by Brian Cathcart
‘Oh my God!’ yelps the French magazine Closer, announcing its topless duchess scoop with the warning: ‘The photos which will go around the world’.
What can they make of this at the Sun? It’s just weeks since Rupert Murdoch’s daily published pictures of Prince Harry with his clothes off, telling us that in doing so it was performing a ‘vital’ public service.
It was vital, the paper said, on three grounds:
- to enable the millions without internet access to see what the rest of us could see online;
- to fully inform the ‘legitimate public debate‘ about Harry’s conduct;
- because failing to publish under pressure from Buckingham Palace would be a betrayal of the free press.
So far, the Closer pictures have not, to my knowledge, reached the internet except in a scanned and blurry form, but if the magazine’s threat is carried out and they ‘go around the world’, surely the Sun will have no choice but to perform its ‘vital’ public service again.
After all, if the pictures of the duchess were available on the internet, non-net households would again be denied the essential knowledge of what her breasts actually look like. And seeing her breasts would again be essential to inform the legitimate public debate about the circumstances in which the pictures were taken. And the freedom of the press would be no less at stake than it was in the Harry case.
The Sun probably won’t publish, and its predicament exposes something simple: the arguments it uses to justify its actions are mere conveniences. The paper does what it wants and throws in justifications without sincerity and without thinking about them.
It is obvious, in other words, that when the Sun made its case for the Harry pictures it didn’t consider those arguments as general ones, merely as smokescreens that were useful on the day.
Nor, predictably, does the Press Complaints Commission help or oblige the paper to take its ethics seriously. As things stand, the editor of the Sun does what he likes – including clearly breaching the PCC Code – and is accountable to no one.
The conclusion is clear: we need a credible, genuinely effective press regulator that is independent of government and industry alike.
Brian Cathcart is director of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
Photo from Tom Soper Photography
Ah but what about the chilling effect of Leveson? The one that stopped all proper investigation of Hillsborough and other police indiscretions over the years. Perhaps they weren’t in the public interest? Or the public interest as determined by the tabloids’ editors?
Now is a good time to discuss what is in the public interest and should be published and anything the public might perchance be interested in (basically anything to do with sport and/or sex).
Do the editors think anyone has a right to privacy away from the intrusion of a long lensed camera? Next on their shopping list – camera carrying drone model aircraft?
There is no point, Rob, in confusing issues. Hillsborough is a different set of events to this set of photos – published so far by a French magazine/and its website. Leveson did not have a chilling effect on proper investigation of Hillsborough etc (even if you are attempting to be sarcastic) – because by the time he took on his brief the new panel were well underway in their work. And they did an exceptional job. Leveson should take note.
The Kate photos are a gross invasion of privacy. But I disagree with Prof Cathcart. Harry showed a lack of judgment in putting himself in a position where compromising photos could be taken – and frankly if you are born into a position of enormous privilege; know what the deal is from day one; have a PR team and taxpayer funding and still can’t be bothered to be slightly smart – well tough. Any other guy of his age who behaved the same way would find pictures on Facebook. Harry, because of who he is (and I can’t believe no-one’s told him he’s a prince) should be more discreet. That would actually show respect for the taxpayer funding of his bodyguards, for a start.
The Kate pictures are different. She showed none of Harry’s misjudgment; was at a private villa, a long way from any public road, and should have been left alone.
I suspect the British press will make that distinction in this instance. Regardless, the problem this site and Prof Cathcart have (and Leveson) is what to do when the culprit isn’t the British press. We all know about these photos yet no British outlet is responsible for taking them or publishing them. And may not do so in this instance. What then?
@ backintheday
Yes I was being sarcastic – Leveson wasn’t around at the time of Hillsborough but the tabloid Press were. They are now complaining about the chilling effect but their “investigative” reporters were not able (willing) to uncover the chilling effects the cosiness of the police, media and politicians have had on our justice system pre Leveson.
I agree with you that the Harry and Kate situation are different, but as discussed during Leveson, each case regarding privacy needs to be looked at and assessed individually. I am not convinced that either of the mentioned cases deserved publication of the photos (as has been mentioned they are only interesting from the nudity angle) but I believe public opinion is divided hence the need for the debate, as to where “public interest” and what the “public are interest in”, is required.
Of course the internet is the elephant in the room, as Max Mosely found, but do you really want to go down the road of the lowest common denominator in the global market? Anything goes here because “the other lot do it and we are missing out on market share syndrome”?
@Rob
I think this is just the kind of event those most hostile to Leveson have been waiting for: a heaven sent opportunity to show restraint; and what better chance to demonstrate the future respect that they would show to us all than by taking the moral high ground with those nasty foreigners who would intrude on the privacy of “our” royal family.
Re. Hillsborough, there is some irony that it was football and The Sun that saved Murdoch’s empire when BSkyB was on its knees a couple of years later. Throwing shed loads of cash, borrowed on the back of that paper’s profits, for the rights to broadcast matches quickly enriched the newly formed Premier League and ultimately paid handsome dividends through hefty TV subscriptions to Sky Sports.
Now Sun readers and Sky viewers know what they can do if they want to say goodbye to the whole clan…..but, of course, they won’t.
@ Referee
It will probably prove ironic that the “restraint” the tabloids are showing now will equate in some similar way to the restraint they showed to members of our elite establishment and thereby gaining power over them by not publishing their indiscretions. There appears to be revelations on the way regarding some of these (see The Independent today) – it is not going to be very pretty and nude Royals could be the least of worries for our democracy.
I agree with your points about Murdoch buiding his empire on football (and films) , the new opiates of the masses, and he or his shareholders probably won’t miss the demise of his newspaper empire in the new internet age.
I wonder how Kelvin MacKenzie feels this morning being “doorstepped” by Channel 4 News.
“alex thomson @alextomo
#c4news I am doorstepping former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie over his #Hillsborough lies..”
His reaction?
alex thomson @alextomo
#c4news K Mackenzie told #c4news to “f**k off”
Puts into perspective all that talk about being on a public road and your fair game doesn’t it? At least it might bring journalists to debate the rules of privacy more honestly if they thought that it could happen to them too?