Trump filed against them. Even trade coverage flagged the optics—with some even mentioning how Paramount still needed the FCC's blessing to merge with Skydance Media. No way that could be connected to these unusual decisions!
(And before you ask: Yes, Nexstar is in a similar predicament with the FCC right now. It's currently in the process of purchasing fellow broadcasting company Tegna, which could give the former even larger markets to play with—like Washington, D.C.)
It's now been almost 24 hours since ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel's show, and I'm terrified for the future of American broadcasting. Why? Because the industry has chokepoints, and they're only getting tighter. Only a handful of companies control the industry (Nexstar alone says it reaches ~70% of U.S. TV households with 200+ full-power stations). Networks and affiliates get scared of pissing the regulators off. Producers pull guests who suddenly look “too hot” for Topeka or Nashville. Editors sand the edges that might spook the Trump Administration. A single switch can darken dozens of markets at once.
And my job is something that is affected by those chokepoints. I won't get into the specifics of who I work for or what I do, but the recent news is making me wonder what comes next. Who will get next after Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert? Other late-night hosts? The morning news anchors? Kelly Ripa and her ever-evolving door of co-hosts? Local newsrooms, even?
I guess it's hard to gauge what will come next, and I'm sorry for sounding a bit scattered as I end this diatribe. I'm not even 100% sure what my point is since a lot of my viewer base is outside the United States.
But you don’t have to live here to feel what I do. When American broadcasters learn they can flip a switch and domesticate a national conversation, that tactic can export all over the world. So if your country's late-night hosts start getting fired for "financial decisions", and your media companies turn into faceless conglomerates that bow to government pressure... you have America to blame for that. You're welcome.
Again, I won’t tell you who I work for. But, I will tell you this: morning programs can be honest, late-night shows can be brave, and local news can still have a spine. But only if we stop arguing about whether the punchline “went too far” and start asking who’s allowed to set the thermostat.
