Friday, 24 August 2012

Publishing the Pictures: in the public interest

The Sun (a newspaper I do not read) has done it: Prince Harry naked Vegas photos published by Sun. I must admit that arguing that the publication of the photographs represents a key issue in terms of the freedom of the press seems to me somewhat thin.

I do think there is a public interest in the publication of the photographs, though.

And it lies in the question that, to a large extent, is remaining unasked or being suppressed by the media.

According to the BBC report:
The Sun said in a statement that in publishing the photos it was not making any moral judgement about the prince's activities.

It said: "He often sails close to the wind for a royal - but he's 27, single and a soldier.
The unasked question is of course precisely the moral question that the Sun is disregarding.

Is it morally right for anyone - be they third in line to the throne, be they 27 years old, be they single or be they a soldier, or just any one of these - to be cavorting naked with others in their hotel room?

And it is interesting that, in so far as the BBC reporting does cover this aspect, the question being asked is not one about whether or not the behaviour is moral, but whether or not it is normal: Harry photos: Is it normal to drink and end up naked?

1 comment:

marion Banks-Wilkinson said...

Exactly..its an an awkward question that was discussed on Radio 4 were they looked at Vegas and its history. They skirted around it but it boiled down to Vegas will make money from whatever it can, a few years ago it was families with themed hotels now its the Party scene which means hedonistic and drunken. Binge drinking antics are seen as a legitimate way to let off steam and with every person having a phone camera there is no such thing as privacy. I wouldnt touch the Sun let alone read it.