This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/01/privacy-media-leveson-royal-family

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
After Leveson: a wider lens on privacy After Leveson: a wider lens on privacy
(about 5 hours later)
Does William and Kate's baby actually exist? You could be forgiven for wondering, given how few times George has actually been seen: he wasn't there again for the Sandringham Christmas walkabout. With only two public appearances, and one family snap, he may be the least-seen royal baby of the photographic era. Presumably he is occasionally pushed outside the gates of the Middleton family home, but there are no paparazzi to snap him. These are post-Leveson days and there has been no greater beneficiary than the royal family, around whose privacy the press now gently treads.Does William and Kate's baby actually exist? You could be forgiven for wondering, given how few times George has actually been seen: he wasn't there again for the Sandringham Christmas walkabout. With only two public appearances, and one family snap, he may be the least-seen royal baby of the photographic era. Presumably he is occasionally pushed outside the gates of the Middleton family home, but there are no paparazzi to snap him. These are post-Leveson days and there has been no greater beneficiary than the royal family, around whose privacy the press now gently treads.
George's invisibility is in startling contrast to the coverage of William and Harry's early years. By the mid-80s, tabloids were eagerly snapping away and speculating on everything they saw: whether or not Diana was breastfeeding, and who the nannies and playdates were. Diana played along, often co-operating with the press to allow casual and intimate photos.George's invisibility is in startling contrast to the coverage of William and Harry's early years. By the mid-80s, tabloids were eagerly snapping away and speculating on everything they saw: whether or not Diana was breastfeeding, and who the nannies and playdates were. Diana played along, often co-operating with the press to allow casual and intimate photos.
Committed republicans probably welcome this invisibility: the less we hear about this boring family the better. But invisibility and mystique in fact serve monarchist causes far more effectively than public scrutiny. For the majority, who may not support intrusive journalism, some press scrutiny is part of the deal. Since the modern monarchy offers itself as a symbolic national family, don't we have a right to know what sort of people – and lives – are carrying that symbolism? As we await post-Leveson regulation, however, the boundaries of acceptable media interest are still unclear, so the press is compliant: no baby George revelations, only stage-managed morsels tossed by the royal family like William's enrolment at Cambridge.Committed republicans probably welcome this invisibility: the less we hear about this boring family the better. But invisibility and mystique in fact serve monarchist causes far more effectively than public scrutiny. For the majority, who may not support intrusive journalism, some press scrutiny is part of the deal. Since the modern monarchy offers itself as a symbolic national family, don't we have a right to know what sort of people – and lives – are carrying that symbolism? As we await post-Leveson regulation, however, the boundaries of acceptable media interest are still unclear, so the press is compliant: no baby George revelations, only stage-managed morsels tossed by the royal family like William's enrolment at Cambridge.
Some protagonists in the Leveson debate seem to imply that the public's desire to know anything a bit more real about William, George, or other "celebrities" is on a level with hacking the phone of a missing child. But not all interest in private lives is prurient and unacceptable. Looked at retrospectively, the journalism (especially tabloid journalism) that pawed over Diana's life in the 80s was impelled by two forces. Roy Greenslade has described the period as "the wild west", with Rupert Murdoch in particular pushing his own brand of republicanism and a new sensationalist, intrusive journalism. But a longer term trend was embedding in that period too; not just sensationalism but human interest stories more generally, particularly intimate issues like relationships, divorce and sexual behaviour.Some protagonists in the Leveson debate seem to imply that the public's desire to know anything a bit more real about William, George, or other "celebrities" is on a level with hacking the phone of a missing child. But not all interest in private lives is prurient and unacceptable. Looked at retrospectively, the journalism (especially tabloid journalism) that pawed over Diana's life in the 80s was impelled by two forces. Roy Greenslade has described the period as "the wild west", with Rupert Murdoch in particular pushing his own brand of republicanism and a new sensationalist, intrusive journalism. But a longer term trend was embedding in that period too; not just sensationalism but human interest stories more generally, particularly intimate issues like relationships, divorce and sexual behaviour.
It wasn't confined to tabloids, it reached the broadsheets too. Now most journalism includes news of public figures' private lives, and speculation on relationships, inner thoughts and emotions. Many revelations are provided by the protagonists themselves, exposing their own privacy in the form of confessional writing. For the younger generation – raised on social media's public sharing of private moments, speaking personally is a necessary part of the mix.It wasn't confined to tabloids, it reached the broadsheets too. Now most journalism includes news of public figures' private lives, and speculation on relationships, inner thoughts and emotions. Many revelations are provided by the protagonists themselves, exposing their own privacy in the form of confessional writing. For the younger generation – raised on social media's public sharing of private moments, speaking personally is a necessary part of the mix.
Attention to private behaviour is now key to attracting readers, as was evident in the press's devouring of Nigella Lawson's and Vicky Pryce's stories. And why not? How could anyone not be fascinated by these "morality tales" – hugely successful women who it turns out are just like the rest of us with a capacity to screw up? Commentators debated whether powerful women could be bullied, whether patriarchy still has a hold, and what power does to moral behaviour. This is what much journalism is about now: scrutiny of public figures to find our own moral compass, or scrutiny of ordinary people in extreme situations to assess our own decisions and actions.Attention to private behaviour is now key to attracting readers, as was evident in the press's devouring of Nigella Lawson's and Vicky Pryce's stories. And why not? How could anyone not be fascinated by these "morality tales" – hugely successful women who it turns out are just like the rest of us with a capacity to screw up? Commentators debated whether powerful women could be bullied, whether patriarchy still has a hold, and what power does to moral behaviour. This is what much journalism is about now: scrutiny of public figures to find our own moral compass, or scrutiny of ordinary people in extreme situations to assess our own decisions and actions.
It is these interests which landed the press in the dock. But they are not ignoble in and of themselves, as some Leveson commentators say. They are only bad and wrong when the humanity of the people involved is forgotten; when due attention is not paid either to the effect on their real lives or the people dragged into stories. Boundaries of privacy in today's media environment are complex. Many people disregard their own privacy, celebrities stage-manage titbits of their private lives, and commentators overstep the mark. With ethical codes outdated and "human interest" a legitimate journalistic practice, we urgently need a more nuanced discussion about the limits of privacy. To bash human interest stories as just gossip profoundly misses the point. It is these interests which landed the press in the dock. But they are not ignoble in and of themselves, as some Leveson commentators say. They are only bad and wrong when the humanity of the people involved is forgotten; when due attention is not paid either to the effect on their real lives or the people dragged into stories. Boundaries of privacy in today's media environment are complex. Many people disregard their own privacy, celebrities stage-manage titbits of their private lives, and commentators overstep the mark. With ethical codes outdated and "human interest" a legitimate journalistic practice, we urgently need a more nuanced discussion about the limits of privacy. To bash human interest stories as just gossip profoundly misses the point.
/>
Ros Coward is a professor of journalism at Roehampton University
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.