Final photo of the late Princess Diana published

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by tommer

i can't even remember the first time i saw this pic, it's been circulating all over the net since forever.
it's so 1995 that only once it's printed, it becomes an issue all of a sudden.

The issue is that there was an agreement not to print it. If it's on the net you have to go and look for it. If it's on the front page of your newspaper it's in your face - the vast majority of people don't want to see it, and it's in really bad taste. That's the issue. I for one have never seen it.

[catinthedark]

Originally Posted by David

Not any more. Last night on TV, during the DINNER HOUR, the news was broadcasting graphic video of bodies of homeless under a bridge. The explanation is that this is "news" & that the "public has a right to know."

At the dinner hour, it isn't my rights I'm concerned about. It's my stomach!

Broadcast news continually tests my gag reflex to the very limits of my endurance. I wish they'd knock it off.

i work for a national tv newscast. and you raise an interesting point of discussion. you have no idea how much debate and consideration we go through everytime we are faced with pictures that some might find disturbing. when we do air footage of, say, bodies of civilians killed in iraq, or gaza, or lebanon, or israel, the usual reason we have decided to do so is because as a news organization, it is our job to report the news and reflect reality. it is not our job to whitewash, and help people deny to themselves that there are atrocities happening around the world. if one chooses to watch news, one has made a choice (i believe) to see the world as it is.

a few weeks ago, however, one of our producers cut a story that was talking about a bombing in iraq. several young children and babies were killed, along with adults. the producer included footage of the dead children laid out. our senior producer freaked out - and made her take them out. so, dead adults were okay to show. dead children were not. it sparked great debate at our desk. and it is a continuing debate that we will continue to have. each incident is decided on an individual basis.

another incident we faced: last year, someone with a gun took a woman hostage in the middle of morning rush hour in downtown toronto. all the networks were live on the shot of the man holding her, and the police all around... when one of the cops got a clear shot - and killed the man. on live tv, in front of hundreds of people on the street.

did we run the footage of the man being shot later that night? no.

just thought i'd let you know that, at least where i work, showing pictures that may disturb is not a decision that is made lightly and without thought and consideration.

i actually find it more disturbing and heartwrenching to see pictures of families wailing and agonizing over the loss of a child (or the loss of any loved one). but we never hesitate to run those pictures. i wonder why that is. the suffering is just as brutal.

btw, our air times are 9pm and 10pm, but in parts of the country, because of time zones, we are on at 6pm. and we did not, and will not, show the photo of diana dying.

[David]

Originally Posted by catinthedark

just thought i'd let you know that, at least where i work, showing pictures that may disturb is not a decision that is made lightly and without thought and consideration.

I worked in the newspaper biz for ten years in California & I participated in many a budget meeting at 4 in the afternoon over whether to run gruesome photos because they were "news." I'm not sympathetic to the Romper Room views of the whitewashers--I don't believe some adults should be deciding for other adults what to see or hear. But the media simplify the stance, reducing it to "reporting the news & reflecting reality." Here's my view: The media don't "report the news." They report life (& death). What they report becomes the news--they package it & sell it. When questioned as to why the newscasts are filled with almost nothing but violence, the media even admit that "pictures of kids with bunnies ain't news." In other words, the understanding--the definition--of news is that it is the violent stuff, the death & the crime. And it is packaged & sold, although I don't mean to imply that we all consume it in a state of titillated bliss. As I said, in my case, the "news" continually tests my gag reflex.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

It was a shame that the marriage didn't work out, but let's not pretend that there wasn't fault with both sides, and Diana admitted to affairs as well. There is plenty of speculation about the father of Prince Harry, and without wishing to sound crude, he looks nothing like Charles and a lot like James Hewitt. According to Diana, the affair between herself and Hewitt began in 1987, but Hewitt reckons it was '81 or '82. It all depends who you choose to believe!

I disagree that she got treated badly from the start - there's no evidence for that as far as I can see, and it's not a commonly held view here. And she was never going to be the Queen - just the King's wife - not the same thing!

Also kids aren't dumb, for sure, but I'm also sure that they didn't really want their parents' private lives exposed on the TV for the world's attention. They are also extremely attached to their father.

Diana's affairs were only after Charles began seeing Camilla again. Harry does resemble Hewitt, which is unfortunate...I only hope he isnt having issues about his parentage..

I misspoke about Diana being Queen, my mistake. But she still didnt merit being treated that way and from everything Ive read, Diana believed she was only tolerated by Elizabeth and Phillip. Not a happy circumstance Im sure.

As for the children not wanting their parent's private lives exposed on TV, from what I've seen, Diana was very sensitive to her children's feelings and I highly doubt she'd take such a public step without first discussing it with them

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

So many people always do - I have it personally ingrained to defend the man in such cases

Jason missed the point, as he usually does. I wasnt blaming the man, I was defending Diana.

[catinthedark]

Originally Posted by David

I worked in the newspaper biz for ten years in California & I participated in many a budget meeting at 4 in the afternoon over whether to run gruesome photos because they were "news." I'm not sympathetic to the Romper Room views of the whitewashers--I don't believe some adults should be deciding for other adults what to see or hear. But the media simplify the stance, reducing it to "reporting the news & reflecting reality." Here's my view: The media don't "report the news." They report life (& death). What they report becomes the news--they package it & sell it. When questioned as to why the newscasts are filled with almost nothing but violence, the media even admit that "pictures of kids with bunnies ain't news." In other words, the understanding--the definition--of news is that it is the violent stuff, the death & the crime. And it is packaged & sold, although I don't mean to imply that we all consume it in a state of titillated bliss. As I said, in my case, the "news" continually tests my gag reflex.

i would argue that "kids with bunnies ain't news" because there is nothing new or noteworthy about them, and nor do they have an effect on the world at large. news, by definition, is new information of any kind, or information about recent events or happenings. and yes, it IS my job as a news producer to tell the viewers of my newscast about that information or event. i do wonder if i see news differently from you because i am producing news in canada and you were producing it in the states, and if there are different prioroties? i don't know the answer to that, having not worked in news in the states. i have only seen american news coverage. our newscast, sadly these days, certainly does contain many stories of violence and death. but we would be remiss if we did not report the situation in israel and lebanon, the bombings in mumbai, the shooting deaths of on duty 2 RCMP officers. however, our newscast does nightly also contain stories that are not about violent acts or deaths. we are very conscious of creating a balance. and it's not just us. baby pandas born in china? you know every single newscast in the world plays those pictures. why? because they're soft and cuddly and people love 'em. and we, as news producers, are constantly aware that our viewers don't ONLY want to see death and destruction. i think the people have a perception that it is "all we show" because there is just too damned much of it in the world these days, and it is what people remember.

but as my colleague said to me the day of the mumbai bombings, he'll be much sadder the day bombs spread through a city's transit system killing 160+ people AREN'T considered news. i would have to agree.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

So many people always do - I have it personally ingrained to defend the man in such cases

Okay but in this case Diana was a "regular" person and Charles a prince. He held ALL of the power in the relationship. That isn't to say Diana shares no blame, but given the power dynamic, Charles is more responsible than she IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason missed the point, as he usually does. I wasnt blaming the man, I was defending Diana.

BS and you know it - you specifically referred to royal men as the actors in your post when you said:

PHP Code:

I think she decided to finally expose the sort of demeaning behavior that royal men subjected their women to 


So, do not backtrack dear. You laid the card - now play it.

Your original post did not note that the Queen of England herself allegedly subjected Diana to worse than Charles. Only later did you kind of note that. You just blamed the man - thus my comment

In the end, I think Diana did a tremendous amount of good for the world. I just think she also used the press to her advantage and as a tool for revenge, which IMO makes her no different than those who used her. Yet, people seemingly want to ignore her faults and only note that she was some sort of victim, which I assert was not really the case except for maybe in the beginning, but certainly not in the end. And - even in the beginning, what modern day woman who grew up around royalty her whole life would be so clueless as the traditions therein.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

BS and you know it - you specifically referred to royal men as the actors in your post when you said:

PHP Code:

I think she decided to finally expose the sort of demeaning behavior that royal men subjected their women to 


So, do not backtrack dear. You laid the card - now play it.

Your original post did not note that the Queen of England herself allegedly subjected Diana to worse than Charles. Only later did you kind of note that. You just blamed the man - thus my comment

In the end, I think Diana did a tremendous amount of good for the world. I just think she also used the press to her advantage and as a tool for revenge, which IMO makes her no different than those who used her. Yet, people seemingly want to ignore her faults and only note that she was some sort of victim, which I assert was not really the case except for maybe in the beginning, but certainly not in the end. And - even in the beginning, what modern day woman who grew up around royalty her whole life would be so clueless as the traditions therein.

Not backtracking my friend, only stating my point, that I was defending Diana's actions as I saw them. I didnt specifically blame any one man, and no amount of "quoting" will turn up any such tidbit.
My original post didnt contain any specifics in fact, rather I was going on my memories of a book written posthumously by Andrew Morton regarding Diana's experiences with the Royals. As I recall, according to the book, she felt like an outsider from the beginning. Also, I think the Queens own actions about not restoring Diana's royal title after death points out just how low the Royals regarded Diana.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Not backtracking my friend, only stating my point, that I was defending Diana's actions as I saw them. I didnt specifically blame any one man, and no amount of "quoting" will turn up any such tidbit.

No, you blamed all royal men - which proves my point

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . Also, I think the Queens own actions about not restoring Diana's royal title after death points out just how low the Royals regarded Diana.

Why would the Queen of England be under any obligation to restore the HRH to Diana, a commoner. Diana certainly did nothing to achieve that nor did she indicate in any way that she missed it or wanted it back. I mean she divorced the Royal family, which is why she was no longer Royal. Why would Diana want to be something she left - indeed, restoring such could almost be considered an insult

[DavidMn]

Sounds a bit morbid to me.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, you blamed all royal men - which proves my point



Why would the Queen of England be under any obligation to restore the HRH to Diana, a commoner. Diana certainly did nothing to achieve that nor did she indicate in any way that she missed it or wanted it back. I mean she divorced the Royal family, which is why she was no longer Royal. Why would Diana want to be something she left - indeed, restoring such could almost be considered an insult

I didnt blame ALL royal men, I know there are plenty of happy royal marriages, and isnt that a nice thing to say? At any rate, Im perplexed how you figure it would be an insult to restore the HRH to Diana? I understand she divorced Charles and thus the Royal family, but she continued to conduct herself as a member of the Royal family anyway what with her continued charities/goodwill ambassadorship/etc...And I think it would have scored points with the people who by and large still considered Diana a Princess.
And, she wasnt a "commoner" with a pretty blue lineage of her own!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I didnt blame ALL royal men, I know there are plenty of happy royal marriages, and isnt that a nice thing to say? At any rate, Im perplexed how you figure it would be an insult to restore the HRH to Diana? I understand she divorced Charles and thus the Royal family, but she continued to conduct herself as a member of the Royal family anyway what with her continued charities/goodwill ambassadorship/etc...And I think it would have scored points with the people who by and large still considered Diana a Princess.

There are many people who do those same things who are not royal and I assume Diana did them not in an attempt to be royal.

In the end, she willingly gave up the HRH and it would be rather an insult for the Queen of England to bestow it upon her after her death.

Also, she died Diana - Princess of Wales http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/

So, she did not lose that title and to datre, no one has taken that title after her

Originally Posted by irishgrl

And, she wasnt a "commoner" with a pretty blue lineage of her own!!

I think all non-royalty are commoners But, I could be wrong in my use of that word in that context.

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Diana's affairs were only after Charles began seeing Camilla again.

Ah, but you don't know that any more than the rest of us - and the facts are definitely not clear in any way, rest assured.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

As for the children not wanting their parent's private lives exposed on TV, from what I've seen, Diana was very sensitive to her children's feelings and I highly doubt she'd take such a public step without first discussing it with them

They were quite young at the time, particularly Harry.

Originally Posted by suzequze

Okay but in this case Diana was a "regular" person and Charles a prince. He held ALL of the power in the relationship. That isn't to say Diana shares no blame, but given the power dynamic, Charles is more responsible than she IMO.

Not so regular. She wasn't royal, but she was Lady Diana Spencer before her marriage, so not exactly like you and me. She was definitely aristocracy. And believe me, Charles held less power within his marriage than his mother did... the Queen sticks rigidly to royal protocol and makes sure that her children do as far as she can. It was the fault of royal protocol that Charles wasn't allowed to be with the woman he wanted to be with in the first place. He was almost as much a pawn as Diana was - that can't be underestimated - I wouldn't be royal for all the tea in China.

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I didnt blame ALL royal men, I know there are plenty of happy royal marriages, and isnt that a nice thing to say?

Not so many in this country! Out of the Queen's four children, there has been only one successful first marriage - Edward and the Countess of Wessex. Andrew is still single, but Anne and Charles have both remarried and so far both marriages are working out, but it hasn't been wedded bliss fairyland for any of the three elder children.

I think continental European royal marriages have a better record

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also, she died Diana - Princess of Wales http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/

So, she did not lose that title and to datre, no one has taken that title after her.

Camilla is Princess of Wales. She has to be because she's married to the Prince of Wales. It was deemed safer to style her Duchess of Cornwall so as not to appear to be replacing Diana. The wife of the Prince of Wales has several titles - Diana was also Duchess of Cornwall.

It should be noted that not one of these suckers is either Welsh or Cornish, which shows what a farce the whole thing really is