How did the press illustrate the hounding of Prince William's girlfriend by photographers? With long-lens photos, of course

The photograph in the Times showed a woman in the street in daylight, hoicking her handbag on to her shoulder. The small print credited the Big Pictures agency, which claims on its website to be responsible for "fantastic exclusives ranging from the first intimate pictures of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to the explosive nightclub scenes of David Beckham with Rebecca Loos". The Times caption read: "Kate Middleton: long lenses now follow her every move".

Ms Middleton is Prince William's girlfriend, and the 15-paragraph story beside her picture informed Times readers that ten police officers had been summoned to protect her from photographers as she left a nightclub. The Mail, Sun, Mirror and Star also had the story (this was the high point of the latest Middleton flurry) and all five papers thought it right to illustrate it with pictures taken outside "trendy Boujis nightclub" early the previous day. In the case of the Times this provided the main image on the front page.

You might think that these pictures would have shown a pack of photographers waving their long lenses threateningly, but no, what we saw was the prince and his girlfriend hurrying to their car, with the odd police officer in the background. They were standard paparazzo snaps: indeed, the Times's came from the Xposure agency, whose website says it enjoys "a high regard in the celebrity image industry".

Set aside the question of whether, by dating royalty, Ms Middleton has made herself a celebrity, with all that that implies. Instead, let's take this as a study in the flexible thinking of which journalists are capable when they want to print pictures of pretty women. When you have a story about a woman being harassed by photographers, there is surely a problem if you illustrate it with the very pictures those photographers are taking. It makes you, in a small way, an accomplice. The Times's owners have now forsworn the use of such pictures of Ms Middleton, but did it really take almost a week to detect the crassness of using a paparazzo picture of a woman above a caption saying she was hounded by paparazzi?

The photographers' pursuit of Ms Middleton had become evident in our news pages on the morning she emerged from her home to find she had a parking fine. The cameras were there, as, interestingly, was the traffic warden, ticket in hand. Also present was that unnamed "onlooker" who is so often at these scenes, waiting to supply a pithy quote. The Express published four photographs, the Sun three, the Mail and the Mirror two each and the Times one.

You may be wondering why, when Ms Middleton has been the prince's girlfriend for some years, photographers are suddenly spending cold nights and mornings following her around. And why are editors so eager to publish the pictures?

Don't look to the papers for answers. According to the Mirror, Ms Middleton was worth writing about because the police protection was "the clearest sign yet that she and Wills could be tying the knot", and the Mail took the same line. But the reason for the extra protection - or so these same papers reported - was to safeguard this woman from the photographers. The logic appears to be that the more photographers there are, the more protection there must be, and the more protection there is, the more likely the marriage becomes. Mmm.

The Times, for its part, said the increased attentions of the paparazzi "have encouraged speculation, as yet unfounded, that an engagement may be imminent". In other words, by pursuing her, these photographers are making people think William is about to propose. How does that work?

The Daily Telegraph, incidentally, wants you to know it is above all this, if only slightly. Ms Middleton, it declared warmly, was an attractive woman of appealing character who was becoming "a great favourite with the media", and the Telegraph would continue to publish pictures reflecting legitimate public interest, in an appropriate way. (The Cupid Stunt defence: it's all in the best possible taste.)

However, the paper went on, "largely because of the demand for images of her among European publications" (hah!), things were getting out of hand and British publications needed to be careful. "The House of Commons does not lack politicians who would like the media muzzled by a privacy law," it warned, "which would be utterly inimical to the public interest."

That is not about to happen. For the moment, though, royal lawyers have wheedled and threatened editors into a truce, helped no doubt by the coincidence that preliminary hearings for the Diana inquest were under way in the same week. But as long as Ms Middleton remains pretty and attached to the prince no truce will last long, and any old humbug will do to justify breaking it.

Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website