British press rally behind Kate

0 comments

LONDON: The British press rushed to the defence of Prince William’s wife Catherine on Saturday after grainy topless pictures of her were printed in a French gossip magazine.

 

The royal couple launched legal action on Friday against French magazine  Closer — which is part of the media empire of former Italian prime minister  Silvio Berlusconi — over the paparazzi pictures of Catherine sunbathing.
 
Many of Saturday’s newspapers drew a comparison between Catherine, 30, and  William’s mother Diana — who died in a Paris car crash in 1997 after being  pursued through the streets by paparazzi.
 
“I won’t let Kate suffer like my mother,” was the Daily Mirror tabloid’s  headline.
 
Denouncing Closer as a “Peeping Tom”, it declared: “Public figures who  behave well have the right to a private life. A long lens prying on Kate  sunbathing topless on a private estate is a clear breach of this right.”
 
Like several of its competitors, it juxtaposed images of Catherine wearing  a white veil on Friday on her current trip to Malaysia, and Diana wearing a  similar veil during a trip to Cairo in 1992.
 
The Daily Mail tabloid blasted Closer’s decision to print the images with  the headline, “Grotesque!”, echoing the palace’s own words on the matter.
 
It described the publication of the photos as “an indefensible intrusion of  privacy”.
 
Several British newspapers took a wider swipe at French media ethics and  privacy laws.
 
“A French media which chose not to expose the love child of President  Mitterrand and the behaviour of Dominique Strauss-Kahn shouldn’t be hounding a  British royal,” said the Mirror.
 
The Sun added: “The final irony is that it is France — smug,  privacy-obsessed France — that has published grossly intrusive pictures that  no decent British paper would touch with a bargepole.” 
 
Like its competitors, The Sun declined to print the photos — in sharp  contrast to the storm it caused last month when it defied royal orders and  printed nude pictures of William’s brother Prince Harry during a wild night in  Las Vegas.
 
On Saturday, The Sun was at pains to argue there was a difference between  the pictures of Catherine and the camera-phone snaps of the third-in-line to  the throne, taken by fellow revellers during a game of “strip billiards”.
 
“Harry had no realistic expectation of privacy,” Britain’s top-selling  newspaper said in an editorial.
 
“He invited large numbers of strangers to his hotel suite for  alcohol-fuelled high jinks involving stripping naked without any checks on who  was present.”
 
It added: “The pictures of Kate fall into an entirely different category. She was on a private holiday in a private chateau.”
 
With the press nervously awaiting a report by the judge-led inquiry into  press ethics set up after last year’s phone-hacking scandal, several papers  also saw a chance to defend their current system of self-regulation.
 
Judge Brian Leveson is due to reveal his findings later this year, and  newspapers fear his report could include recommendations for a privacy law or  for tough regulation of the press.
 
“Lord Leveson may care to note that an officially regulated French Press is  the transgressor, while the self-regulating British papers are respecting the  Duchess’s privacy,” the Daily Mirror said.
 
Several newspapers, meanwhile, were impressed by how Catherine continued  with her engagements in Malaysia on Friday, despite the furore over the photos.
 
“She displayed magnificent dignity yesterday when she must have been  boiling with anger,” said The Sun.
 
The right-leaning Telegraph added: “A couple of grainy photos taken on a  very long lens seem like a small annoyance. But, given the way she handled  herself yesterday, they might just be the making of her.” -- AFP
Related Articles

Leave Your Comment


Leave Your Comment:

New Straits Times reserves the right not to publish offensive or abusive comments and those of hate speech, harassment, commercial promos and invasion of privacy. Your IP will be logged and may be used to prevent further submission.The views expressed here are that of the members of the public and unless specifically stated are not those of NST.