back to article Channel 4 refuses to pull Diana crash pics

Princes William and Harry have made public a letter to Channel 4 asking the broadcaster not to air pictures taken at the scene of their mother's death "depicting the crashed car while the Princess was still in the wreckage, and an image of a medic administering emergency treatment to Diana". The photographs are due to hit the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Let's be honest

Is anyone even likely to watch this? No, they'll all be wiping away at that thin line of drool whilst watching the other Channel 4 car crash - Big Brother.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

So, Channel 4 are paying the Parasites who were the prime cause of the accident?

After all, without the lowlife photographers they'd never have dragged the driver out of the bar, and the accident wouldn't have happened. So these photos can only have come from those people who were responsible for the deaths of three people. I wouldn't want making their actions profitable on my conscience, but maybe conscience comes a bit easier to a TV producer?

0
0

There is just no need

Seriously, who wants to be reminded of their mums death like this?

An emotional impact could still be made without these photos. Still, I suspect that C4 will carry on with this to get the viewers.

I wonder if this will be on before or after big brother...

0
0

In the Public Interest or Interesting to (some of) The Public

I completely agree with the princes on this one. Channel Four are pulling a fast one and dressing sensationalism up as something that is in the public interest. The public interest is about societal welfare not about casual voyeuristic nosiness. How exactly is showing a car crash going to serve the welfare of the nation?

0
0
ian

So let me get this straight?

These two pampered, subsidised little twunts would be upset by pictures of a car crash, but they're both perfectly happy to be soldiers, of which part of the job description involves deliberately KILLING people. I presume that photos of that wouldn't bother them at all.

0
0
Rat

Despicable.

Absolutely despicable. From the article :

"Channel 4 supremo Julian Bellamy said it was "not their intention to cause William and Harry distress". He expanded: "Channel 4 acknowledges the concerns expressed by the Princes William and Harry about the documentary. We would like to make clear that it was not our intention in commissioning this programme to cause them distress and we do not believe it is in any way disrespectful to the memory of Princess Diana."

Since the Princes have explicitly asked for certain scenes to be removed, and since Channel 4 have completely ignored their quite reasonable request, Julian Bellamy was quite clearly lying when he made the above statement. Besides, his opinion as to the level of respect shown is irrelevant - only the Princes' opinions matter in that regard.

If only there were some way to hold him to account for the distress he's about to cause...

0
0

just so we're clear

Anyone who watches this show is paying the salaries of the paperazzi who chased Princess Diana and giving them every reason to think that there is a market for that kind of picture and thus continue in their immoral work.

0
0
cor

How low an you....

Aw, c'mon C4.

Surely TV ratings and advertising revenue can't offset the disgusting precedent you're setting here?

The stills in question were published many years ago on internet and the "needs of the public" were duly served up.

What's next, the "Reality Exhumation" of John Lennon?

The mark of good journalism is knowing the difference between scraping the barrel, and digging up muck through the eroded bottom.

Cormac.

0
0

a shame

It's a shame Channel 4 doesn't consider the human cost stories like this have. While some things of a delicate nature might be seen as news, this is just pandering to the lowest common denominator. It seems as though in this case Channel 4 will just blunder ahead stomping on the feelings of anyone that has been hurt in this tragic event,

I for one have no interest in their "documentary". Big Brother has apparently taught them well, the feelings of individuals mean nothing when compared to the chance of more viewers.

0
0

Seriously, what's the fuss about?

No one seems to think twice about showing slow-motion footage of the Kennedy assassination in which you actually see a man die. Many of these programmes (and the associated books slaveringly serialised in the same tabloids currently foaming over the Diana documentary) go into grotesque detail about Kennedy's injuries along with some choice autopsy photos, and whatever else they can dig up.

Last time I checked all TVs still came with an off button. If people are so outraged, don't watch and see how that affects Channel 4's advertising revenue.

As for the princes, shouldn't they be off doing roughty-toughty army type things rather than sitting around watching Channel 4?

0
0

Interesting

Ian,

So you would be happy to have pictures of your mother or child published whilst they lay dying in the crushed wreckage of a car? Agreed that they may be pampered arses, that still doesn't mean they do not have any feelings. Try putting yourself in their shoes and think how you would feel...

0
0

Hit them where it hurts

I would suggest direct action to the advertisers of Channel 4, especially those companies who have chosen to advertise in / around this programme - this has been a most effective way in the past of ensuring that they take notice of public disgust...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Popcorn

Reminds me of Ben Elton's Popcorn:

I've got a famous, photogenic family as hostages. I'm going to shoot them all. There's a film crew live in the room. I've got the viewing figures live in the room. If you all turn your TVs off now, I'll let them go.

People are sick, Channel 4 are sick and cynical, this if going to be very popular.

And ian, you certainly do presume. Get a sense of perspective.

0
0

Hardly suprising

C4 have every right to show it, but I won't be watching it and it has further shown them to be shock merchants, who pretend they act to push boundaries.

But as someone already said, people are sick, this will probably pull a good audience, and that's what channel 4 want.

0
0

Public Interest

I despair with the scum who peddle this lowest common denominator 'news' . It seems to be that in the public interest now means anything that the public might glance at . Its anything that raises the viewing figures , because more viewers means more advertising revenue .

0
0

A Word From Prince Harry

Hello common people,

Please don't let that nasty Channel4 show pictures that contradict the public view that the Paparazzi caused the crash, by chasing mummy's Merc. (that was pushing the tonne when it entered the tunnel where it crashed) on their 50cc mopeds (great for cutting through traffic to take short cuts, but top speed 50MPH - on a good day).

Thank you.

P.S. Can you also tell the nasty MoD to let me go to Iraq and shoot some people (Grandpappa Philip tells me that car called Rag-heads) with my army chums.

0
0

And this compares to Traffic Cops how?

It's perfectly OK for BBC1 to show people injured and dying in car crashes on Traffic Cops, but the minute someone tries to put a car crash in context, it's suddenly a bad thing.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

September 11?

How many people's parents died during that? And yet the footage is rolled out time and time again. The photos are public domain now anyway, not showing them would be a form of censorship.

Who knows, maybe after seeing these photos and watching the program people will think twice about buying that red top with the sensationalist headline?

0
0

Trash journalism

I would have to agree with the princes' request on this one. The death was an accident of an individual known by millions, not a political leader assassinated like JFK, Martin Luther King or Trotsky. I hope the viewing public either switch off or watch something else.

If channel 4 wants to indulge in trash journalism then perhaps they should start running a few programs in cooperation with News of The World. At least they are funny!

0
0

I agree with both sides

Mike Richards, I was going to say the same thing. Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film has seen some of the goriest that TV has had to offer. And who doesn't remember the famous photo of the Viet Namese general killing the VC?

OTOH, papparzzi are probably even lower than used car salesmen. They make their living harassing and embarrassing. The problem is, so many of us look at the pictures. Who hasn't sneaked a peek at a topless picture of a celeb? As long as we tolerate these pictures in what ever form, they will be around. It's just like drug dealers. Demand means they'll be there. No demand, no paparazzi.

0
0

There is still no need

Im sorry, but I think some of the comments here are slightly misplaced - this has nothing to do with the fact they are princes, nor does it have anything to do with their jobs as soldiers. It has everything to do with the fact their mum died and they shouldnt need to have this quite personal thing dragged up again in this manner.

A few years back I lost my dad, it was reported in the local paper a few weeks later - when I read that it really hit me again. So I think the makers/C4 could highlight the fact it would have an emotional impact on the guys not to show these photos in the documentary. I cant think of another reason why they would prefer this didnt happen.

0
0

Much ado........but no action

Oh, the usual wringing of hands and bemoaning of the lack of standards in the media!

Listen, 'the media' always has and always will publish what it believes it can - in the context of the standards of the society in which it operates. I see, above, much criticism of the 'papparazzi' who supposedly caused Diana's death. And yet, our British society rewarded those same papparazzi for years before her death for every picture they could snap.

If Channel 4's productions offend you (and I agree that many are offensive) then do not watch. If their productions offend you enough to want to do something more active, then don't buy the products that Channel 4 advertises. If their productions outrage you and stimulate you to taking further action then organize a boycott of their advetisers' products.

Simply yakking about Channel 4's venality (or the spoiled lives of the Princes, for that matter) will neither change Channel 4's behaviour nor improve the quality of their product.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Devisive.....

Okay so i understand the current issue over these photo's .

To be fair i don't watch TV... it's not exactly very stimulating .

However the publication and review of these images is hardly outragous and hardly new ground . In 1860's Matthew Brady recorded the first photographs of the dead soldiers of the American civil war. To many widows these photo's were a sad but needed reminder of what they had lost. In addition it alerted people to the horrors of War . This led to all kinds of positive changes. Maybe these pictures of Diana will have a similiar effect ? and if not they would still serve as an important reminder of the very real personal sadness of the aforementioned princes which can only continue to be cathartic and perhaps even theroputic. In closing it may also remind the Princes that they may in te future be ordered to kill innocents and that the the reanimation of there their pat feelings of injustice would serve to make them think twice in continuing to hold a commision within the army

0
0
Nev

What's sauce for the goose...

... there's sure to be some media types and tabloid newspaper journos/editors who've lost family in a horrible car crash.

Lets dig some photos up of them and plaster them all over the net.

Fair's fair.

0
0

Sauce and Geese

Firstly: Yup, I'd like for Julian (Head of programmes) to be in the midst of his own sad little tale, I'd be there if I could snapping every detail for the tosser and bring it up for all to see every 6 months for the next decade, just to see how he likes it.

If as he claims, sensitivity was the prime factor he'd pull the bloody docu-repeatery and get on with some real journalism instead of joining the tired old worn out bandwagon.

I for one am sick to the back bloody teeth of hearing about this woman. 10 years for gods sake! She meant nothing to me at all and still doesn't... acknowledged that she means something to someone, but really, it's over the top.

She is dead, leave it alone.

</rant>

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It's a fuggin' conspiracy

And what about my son, eh? EH??

M. Al-Fayed

0
0
Anonymous Coward

an old argument

you do not want to see it? Do not watch it. I am sure this will appeal to those folk that slow right down to get a good look at an accident on the roads. I do not agree with it but Channel Four know that the rubber-neckers will gladly watch so they are hardly likely to axe all those viewing figures.

rant over

0
0

Snuff movie?

basically, this (and all the 'lets look at people dying' stuff) is a snuff movie dressed up as 'news'.

Are we already at the stage in society where pain, suffering and even death are so commonplace they are no longer distressing? the British are known worldwide for their empathy, charity and kindness. I for one would like to maintain this reputation - not damage and destroy it by normalising death.

It doesn't matter who it is - famous or not, rich, poor, black, white, soldier, mother, child - death is a tragic, private, personal thing, never very dignified. It should remain as such to enable families and friends to grieve.

Why do we find images of death and suffering interesting? sometimes funny? we are completely desentitised to the reality of it, and this is a deeply sad and wrong situation.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums