Tweet
Re: Poor Prince Harry
<span style="font-weight: bold">Murdoch Paper Defies a Warning and Exposes Prince Harry</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It took 72 hours, but one of Britain’s normally scandal-hungry tabloids finally broke ranks on Friday, defying a warning from palace officials and publishing two photographs of Prince Harry cavorting naked during a game of strip billiards in his Las Vegas hotel suite.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The photographs in The Sun were hardly a scoop, except in Britain, since they had appeared earlier in the week in a vast array of newspapers and Web sites around the world. A Google search for the photographs on Friday produced more than 300 million results, with many of the Web sites reproducing the photographs originally published by TMZ, a Hollywood-based celebrity Web site.
Royal officials met The Sun’s defiance with a shrug, telling reporters that it was up to newspapers, not the palace, to decide what to publish.
British news accounts said that Prince Harry had been summoned on his return to Britain on Wednesday to meet with Prince Charles at Highgrove, his country home about 100 miles west of London.
Police commanders were said to be reviewing how the three royal protection officers who traveled with Prince Harry to Las Vegas allowed 20 or more people, many of them strangers to the prince, to join a party in his suite without first surrendering their camera-equipped cellphones, which was said to be a standard procedure in such circumstances.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To the surprise of few, the British newspaper that broke the royal taboo was The Sun, the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid that has been badly shaken — and, news media commentators in Britain had been saying before its splash of the Prince Harry photographs, deeply inhibited — by the scandals over phone hacking and bribery that have engulfed the Murdoch stable of newspapers in Britain in the past year.
When it took the plunge, The Sun did so with a front page that declared with its old, prescandal boisterousness, “Heir it is.” The Sun gave no indication what it paid for the photographs or where they came from, though a well-known British publicist, Max Clifford, told the BBC that two young American women had asked him to act as their agent in selling the photographs in Britain.
Other accounts appearing in British newspapers and on the Internet said that the rights to the photographs and the women’s stories were being offered at sums running as high as $1 million.
In the end, The Sun seemed hesitant, almost apologetic — a far cry from the rambunctious Sun of old — in the lengthy, front-page justification offered for defying the palace. It said it was doing so because the photographs had already been published around the world, and because there was “a clear public interest” in having “fully informed” discussion about the prince’s behavior in Britain.
“The Sun is not making any moral judgment about Harry’s nude frolics,” the newspaper said. “Far from it. He often sails close to the wind for a royal — but he’s 27, single and a soldier. We like him.”</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In going ahead with publication, The Sun, Britain’s most widely-read newspaper, defied a notification that went to British papers on Tuesday from the country’s press watchdog, warning they would be breaching a privacy provision in the country’s press code if they did so. The warning followed an appeal to the so-called Press Complaints Commission from St. James’s Palace.
Along with all this, there has been a vigorous public debate about the merits of publishing the photographs and the effects that the Murdoch scandal has had on the tabloids’ old damn-the-torpedoes readiness to expose scandals involving royals, celebrities and politicians.</div></div>
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/...rry-photos.html
<span style="font-weight: bold">Murdoch Paper Defies a Warning and Exposes Prince Harry</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It took 72 hours, but one of Britain’s normally scandal-hungry tabloids finally broke ranks on Friday, defying a warning from palace officials and publishing two photographs of Prince Harry cavorting naked during a game of strip billiards in his Las Vegas hotel suite.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The photographs in The Sun were hardly a scoop, except in Britain, since they had appeared earlier in the week in a vast array of newspapers and Web sites around the world. A Google search for the photographs on Friday produced more than 300 million results, with many of the Web sites reproducing the photographs originally published by TMZ, a Hollywood-based celebrity Web site.
Royal officials met The Sun’s defiance with a shrug, telling reporters that it was up to newspapers, not the palace, to decide what to publish.
British news accounts said that Prince Harry had been summoned on his return to Britain on Wednesday to meet with Prince Charles at Highgrove, his country home about 100 miles west of London.
Police commanders were said to be reviewing how the three royal protection officers who traveled with Prince Harry to Las Vegas allowed 20 or more people, many of them strangers to the prince, to join a party in his suite without first surrendering their camera-equipped cellphones, which was said to be a standard procedure in such circumstances.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To the surprise of few, the British newspaper that broke the royal taboo was The Sun, the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid that has been badly shaken — and, news media commentators in Britain had been saying before its splash of the Prince Harry photographs, deeply inhibited — by the scandals over phone hacking and bribery that have engulfed the Murdoch stable of newspapers in Britain in the past year.
When it took the plunge, The Sun did so with a front page that declared with its old, prescandal boisterousness, “Heir it is.” The Sun gave no indication what it paid for the photographs or where they came from, though a well-known British publicist, Max Clifford, told the BBC that two young American women had asked him to act as their agent in selling the photographs in Britain.
Other accounts appearing in British newspapers and on the Internet said that the rights to the photographs and the women’s stories were being offered at sums running as high as $1 million.
In the end, The Sun seemed hesitant, almost apologetic — a far cry from the rambunctious Sun of old — in the lengthy, front-page justification offered for defying the palace. It said it was doing so because the photographs had already been published around the world, and because there was “a clear public interest” in having “fully informed” discussion about the prince’s behavior in Britain.
“The Sun is not making any moral judgment about Harry’s nude frolics,” the newspaper said. “Far from it. He often sails close to the wind for a royal — but he’s 27, single and a soldier. We like him.”</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In going ahead with publication, The Sun, Britain’s most widely-read newspaper, defied a notification that went to British papers on Tuesday from the country’s press watchdog, warning they would be breaching a privacy provision in the country’s press code if they did so. The warning followed an appeal to the so-called Press Complaints Commission from St. James’s Palace.
Along with all this, there has been a vigorous public debate about the merits of publishing the photographs and the effects that the Murdoch scandal has had on the tabloids’ old damn-the-torpedoes readiness to expose scandals involving royals, celebrities and politicians.</div></div>
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/...rry-photos.html
Zzzzz to that, we'd say.
Comment