Diana, Princess of Wales, and the press:

should there be restrictions placed on the media's coverage of the private lives of public figures?


Echo Issue Outline 1997 / 33: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`Anyone with a shred of human decency would understand there are times in your life when you want your privacy respected, whether you are a public figure or not.'
Alec Baldwin, actor
`I don't see why people (in the public eye) try to run away from paparazzi. At a certain point they should just let themselves be photographed and move on.'
Mr Tazio Secchiaroli, a famous Italian photographer, now 72

Diana, Princess of Wales, died on August 31, 1997, as the result of injuries received in a car crash in Paris.
It appears that one factor contributing to the accident may have been that the car in which the Princess of Wales was travelling was being pursued by a number of photographers on motor bikes.
One of the immediate consequences of the death of the Princess of Wales has been calls from many quarters for legal restrictions on the extent to which the media, especially freelance photographers (commonly referred to as paparazzi), attempt to gain information about the private lives of public figures.
Background
Diana, Princess of Wales, was generally regarded as the most photographed woman in the world. On a number of occasions since her marriage to the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, in 1981, Diana had complained of the pressure placed on all aspects of her life by unremitting media attention.
Some commentators have suggested that the extent and nature of that attention altered after Diana separated from and then was divorced from the Prince of Wales.
Recent media attention has focused on Diana because it was claimed she had begun her first serious romantic involvement since she and Prince Charles divorced in August, 1996. It has been claimed that the first photograph of Diana kissing millionaire Dodi al-Fayed may have gained its photographer collective fees of up to $1 million.
The car in which Diana was fatally injured also carried Dodi al-Fayed, his bodyguard and driver. Both the driver and Mr Fayed were killed on impact. Princess Diana died of cardiac failure after having undergone emergency surgery at a Paris hospital. The bodyguard remains in a serious condition.
It has been claimed that the car carrying the Princess of Wales was pursued by more than seven paparazzi, some of whom left the accident scene before the arrival of the police. (Three photographers have since come forward admitting to having left the scene and will now have to answer charges with the seven who were taken into custody at the time.)
The term paparazzi means pest or annoying insect. Mr Paparazzo was the name given to an Italian photographer who pursued the rich and famous in Fellini's film, La Dolce Vita. The film was released in 1960. The inspiration for this character is said to have come from a Mr Secchiaroli, an Italian photographer now aged 72.
Since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, there has been a staggering growth in the already large number of Internet sites treating the princess. Most are simply memorials; some are news sites; particularly interesting, in relation to the question of what limits should be placed on freedom of the press, are four sites which have been set up with a view to boycotting tabloids and having laws introduced across the world to restrict the actions of the paparazzi.
These sites are Arguments in favour of placing restrictions on the media's coverage of the private lives of public figures
Those who object to the manner in which the media deals with the private lives of public figures usually do so for two reasons.
Firstly they maintain that public figures are of legitimate interest only when they are performing in a public or official capacity. According to this line of argument the private lives of prominent people are of no legitimate interest and so should not attract the attention of the media.
This argument centres around what is sometimes referred to as the public interest.
According to this line of argument, the public has a right to know about prominent figures to the extent that the information is relevant to the general public, for example, where the information reflects on the prominent person's capacity to perform his or her public function.
It has been claimed that any activity of a purely personal nature is unlikely to be something about which the public has a right to know. The publication of details of the private lives of prominent people is held by many to be not in the public interest.
For example, there was wide-spread criticism of secret photographs taken of Diana in 1993, while she was working out at a private gym. Such photographs were seen by many as an unjustified intrusion, offering nothing that was genuinely in the public interest.
American actor, Alec Baldwin, was recently acquitted of battery charges after he forcibly prevented photographs being taken of his actress wife, Kim Basinger, returning home from hospital with their newborn baby.
Mr Baldwin argued, `Anyone with a shred of human decency would understand there are times in your life when you want your privacy respected, whether you are a public figure or not.'
It has also been claimed that the families of prominent people should not have to endure the attention of photographers and other media representatives.
It has been noted, for example, that the Princess of Wales was particularly critical of the media when their interest interfered with the leisure activities or the school activities of her children, Princes William and Harry. Since her death, a number of commentators have been concerned that the two boys be given an opportunity to grow up away from strong media attention.
The second major objection raised relates to the manner in which some members of the media disturb the privacy of public figures.
According to this line of argument some forms of media surveillance become so constant and so intrusive that they interfere with the manner in which the person under surveillance can live their life.
This comment was made by the Princess of Wales in 1993 just prior to announcing that she would scale back her public duties. Referring to media attention, the Princess claimed, `I was not aware of how overwhelming that attention would become; nor of the extent to which it would affect both my public duties and personal life, in a manner which has been hard to bear.'
Critics of this form of media surveillance claim that it violates good taste and becomes a form of persecution which should be made illegal. The Princess of Wales actually attempted to have one photographer charged with stalking.
One Hollywood celebrity was reported as claiming that the behaviour of the media in such circumstances ranged `from the obnoxious to the criminal'.
Particularly since the death of the Princess of Wales, it has been claimed that journalists and photographers pursuing prominent people in cars or on motor bikes are placing the lives of all involved at risk and that such behaviour should be an offence.
Finally it has been claimed that legal restrictions should be placed not merely on photographers or journalists but on the editors who accept their work.
According to this line of argument, editors supply the market for intrusive photographs which are likely to have been gained in an offensive or dangerous manner. It is also claimed that they encourage this kind of journalism by paying very high prices for such material.
It has therefore been suggested that if this type of media attention is to stop editors must be prevented from encouraging it.
With regard to the claim that editors are merely supplying the public with what it wants there are those who argue that this claim does not mean that the public should always be able to have what it desires. It has also been suggested that the media actually goes a long way toward shaping what the public wants to see and know about.

Arguments against placing restrictions on the media's coverage of the private lives of public figures
One of the main arguments offered against any attempt to legislate to impose restrictions on the media's coverage of the private lives of public figures is that such laws would reduce the ability of the media to conduct investigative journalism in a wide range of situations.
According to this line of argument, passing laws which would further protect individual privacy might, for example, make it impossible for the media to investigate the conduct of politicians or to investigate the possibly criminal activities of some prominent people.
The British Home Office Minister, Mr Alun Thomas has suggested that it would be difficult to frame laws that did not limit investigative journalism.
It has also been argued that rather than use legislation to attempt to guard the privacy of public figures, the matter should be a judgement call for the editors of particular papers. It has been claimed that if the media self-regulates, the legitimate function of the press - to draw attention to matters of public interest - would not be undermined.
It has also been claimed that legislation seeking to safeguard the privacy of public figures would be likely to be ineffective.
Those who make this claim point out that France has among the strictest laws in Europe to safeguard individual privacy and yet paparazzi were operating there and their pursuit of the car in which Diana was travelling may have contributed to her death.
This point has been made by a number of journalists and commentators, including European correspondent, Louise Robson, whose report was published in The Age on September 1, 1997.
Ms Robson stated, `France has strong laws governing interference in a person's private life, but they did not stop the high-speed chase that left the Princess and her recent companion, Dodi al-Fayed, dead.'
Relatedly, it has been claimed that the most offensive and intrusive journalism is not produced by photographers or reporters employed by major papers. Rather, it is claimed, offensive and intrusive photographs generally come from freelance photographers, otherwise known as paparazzi, who sell their photographs to the highest bidders all over the world.
It has been suggested that these freelance operators work outside the editorial, ethical and other constraints that apply to most journalists and so would be difficult to control via legislation.
It has further been suggested that it would be difficult to restrain the operations of paparazzi as they sell to a world market and so can sell their photographs in countries that do not have rigorous privacy legislation.
In addition it has been suggested that many public figures actually invite media attention when it suits their purposes and then object to it on occasions when they have not sought this attention.
It has been suggested of Diana, for example, that she used the media and her high media profile to further a range of humanitarian causes for which she worked and also that she used the media to strengthen her position in relation to Prince Charles in the disputes surrounding their separation and divorce.
Columnist for The Australian, Mr D. D. McNicoll, has stated in relation to the Princess of Wales, `It was only when a photographer overstepped what she saw as her rules ... that Diana really objected to their presence.'
The claim has been made that once media attention has been invited it is not reasonable to expect simply to be able to turn it off.
It has also been claimed that if some celebrities did not make it so difficult to obtain pictures of them then photographers and others would not have to go to extreme lengths in order to gain the photograph or the information they want.
Mr Tazio Secchiaroli, a famous Italian photographer, now 72, who at one time used to pursue the rich and famous, has stated, `I don't see why people (in the public eye) try to run away from paparazzi. At a certain point they should just let themselves be photographed and move on.'
According to this line of argument, if the activities of reporters and photographers become dangerous some of the responsibility lies with the prominent person who attempts to avoid them.
Finally it has been claimed there are better ways to restrict the operation of photographers and reporters than through legislation or self-regulation.
According to this line of argument, paparazzi and others only take photographs because editors will pay high prices for them and editors only pay these prices because of the public's desire to learn all they can about certain prominent figures.
It is claimed that if people were not so curious about the private lives of public figures there would be no market for intrusive reports or photographs and so they would cease to be produced.
The conclusion drawn from this is that if privacy protection is generally desired, this will occur via a change in public taste and behaviour rather than through either legislative restrictions or codes of practice and self-regulation.

Further implications
This issue is certain to remain before the public eye. It has been judged that the seven photographers taken into custody in France after the car crash that killed Diana may have a case to answer both for involvement in causing the accident and then not rendering assistance at the scene of the accident.
The photographers are going to defend their position arguing variously that they did not cause the accident and/or did render such assistance as they could after the accident. The case is expected to take some time to resolve and will certainly attract world-wide media attention.
Given that France already has rigorous laws protecting individual privacy it seems likely that this event will not see these laws altered so much as compliance with them improved. It is possible that the penalties for breaching French privacy laws may be increased.
It seems unlikely that federal laws will be passed in Australia attempting to protect the privacy of public figures. On September 7, 1997, Senator Robert Hill, declared that except for `one or two instances in recent times' the Australian media recognised the distinction between the private and public lives of prominent people.
`I think the Australian media is reasonably fair,' Senator Hill has said. `I don't see a need for stronger rules in Australia in this regard.'
It seems more likely that some greater legal protection may be given to the privacy of public figures in Britain.
Any legislative change in Britain is unlikely to happen immediately as the new Labor government has already indicated that it considers this a matter should be treated carefully so as not to restrict press freedoms unnecessarily. However, the strength of public feeling following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the concern and anger among British citizens over the media's treatment of the Princess is very likely to bring about some changes. There is also a very strong feeling within Britain that the two princes should not be subjected to the same sort of media scrutiny their mother was.
In America, the freedom of the press is guaranteed via an amendment to that country's constitution. However, in recent years there has been growing criticism from actors, in particular, that the invasion of their privacy is becoming more and more aggressive.
There are a number of American Internet sites which are encouraging people to boycott all media outlets which use paparazzi material and are also encouraging people to contact their political representatives.
The aim of these sites is to have it made illegal
It seems unlikely that all of the above will be achieved, however, given that stalking is already a crime in a number of jurisdictions, laws against this action may be more regularly used to protect the privacy of individuals.
What does seem very likely is that many publications and their editors will themselves begin to impose restrictions on the type of material they use.
The editor of the New Enquirer, an American publication often referred to as a scandal-sheet, announced immediately after Diana's death that his publication would not accept photographs taken by paparazzi at the scene of the car crash.
A number of British papers have also stated that they will not publish photographs of either of the two young princes going about his private life.
In Australia, the women's magazine, Woman's Day, recalled and pulped the edition scheduled to have come out the week of Diana's death because it contained material on Diana and her boyfriend Dodi al-Fayed, and may have included paparazzi-produced photographs. The Woman's Day then distributed a free 24-page tribute to the princess. The following edition of the magazine reprinted the tribute in response to reader requests and also acknowledged reader anger `about the paparazzi and the media's role in publishing their photographs.'
It would seem that at least in the short term a number of publications are prepared to impose a form of self-censorship which may have the effect of protecting the private lives of some public figures.

Sources
The Age
1/9/97 page 13 comment by Pamela Bone, `Tragic pursuit of a troubled young woman'
1/9/97 page 2 (special supplement, Death of a Princess) news item by Alan Attwood, `Paparazzi verdict: "From the obnoxious to the criminal"'
1/9/97 page 2 (special supplement, Death of a Princess) news item by Christopher Henning, `Love-hate deal with no love'
1/9/97 page 2 (special supplement, Death of a Princess) news item by Louise Robson, `Watchers may now become the target of legislation'
1/9/97 page 2 (special supplement, Death of a Princess) news item, `Fleeing is wrong, says Italian king of snappers'
3/9/97 page 2 news item, `Photographers complain of hypocrisy in public's criticism'
3/9/97 page 14 letter from Ruth King, `The price of our appetites'
4/9/97 page 11 news item, `Celebrities blame greedy media culture'
5/9/97 page 11 news item by Tom Henegham, `Long court battle looms over car chase'
9/9/97 page 1 news item by Christopher Henning, `Prince vows to protect his children'
9/9/97 page 11 comment by Kerri Elgar, `Pictures that push back the limits of decency'
9/9/97 page 11 comment by Peter Bartlett, `Why we do not need a privacy law'

The Australian
1/9/97 page 2 analysis by D.D. McNicoll, `The pitfalls and pedestals of publicity'
1/9/97 page 2 news item by Robert Lusetich, `Celebrity chases a game: paparazzi'
1/9/97 page 3 news item, `Deaths an end to the limits of good taste, says Mr Paparazzo'
3/9/97 page 5 news item by Stephen Farrell, `Paparazzi's lawyers go on offensive'
4/9/97 page 7 news item by Carol Midgley, `Royal rat pack out of favour and at a loss for a quarry'
5/9/97 page 6 news item by Janet Fife-Yeomans, `Reformers zoom in on photo rules'
5/9/97 page 6 news item by Charles Bremner and Stephen Farrell, `Judge orders round-up of paparazzi who fled scene'

The Bulletin
9/9/97 page 18 analysis by Gerald Stone, `Private invasion v public obsession'

The Herald Sun
1/9/97 page 10 news item by Michelle Coffey, `The paparazzi pursuit'
1/9/97 page 10 news item by Juliette Jameson, `Hounded stars hit back'
2/9/97 page 8 news item by Damon Johnston, `Paparazzi face a worldwide backlash'
2/9/97 page 18 editorial,`The legacy Diana left'
2/9/97 page 20 letters and 50/50 comments.
4/9/97 page 9 news item by Tom Salom, `Photos put before aid'
4/9 /97 page 18 editorial, `Diana and the paparazzi'
5/9/97 page 11 news item, `Paparazzi help claim'
8/9/97 page 15 news item, `MP says our media respects privacy'

Time
8/9/97 page 32 analysis by Margaret Carlson, `Blood on their hands?'

Woman's Day
15/9/97 page 6 editorial, `Editor's Extra' (NOTE: we are aware that most schools do not keep Woman's Day for reference purposes. This editorial has been included for its relevance and interest, however, it is not vital to a consideration of the issue.)

Internet
Please note, it is allowable to use an Internet text as one of your media texts for Part I of English CAT I. It is also allowable to use Internet sources as reference material for Part II.
Caution: the same time restrictions apply for Internet texts as apply for any text used in Part I. Such texts must have been produced on or after September 1, 1997. The four sites listed below meet this requirement.
You will need to make a print copy of any Internet text you use for Part I and it is highly advisable to do the same for any Internet source you use for Part II.
Please see your English teacher for advice on how Internet materials should be referenced and analysed.
The following four sites have been set up with a view to boycotting tabloids and having laws introduced across the world to restrict the actions of the paparazzi.
These sites are
Princess Diana's Death - The Tragedy That Didn't Have to Happen at http://home.interpath.net/dbailey/diana/ ;
STOP THE PAPARAZZI at http://www.meer.net/~walterh/privacy.html ; Remember Diana, Princess of Wales at http://www.gargaro.com/diana.html and Princess Diana Memorial at http://www.xcentrix.com/diana.htm .