Today Is The 10th Anniversary Of Princess Diana’s Death And The UK’s Tabloid Editors Are Still Asking Themselves Whether They, Along With The Paparazzi, Should Share Some Blame

Philip M. Stone August 31, 2007

It’s a somber day in London what with the special memorial service marking the 10th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death and many Britons remembering their loss of the tabloid’s princess, but within the past few days some newspaper editors who have remained quiet over the years have reflected upon whether demanding and paying for paparazzi exclusives means they share guilt for what some believe was an inevitable end in a Paris road tunnel.

Newspaper editors have always maintained that everyone is really to blame. If the public didn’t clamor for such pictures then the editors wouldn’t pay fortunes to the paparazzi, and if the paparazzi didn’t earn a rewarding living from Diana pictures then they wouldn’t have been shooting them.

But as Phil Hall, the former editor of the News of the World Sunday tabloid that has the UK’s highest circulation at more than 3 million, explained in a TV documentary last week about the last week of Diana’s life, “A big Diana story could add 150,000 sales.”

And in a confession that hadn’t been heard from any newspaper editor before, he confessed, “I felt huge responsibility for what happened and I think everyone in the media did. If the paparazzi had not been following her, the car wouldn’t have been speeding and, you know, the accident might never have happened.”

But his stable mate then at the Murdoch-owned Sun daily, Stuart Higgins, wouldn’t go that far. While accepting that the tabloid thirst for exclusive photos created a “frenzy and appetite”, at the end of the day he believes it was just a tragic accident.

Piers Morgan, the then editor of The Mirror -- it was his sister Sunday Mirror newspaper that three weeks before Diana’s death printed THE picture showing her close relationship with Dodi Fayed which really got the paparazzi in high gear for any car chase -- admits now the media does share some blame for “allowing the paparazzi to become ridiculously over the top.”

That Diana was a big story in death as in life is also true. Much has been made recently of the Mail on Sunday’s great promotion of giving away a Prince unreleased CD that boosted its sales by some 600,000 that Sunday to around 2.8 million. That marked the second highest circulation day for The Mail on Sunday – the highest was its coverage of Diana’s funeral.

Diana had a love-hate relationship with the media – often inviting editors to her Kensington Palace home to talk about coverage , sometimes giving tips to photographers of where she’ll be, -but also really angry at paparazzi tricks, some of which made her cry, and of course a picture of her crying would be enough to fund retirement.

Anniversaries, especially 10th anniversaries, are the time for “close confidants” and investigative journalists to come out of the closet and provide exclusive information allegedly hidden for years, and Diana’s death is no different.

A new book is out, written by her chef, that tells about her in a positive mode. But it does also point out her frustration with the photographers. The book tells of her coming home one day, storming into the kitchen, and bursting into tears sputtering, “I hate those paparazzi.”

A more serious book, published four days ago by French investigative journalist Chris Lafaille claims Diana was nine or 10 weeks pregnant when she died meaning, he says, the probable father was Dr. Hasnat Khan on whom Diana is said to have had a big crush.

That claim in Diana, The Inquiry They Never Published is despite former royal coroner John Burton having said, “She wasn’t pregnant. I have seen into her womb.”

Laffaille sources his information to a letter found in the Paris Public Hospitals archives but which a hospital spokesperson said is a forgery. Laffaille says the letter, dated August 31, 1997, the day of her death, claimed Diana was pregnant and it was sent to the then Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement with copies to foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine, Paris police chief Martine Monteil and to health minister Bernard Kouchner. Since Kouchner is now foreign minister perhaps he could shed light.

Lafaille says the letter has never been proclaimed a fake, something a spokesman for the hospital disputes. He says the letter was distributed soon after Diana’s death, but “Examination of this document has established with absolute certainty that it is a fake. It is ridiculous. Many of the medics who treated Diana remain at the hospital, and all deny the claims contained in this forged letter.” It does give pause to ask how just one disputed document could be the basis for a new investigative work?

Whatever their sorrow or guilt, it does appear that 10 years on the British media is more sensitive to the paparazzi issue and well they need to be with Kate Middleton back in Prince William’s arms, and the talk around social London is they could very well soon announce a long engagement.

In the last year the paparazzi feeding frenzy got so bad around Kate that the lawyers were brought in to warn editors, and News International announced it would not buy any Kate paparazzi pictures. Then she and William apparently broke up only to get together again a couple of months later and there is no doubt Kate Middleton is the biggest paparazzi story going.

So, is there that vicious circle again? The public clamoring for pictures, editors therefore willing to pay what it takes, and paparazzi willing to do whatever it takes? At least News International has shown its two major tabloids won’t be in that fray but how many times do they need to lose out on an exclusive and see their competitors’ circulation on the rise before that comes to an end?

Especially so when the two lovebirds do as they did last week – fly off to Desroches Island in the Seychelles, a speck in the middle of the Indian Ocean and one of the world's most exclusive and romantic resorts. It was apparently booked entirely just for them and they arrived from different airports to throw off the media pack – she from Paris, he from Africa -- and then they reportedly checked into resort as Martin and Rosemary with authorities setting up a media exclusion zone. As the news stories pointed out, their suite included one large bed.

Who can blame the tabloids for writing about and picturing “From Here to Eternity” scenes  -- remember Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr on the Hawaiian sands – and, yes, it is understood that almost anyone under 50 will not have the faintest clue what that question is all about.

ftm Follow Up & Comments