Sure would you not have a small bit?


 

Opinion: A Public Interest, Or Just An Interested Public?

14
Posted September 21, 2012 by Claire Gleeson in Ramp Specials
640px-Duchess_of_Cambridge,_16_June_2012

It’s not about the boobs.

The fact that Kate Middleton – or, to be formal about it, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge – happened to be sans swimsuit when she was photographed relaxing on her recent holiday in France is really beside the point. As has been pointed out, she has what the Daily Mail would no doubt refer to as an ‘enviable bikini bod’, and there was nothing distasteful or even really salacious about the pictures. But whether the future queen had been completely nude, wearing the Crown Jewels or dressed as a French maid complete with feather duster, the real issue is that everyone, no matter how exalted their situation, is entitled to a private life. And certain media powers-that-be seem to have forgotten that.

This was a gross invasion of the privacy of two people taking time out from a life lived very much in the spotlight. And it was private, make no mistake. If you have to use a high-powered telephoto lens from half a mile away to see something, then it’s not really happening in public. Sure, Kate was ‘visible’ from the road, in the same way my house is visible from space if you’ve got the right sort of satellite; but if that’s our standard, then nothing is off limits, and the concept of a private life disappears. The fact is, the sunbathing royals were not visible to passers-by in any normal sense of the word, and they therefore had a right to expect that anything they did in those surroundings would remain unobserved and unpublished.

There seems to be little distinction in the minds of many news editors between information that is in the public interest, and that which is simply of interest to the masses.

The furore over Prince Harry’s recent naked antics was a different kettle of fish entirely. Perhaps unwisely, Harry decided to take all his clothes off in a room full of near-strangers, many of whom were armed with camera phones. While there still can’t be much of a public interest in publishing these photos, there was nothing unethical about how they were taken – it would have been completely apparent to Harry and his entourage that, on this occasion, there was a good chance of what happened in Vegas not staying in Vegas.

There seems to be little distinction in the minds of many news editors and journalists between information that is in the public interest, and that which is simply of interest to the masses. Of course people are interested in seeing Kate Middleton in the nip; hell, I had a good goo at the magazine cover that was splashed all over the Internet on Friday morning. But I had no right to see those images, or to know any of the private details of William and Kate’s day-to-day life. The general public is not being deceived, or manipulated, by the absence of nudie pictures of the royal family. It’s not information that is necessary for the public good, and any attempt to paint it as such sounds incredibly disingenuous. As was discovered by the Irish Daily Star’s Michael O’Kane, who has been suspended pending the results of an investigation into his newspaper’s decision to publish the ‘celeb pics’. Having heard him spout on on RTE’s Drivetime on Friday evening, when he tried to defend his plan to print the pictures ‘in the public interest’ because of how they pointed out serious gaps in the Royals’ security, I can honestly say it couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

The backlash has been pretty sharp, as a well-oiled royal PR machine cranks up, and there may be more than one editor who comes to regret the day they decided that ‘exposing’ topless sunbathing was the 21st century’s Watergate scandal. Spying on a naked young woman doesn’t make you Bob or Carl, fellas; just a regular old Peeping Tom.

 

Featured Image: ‘Duchess of Cambridge, 16 June 2012′ by Carfax2 used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

, , , , , , , ,

About the Author

Claire Gleeson

More articles by »

  • Sinéad

    I agree with all of this.

    You have to wonder if the media are ‘giving the people what they want’ though? I find nothing more boring nor stupefying than celeb news, but it obviously sells. Can the media really have created the hunger for it all on their own, or do people, even when they might accept that it isn’t any of their business, still want to read all about it?

    • http://www.lisamcinerney.com Lisa McInerney

      I reckon it’s plain, old fashioned one-upmanship. We like to think that we still have some sort of moral advantage over our… erm, celebrity superiors. Kate’s boobs = taking that uppity wan down a peg or two.

      Obviously that’s a simple hypothesis, but I think a huge amount of celebrity news is published squarely to make people feel better about their own fuck ups by sneering at public lives, rather than because of any communal nosiness.

      • http://twitter.com/ElleEmSee Laura

        I am a shameless follower of celebrity gossip magazines because… well… I have no excuse except ‘It’s handy for the pub quiz’.
        The idea that this was ‘in the public interest’ to me, at the end of the day just translates as ‘in the interest of our sales’. The public will, out of sheer morbid curiosity, want to see pictures like these as soon as they hear of their existence whether they think it’s right to see them or not.
        That being said, Kate has ‘had it coming’ for a while. For the best part of a year she has been portrayed as the angelic Diana replacement and every Royal article that is squeezed out of the news in these magazines always come back to Kate and what she thinks as the moral beacon she is. The ‘Pippa Middleton and the guns in Paris’ story was turned around into ‘How Pippa embarrassed Kate who to date hasn’t put a foot wrong’. The ‘Harry in Vegas story’ was ‘How Kate will help Harry cope’ story. They’ve built her up for a while so sadly it was only a matter of time before they found a reason to kick her. People were getting bored of the ‘Kate wears nude shoes again’ stories. It kind of makes you not want to live on this planet anymore.

        • http://www.lisamcinerney.com Lisa McInerney

          Seconded. Group hug?

          • http://twitter.com/ElleEmSee Laura

            Yes *cry*

  • http://twitter.com/SerialBlogamist Catherine C

    The fact that people are trying to justify the publication of the pictures is worrying. If they just came out and said, “Well people like boobs and we know everyone will want to see these pictures, thereby increasing public awareness of our magazine and increasing our sales,” you’d have some respect for them.
    But this shouldn’t even be an issue. Just because people will look at them, doesn’t mean they should be published. If a magazine published pictures of slaughtered bodies, people would probably search for them but that doesn’t make it right to do. There’s a moral line that should remain in place and shouldn’t be crossed.
    The thing is that Kate is actually quite accommodating when it comes to public access. She allows pictures to be taken of her, she turns up to numerous events, does her ‘royal duty’, etc, so you’d think there’s be some understanding between her and the paps, where she makes their jobs easier by not shielding her face and freaking out when they turn up in public and they respect her rare requests for privacy.

  • http://twitter.com/powertara Tara Power

    This is not in any way justification for the photos being published, but at the end of the day, this is the life she signed up for. Yes, her privacy was invaded and she wasn’t doing anything wrong and she has every right to WANT privacy but if you are a celebrity/royalty you’re just not going to have the private life you want (whether that’s fair or not is another discussion) and these things are bound to happen at some stage. I for one have no interest whatsoever in these so-called “scandals” and if she wants to go topless that’s her right but taking legal action is pushing it a bit. It may not be fair, or even decent, but as far as I’m aware it wasn’t illegal to print them.

    • http://twitter.com/ElleEmSee Laura

      It’s not illegal to print them in France anyway. I think in the UK it’s a different story.
      The only good thing to come out of these photographs is, given her washboard stomach, it buys her a few more months being spared of ‘Is she pregnant?’ rumours. :/

    • http://twitter.com/SerialBlogamist Catherine C

      The thing is though, there’s a huge difference between the Royal Family and celebrities. Celebrities want to be famous – they’ve actively pursued that life and they want the global recognition, so they do have to take the negatives of that life choice. The Royals on the other hand are born into that life and aren’t given a choice and in Kate’s case, she fell in love with one of them. She didn’t want to be famous (if you ignore the rumours about the whole thing being a set-up by her social-ladder-climbing parents anyway), she just wanted to marry the man she thought was The One and she did that, despite knowing it would result in her pretty much handing her life over to the public.

      • http://twitter.com/powertara Tara Power

        Exactly, she knew what she was getting into when she married him. I don’t have an opinion on whether she set out to “get” him or did genuinely fall in love with him, but either way, you accept what your life is going to be like when you marry into the royal family. She may be entitled to her own privacy, as we all are, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she’s going to get it, sadly.

        • http://www.lisamcinerney.com Lisa McInerney

          Well, I don’t know. As in, it’s a reasonable expectation that she’d be hounded by paps any time she wanted to go shopping, on holidays, for a pint (like she goes for pints!). But sunbathing in a private residence? I think that goes beyond an occupational hazard.

          You’d also think that given the way William’s mother died, the gutter press would be more sensitive. They’re basically making a habit of destroying the women this young man loves and needs the most. It’s just so sad.

          • http://twitter.com/powertara Tara Power

            That makes sense, but at the same time, William knows more than anyone how ruthless the French paps are. As far as he’s concerned, they’re the ones responsible for his mother’s death so he knows more than anyone what lengths they will go to to get a photograph. It’s all very messed up but that’s the world they live in. WE live in.

          • http://www.lisamcinerney.com Lisa McInerney

            Ain’t that the sad truth.

    • Claire Gleeson

      I actually think it’s really important they took it to the courts. The royal family already give up enough of their privacy, they should be entitled to hold on to the small amount remaining to them, and I think it sets a precedent that there is a line that can’t be crossed.
      Also, privacy laws are very strict in France, and as far as I’m aware taking/printing the pictures is an offence there – it’s just that the fines are relatively low enough that it still makes financial sense for magazines to print them.

Best of Ramp.ie