The Late Princess Diana news thread 6: June-September 2007

[BeatrixFan]

It was a request to edit a part of a TV programme and that is censorship which no democratic society can accept.

[TheTruth]

I must say that it could be hurtful to see a photo of their dying mother but BeatrixFan has the right to say that it would be censorship if every request was respected. It wouldn't be a free country. If the Queen had asked to remove the photos maybe it would have been different ... Still I believe that it could be hard for friends and parents of hers but they were not forced to watch the program so the best is to ignore offensive things even if it's tough sometimes.

[Skydragon]

Diana film leaves viewers cold

London - A television documentary showing graphic details of the Paris car crash which killed Princess Diana nearly 10 years ago attracted an audience of 3,8 million but failed to spark the predicted outcry on Thursday.

IOL: Diana film leaves viewers cold

Only 2020 people complained, that is 100% less than normal!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Maybe it goes some way to explaining Charles's "bloody people!" outburst. I mean, I think it had already come out in previous programmes that the tabloids were salivating to use those photos, but because Diana had died and at least early on people were blaming the press, they realised there would be a disastrous backlash, so Charles must have been aware of the real motivations behind the press taking the high road over these photos.

Yes I think it helps to explain Charles' attitude towards the 'press'.

Some of the photographers were complaining that, not only did they lose their scoop and the big money they were going to make, but the public blamed them for a while. I'm torn as to whether it was necessary to show the Diana pictures. On the one hand it did show that only 2 of the photographers were there within 5 minutes of the crash (some pictures were taken by tourists), it dispelled the myth that anyone climbed on the car or impeded the emergency services. It also showed the police were in full control within 8-10 minutes. The first chap there Ramwald(?) Rat had a diploma in first aid and his first thoughts were to help, not take pictures.

I am still shocked by the editors callous attitude to 2 dead men and a fatally injured woman.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

It was a request to edit a part of a TV programme and that is censorship which no democratic society can accept.

That's right...it was a request. Not, as you originally stated, a demand to remove the entire programme from the air, but to edit a few pictures out. The Princes had the right to make the request, and the broadcasters had the option of refusing. Which they did, so censorship doesn't apply.

[BeatrixFan]

Request, demand - it's still the Royal Family trying to censor programmes and in a democratic society, that cannot be allowed to happen. If you don't like it, you don't watch it - simple.

[Vanesa]

In a democratic society, persons must be proteged by ugly images. And don't start to sing the old song: " Who are you to say what is ugly and what not?". The simplist solution "If you don't like, you don't watch" is a little candid to say the least. There is people who doesn't know what will he/she see when she/he sits in front of TV. I saw extremely disgusting shows whithot knowing they were disgusting. Sure. I turned off TV when I understood how these shows will be...But who would avoid that I keep in my mind the awful images I was not ready to see and that I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE?? And what about little children if they are alone in a house for their parents works ? They are not mature enough to see certain things they shows.

I think that in a "democratic" society, people must be respected, and not abused and treated as a bulimic consummist viewer. If Princes Harry and William would have exiged the channel not to show these pics they are in their ABOLUTE RIGHT, not as Princes, but as SONS of the deceased Lady Diana Spencer. Any childrens of a person who died in an accident whose pics as a corpse are showed have the right of avoiding a channel to show them. Human Rights are this too.

Vanesa.

[love_cc]

I have regarded the death of Diana, Princess of Wales as a hisotorical event rather than a personal thing. It takes two long-time consuming project to investigate her death and have to ask the royal family to hold a public feneral under public pressure. It is certainly a public matter and a public interest rather than a private matter and a private interest. I think everyone who are intersted in this historical event has a right to seek the whole truth in every detail with available resources. The death of Diana, princess of Wales is a public interest and we acknowlegde that. If they had a private funeral ten years ago and no official investigation about her death during these years, I shall condamne anyone for making such a documentary and film because it has been regarded as a private matter. The feneral is public and the investigation is public and I cannot see why we cannot have these information from the journalists if they felt able to release. You can always ingore.

The film will not change the affections of those love Diana during her lifetime. The film probably hurt them but it offers others to learn the truth about the event and its consequences. Of course some people have the right to ignore. Since they have the investiagations about Diana's death and they are some arugments about the role of photographers in her death and I don't see why they don't have a right to defend themselves. The documentary may backfire but they had their right to take action. It just helps the third party to find the truth and what we need is the truth of the history.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by love_cc

I have regarded the death of Diana, Princess of Wales as a hisotorical event rather than a personal thing.......
.....It just helps the third party to find the truth and what we need is the truth of the history.(shortened post, forgive me )

I think you make a lot of sense in what you say. I came away from it with a different view. The photographers acted like any pack animal and got carried away with their efforts to make a kill.

The real culprits that night, the ones who should be ashamed of their attitude, were the editors and ultimely the public who were forever clamouring for yet another picture in their magazine or paper and of course an over zealous, full of it, head of security!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

On the whole the photographers were puzzled by D & D's behavior that evening. They said that the entire holiday D&D had been happy to pose and now they were hiding. They commented on the fact that Henri Paul kept coming out of the Ritz that evening to tell them the couple would be leaving at such and such a time and then 10 minutes later coming out again - they said, for head of security, he was less than discreet.

Sounds, actually, like a good programme. I don't think they broadcast it here, but if they ever do, I'll watch it.

I wonder why they changed their behavior? Dodi's decision? Diana's?

All those witnesses prior to this who protested that Paul didn't appear to have been drinking-but now these paparazzi describe a man with a bit of a buzz on.

[Warren]

Given that it is strongly suspected information was being provided to the photogrphers from "high up" in the Ritz Hotel, maybe in the early stages the paps didn't want to get Al Fayed offside. Ten years after the event, they might feel less constrained. Whatever the case, from both the paparazzi and from Al Fayed, there are agendas in play to minimise the personal responsiblilty (and culpability) of what happened.

[Lily97]

Skydragon are you trying to say that I am partly responsible for Princess Diana's death because I purchased a People magazine with her photograph on the cover? Do you honestly think if no-one purchsed anymore magazines or materials with royals or movie stars that they would be safe? I totally agree that the price that the editors pay for some of the photographs are totally outrageous. One might say that is because it sells more magazines. Thus we have the blood on our hands? I don't agree. I can't imagine anyone wanting those packs of animals (good one by the way) taking photographs of Diana in a serious car crash. They went to far on their on behalf, not the publics.

I personally think Dodi was in touch with his father and that is why things kept changing that night. I also think at the last minute Dodi changed his mind and took a different route, what a mistake!

Lily

[BeatrixFan]

In a democratic society, persons must be proteged by ugly images.

In a democratic society, the media is free to print what it wants to. The protection you describe is better suited to communist states where the people are 'protected' from certain things. The images may have been ugly and tasteless but the media still have the right to print them under the freedom of press which surely we'd all see as a vital part of any modern society?

The simplist solution "If you don't like, you don't watch" is a little candid to say the least.

Not at all. There was enough warning before the programme was shown. For weeks before it was shown, we hard that it would contain the images it did. And then, right before the programme began, there was a warning again. People knew what the programme contained and it was then their choice to watch it or not to watch it.

[TheTruth]

I thought that the involvement of paparazzi in the crash had been reviewed in the inquest. A version of the crash was that Henri Paul was drunk and that some paparzzi were waiting outside although there were none behind the car at the moment of the accident. An eye-witness told french tv that he only saw one motocycle behind them. I still have a question : why would paparazzi follow a car to take pictures that they couldn't even sell ? Those photos wouldn't be clear and the windows of the car were tinted so it's totally worthless.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I thought that the involvement of paparazzi in the crash had been reviewed in the inquest. A version of the crash was that Henri Paul was drunk and that some paparzzi were waiting outside although there were none behind the car at the moment of the accident. An eye-witness told french tv that he only saw one motocycle behind them. I still have a question : why would paparazzi follow a car to take pictures that they couldn't even sell ? Those photos wouldn't be clear and the windows of the car were tinted so it's totally worthless.

They weren't, actually, taking pictures of the couple inside the car, once the car pulled away from the Ritz-which explains why they fell back. What they were doing, mainly, was following the car to Dodi's apartment-where they knew they could get good images of the couple emerging from the car and entering the building.

[TheTruth]

Okay, I understand now. Thanks for explaining . It was getting a little confused inside my head

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Lily97

Skydragon are you trying to say that I am partly responsible for Princess Diana's death because I purchased a People magazine with her photograph on the cover? Do you honestly think if no-one purchsed anymore magazines or materials with royals or movie stars that they would be safe? I totally agree that the price that the editors pay for some of the photographs are totally outrageous. One might say that is because it sells more magazines. Thus we have the blood on our hands? I don't agree. I can't imagine anyone wanting those packs of animals (good one by the way) taking photographs of Diana in a serious car crash. They went to far on their on behalf, not the publics.

Lily

I think Skydragon was referring more to the people with an insatiable appetite for every last detail of Diana's life, not just the ones who bought the occasional magazine with her photo on the cover. It's the people who would buy anything as long it had a photo of her on or in it, and the people demanding photos of her kissing her latest boyfriend and being caught off-guard, that I think Skydragon is referring to. If it wasn't for that large customer base, who were wanting more and more personal photos and information, the photos wouldn't command so much money and there wouldn't be such motivation on the part of the photographers.

I think that's part of the genius of the way the press managed to deflect blame from themselves to the royal family after Diana's death. As long as the press were to blame for paying the photograhers so much for photos that it was worth these insane risks, awkward questions were going to be asked about why the photos commanded this huge price, and the answer was going to point directly back to the people who would queue up to buy them. Once the press had managed to shift the blame to the royal family, people could happily blame the royals and hold themselves blameless, whereas, as long as the blame had been with the photographers and the press, the people (ie the consumers of this product) were also at least somewhat responsible.