Star comment: No way for media to behave
The topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge published in a French magazine are a depressing throwback to a squalid era of intrusion and prurience from which the media seemed to have moved on.
They serve no purpose and have no justification. And nobody should need reminding that the Duke’s mother died in France while being pursued like a hunted and beautiful beast by a pack of photographers who continually harassed and hounded her.
These photographs are all about grubby commercial gain and money-making. They will however be excused on the flimsy grounds that they are somehow related to freedom of the press, are in the public interest or, that dishonest nuance, that the fact that people buy the magazine proves it is in the public interest.
There is another gambit too that is increasingly being played in this global internet age. It is that if something is already widely available on the internet – and what is not? – then it is somehow fair game for mainstream publications, on the grounds that everybody has seen it on the internet anyway.
If the law and morality is to be equal for everybody, one way of assessing the rights and wrongs of these matters is to imagine them with ordinary members of the public involved.
Do that, and you see this incident for what it is. If an ordinary member of the public equipped themselves with a long lens camera and then stalked in the bushes to take photographs of a young woman neighbour sunbathing in her back garden, the person with the camera would be liable for arrest for voyeurism and stalking. The young woman would feel invaded and unnerved.
Diana had to go through all this. Some made their money out of her. For her, it led to nothing but misery and tragedy.
The Duchess of Cambridge should be spared.
Comments for: "Star comment: No way for media to behave"
Colin Dodd.
I really can't see what all the fuss is about. She chose to marry into the royal family, knowing full well the media attention she was going to attract, both official, and unofficial.
Surely being aware of this, and also no doubt knowing about long lens cameras, she should have shown a little more common sense before stepping onto a balcony with no shirt on.
Too late now, but it's not the end of the world, we've all seen such things before, and I can't see anything special about hers, so perhaps put it down to experience and move on, there are far more important things going on.
Helen
Anyone thinking that the issue here is the Duchess of Cambridge is missing the point. This is about expectations and motives, and it is on these that new laws governing the press, should be applied.
When the duchess took off her top, she was committing no crime or immorality and equally, she was not expecting to be observed. If either was not the case, then the motive for taking the photos could be justified.
The fact that the photos were taken and published shows no other motive than financial gain, and I am unsure at what point we as a global community began to find it accpetable to make money by invading the privacy of another person because they are well known. The Duchess of Cambridge is still a person - if all those justifying this behaviour by the media suddenly had the same happening to their sister, girlfriend, wife, daughter - would they still be so dismissive?
I am squarely with 'Star Comment' on this one. Poor Catherine.
Mike
Personally I think the security people would be grateful that the person looking down the lens was just a photographer!
James
On this occasion, I think the editorial is right, and I think you can make a reasonable distinction between these pictures and the Harry ones. The Harry ones showed him indulging in stag-weekendish behaviour and in rather dodgy company. They conflicted with the picture of Harry the palace would like to create - of a wholesome military hero and a young man who spends all his time engaging in healthy pursuits like racing Usain Bolt, or in cuddling deprived children.
In other words, pictures which reveal a side of a person at odds with the image he (or the institution he represents) is attempting to trade off are 'in the public interest'. In the same way, for example, a politician who publicly espouses 'family values' or 'back to basics' is fair game if he then has an affair or visits a strip joint.
There is no such argument about the Kate pics - she was doing nothing wrong, but was spied on, pure and simple. Seems the French believe their privacy laws have been broken anyway, so hopefully there'll be a prosecution.
Another thing (because I can never 100% agree with a Star editorial) - wouldn't less coverage of William and Kate of any kind be a good thing? There's nothing very interesting about them after all, and I'm sure they would appreciate a bit less sycophancy and adulation, as well as less intrusion.
Colin Dodd.
So, now "they" are going to take legal action against the magazine involved. Which, roughly translated means, the UK taxpayer is going to line the pockets of some highly expensive lawyers.
That's OK then, as long as Willy and Mrs. Willy don't have to fork out.
Kat de Gama
Kate chose to become a celebrity with all that entails. I assume she has been briefed in appropriate behaviour. Fair game.
James
Colin, Kat,
You don't see a difference between this and Harry then? I'd like to see the monarchy sacked as much as I suspect you do, but I think you're letting anti-royalist sentiment get in the way of the rights and wrongs of this issue.
As Helen says, it doesn't matter if she's a duchess, actress or one of our sisters, she was in a situation where she had a right to privacy, and that privacy was intruded upon. Now yes, perhaps the palace ought to advise the young royals about when their clothes can and can't safely be removed, but really that's beside the point as well. If the press behaved with the remotest sense of propriety, it wouldn't be necessary.
If a criminal prosecution isn't possible, I'd be happy to see them sue, to set a precedent and hopefully (please) put an end to this sort of sort of thing.
Meanwhile, the worst thing about it is that it's given Desmond the porn-peddlar the chance to take the moral high ground....
Colin Dodd.
I can't see much difference at all James. Harry was in the "privacy" of his hotel room, and Kate was in the "privacy" of a balcony, allegedly overlooking a main road. Both acted stupidly, both got caught out.
As future queen, she really should, if she takes the job seriously, have learned how the press operate in their quest for exclusive, and controversial news items. William should know a bit about this after what happened to his mother, so maybe he should have pointed her in the right direction.
Harry is a different matter. He is very much a non event, best ignored.
I think they would have elicited more support and respect, if the had just shrugged it off as "one of those things", but taken it as a lesson learned for the future.
Kat
@James. I do see a difference between Harry's exploits and Kate's. His were squalid and hers were not. She, as a celebrity, was just unwise. Sadly, going to law only makes things worse. It merely draws attention to something which otherwise would dispappear from the public gaze very quickly.
James
That's one reasonable argument. Another would be that not going to law would effectively mean 'carte blanche' for the press again.
Stu
I am surprised that anyone should still be shocked at the antics of the gutter press. Papparazzi photos, phone tapping scandals..... they will never change their ways as long as the public continues to buy their shoddy publications.