I said I would write something about THOSE pics that appeared on TMZ. I
have only just got round to it. But there are issues here that are
worth discussing.
I think it's fair to say that, outside of
Britain, comments were mostly jokey and dismissive. There were some who
thought that the #3 to the Throne might behave better, but, frankly,
the children of the Heir to Throne (and particularly siblings out of the
real running) have traditionally behaved badly. That might partly be
because they have nothing to lose; it might partly be because they have
lots of money and lots of time; it may be because everybody wants to
party with Royalty and there is a good chance they might get to do so
with a sibling (as opposed to the better protected Heirs); or it may
just be an indolent descent into louche society, since they don't really
have a role (once they've risen through the military ranks and done a
bit of charity). That's not to excuse Harry necessarily, but it is
probably why most people here seemed merely to shrug their shoulders and
raise their eyes heavenwards. Even TMZ's capture of the photographs
had an oddly jubilent note about it and was not at all judgemental or
even salacious. I therefore thought the incident was going to die a
death.
Over here, the Palace alerted the Press Complaints
Commission to the fact that publication of the photographs here might
infringe Harry's privacy. The press were informed of this contact
through the normal procedures (not warned off, as some arch liberals
asserted) and the press as one decided to publish the story but not the
pictures. Again, it seemed as though that would be it. Nobody showed a
great deal of interest in the story. But then The Sun newspaper broke
ranks and published. They said they had done so, both in the public
interest and because, since everyone had by then seen the photographs,
there was no point anymore in holding them back. They didn't say so,
but the inference was that Harry's privacy had already been infringed
and further propagation of the pics could not constitute an infringement
by The Sun.
Although no one showed much interest in the affair
before this, there have so far been several thousand complaints to the
PCC about The Sun's actions. It seems that the British public does feel
that publication of private or intimate photographs of celebrities is
an infringement of privacy.
I say 'celebrities', even though the term is much misused these days, because the whole point about the Leveson Inquiry
is that the media overstepped the mark in trying to obtain and publish
private information about famous people with a claim to celebrity.
Sometimes such gossip is justified and of public interest, such as when
the celebrity's public stance is shown to be a fraud; sometimes it is
merely self-serving, such as photographs of celebrities deliberately
exposing themselves to gain publicity; and sometimes it is of no real
interest at all, such as 'celebrity dumps boy/girlfriend and goes to
party with someone else'. Well, I suppose someone somewhere might find
that last example really interesting, but the question is whether the
newspaper with the biggest circulation in Britain should be bothering
with such fluff. Of course it is the accumulation of such fluff that
probably sells The Sun, but that's another matter.
The point is
that the Harry story became something much more here than a tale of
naughty goings-on by a celebrity. The Sun clearly took the view that,
post-Leveson (or at least, since the Inquiry hasn't yet reached a
conclusion, post-The Sun's evidence to Leveson) the media had to
reassert its independence. Not publishing photographs that were freely
available, just because a possible infringement of privacy might occur,
was clearly a step too far for the free press. Having said that, it was
only The Sun (and one assumes the slightly bruised Rupert Murdoch) that
took that view. Now we have to see whether the PCC has any teeth
post-Leveson in the face of several thousand complaints from the
public. But, frankly, I'm not sure it matters either way. The Palace
has since not complained and said that the decision to publish is
ultimately one for the editors. Quite right. And several thousand
complaints is not actually so many from a population of many millions.
But none of those complaints has come from the Palace, Harry's legal
representatives or anyone connected with the Royals at all. So, bully
for The Sun for showing that the press in Britain is still free. But
have they really done so in fact?
Do these photographs really
shine a light on anything important? We all knew of the story. Many of
us had looked in on TMZ's website. The decision smacks rather of
Murdoch's continued power games. He more than anyone suffered from the
phone hacking and related scandals. He clearly didn't want to remain
cowed. Yet publishing something that no one involved complains about
seems to me not much of a bold disclosure nor much of a brave revelation
by an unbowed campaigner.
But was privacy really an issue here?
There are two angles to this - one, should Harry have expected anything
happening in his private suite to remain private? Well, yes, he
should. And, two, in inviting up to his room a bunch of people he had
just picked up in the bar, especially with everyone having a camera in
their pocket these days, should he have accepted that he was giving up
his right to privacy? Actually, no, I think. It is an unfortunate fact
that almost any pic of Harry that night would have fetched a fair price
from the gossip press. So, if he insists on cavorting with strangers,
he is putting his privacy on the line and must expect it to be
infringed. I think it is a sad reflection on today and I feel sorry
that he can't really guarantee privacy, but that's the way it is. What
the newspapers decide to do about it is another matter. He still has a right
to privacy when he is off duty, but it's not a right that can be easily
maintained. No other British newspaper felt the need to flex its
muscles in the way The Sun understandably did and they all presumably
took the view that not publishing showed sympathetic restraint, if not a
view that there was a lack of interest or even that publishing was a
pointless gesture, once the story was out. Personally, especially since
the photographs were such poor quality and so unrevealing, I think
they added nothing at all to the story. And since the story was such a
non-story, I think it was adequately dealt with on the first day, by
referring to TMZ. I'm not aware whether The Sun sold vastly more copies
of its newspaper that day, but I suspect not.
Now, another
question. Did Harry do anything wrong? Did that over-ride any claim to
privacy and justify publishing the photographs? OK, he's a senior
Royal and maybe could be more stayed in his behaviour. According to his
friends, when the camera appeared, he was in fact gallantly, but
probably foolishly, trying to shield the naked girl. The two quickly
left the room at that point to avoid further embarrassment. But,
whether that's true or not, he's single; he was understandably letting
off steam before returning to arduous and dangerous military duty; he
certainly wasn't doing anything illegal; I don't even think he let
anyone down really. Boris Johnson's Tweet was probably the view of most
people here - "The real scandal would be if you went all the way to
Las Vegas and you didn't misbehave in some trivial way.' So, again,
had there not been a freedom of the press issue, imagined or otherwise,
the pics were best kept private and the story hardly ought to have
deserved so many pages.
But the final point (at least it is one
made by The Sun) is whether the public interest was really served by
publishing the photographs. I think we ought to distinguish here
between 'the public interest' and 'public interest'. I think
these are different things. I don't rush out and buy The Sun when I
hear that there is a scandalous pic published in it. But if there is a
story (or maybe even a photograph) in the newspaper I buy, which refers
to something I didn't know about or which sheds light on something
currently being debated publicy, I think it's fair to say that there is
public interest in that item. And I guess I am interested in seeing
pics of famous people doing silly things, even if I don't rush out to
get hold of them (the pics, not the famous people). But the
public interest is served only when the newspaper reveals something that
has been kept from public knowledge - a revelation about secret or
illegal activity, the real reason for a Government policy, a new tax
that has an effect not publicly announced, etc. I might actually rush
out and buy a newspaper carrying that story. But I don't think a pic of
a naked Prince is in that league at all. I don't even think that
publishing the pic against requests for privacy is in the public
interest. I do think that having the courage to publishing something
that has been suppressed, in the face of some sanction or legal action,
is a noble and legitimate act. The Sun's action was about something
else.
In fact I think it's a great pity the story is still being written about and given airtime. Oh . . .
I'm not too bothered about the photos appearing in The Sun to be honest. Boys will be boys as they say and the Royal Family seem to shoot themselves in their collective foot fairly regularly.
ReplyDeleteI think the thing that is rather worrying is that it could have been a gun or a knife that was pulled rather than a camera ... but, of course, it wasn't.
I had, in fact, forgotten about the incident ... until I read your blog.
No, I wasn't too bothered either. But I do think the questions raised by The Sun about public interest and privacy are interesting. And of course there is the online media v print media debate.
ReplyDelete