Diana crash pic and strange self-censorship
Published by Kieren 2 years, 4 months ago in Internet, Journalism[I’m getting a lot of hits on this page because of the recent report from John Stevens, out on 14 December 2006. It was a three-year investigation directly into the question over whether Diana’s death was a conspiracy. He concluded firmly that Diana’s death was no more than a “tragic accident”. You can download the short version of the report, or the longer version (800+ pages) from this site by following the links.]
The Internet’s not what it used to be. I heard this morning that some Italian magazine called Chi had printed a picture of Princess Diana, dead, sat in the car that killed her in Paris way back in 1997. After dinner, I thought I’d find it, and, incredibly, it’s taken me an hour.
Of course, the British tabloids have leapt on the picture, bellowing with outrage. This is just shameless profiteering. Every editor knows that Diana stories sell papers - Richard Desmond has turned over an entire newspaper, The Daily Express, to this peculiar business model, running endless and pointless front-page headlines over Diana.
But what is really ridiculous is that the picture is the tamest photo you could ever expect to see of a car crash. I find it amazing it hasn’t been published before. But then Diana’s death caused a national slippage of normal brain activity in the UK, and the flashbacks for the nation are still reoccurring.
What is strange is that I was discussing the peculiar tendency of the Western press to steer clear of graphic pictures only a few hours ago. Al-Jazeera showed some footage earlier today of a bombed-out building in Lebanon where a man in dreadful pain and shock held out a dead young girl in front of the camera that had just been pulled out of the rubble. He was demonstrating that this was not, as Israel claimed soon after, only an ammuniations dump, it was a family house. My friend who saw the footage told me that the girl was the same age as his daughter and he suddenly found himself crying.
But if you watch the images from the BBC, or Sky, or CNN, all you will see is a long-shot showing Beirut airport being bombed, or possibly a long-shot of a collasped building. Are they right to protect us from shocking images? Clearly they think so. But at the same time, isn’t that a bit of a cop-out, and a dangerous cop-out at that. We are not being told the reality, shown the reality. Death is shocking so why does our media pretend it isn’t?
Vietnam and beyond
Ever since Vietnam, the US has had major problems with showing death - to the extent that even coffins of returning soldiers from Iraq were carefully controlled. And I can’t remember the last time I saw a pic in the UK press that made me stop and think. I should ask some photographer friends what the history is behind the self-censorship of the realities of life.
But this standpoint is entirely hypocritical. See how we are able to deal with close-up pictures of Saddam Hussein’s sons - clearly dead and shot to pieces - all over the media, but not even the slightest hint of close-up violence otherwise. But those pictures were okay because they were *bad people*. It is incoherent.
And how come we can’t handle a few real pictures where we pay to go see incredibly graphic depictions of violence at the cinema? American films in particular are *incredibly* violent. There’s some crap cop show on the TV as I type this and two people have just come across a dead man by a bin, shot, dead, with blood all over his chest. I didn’t even blink. There is a very worrying double-standard at work here.
Self-censorship
But what is even more worrying than that is a strange phenomenon of people self-censoring themselves on the Net. The Diana pic is not at all shocking and yet while several newspapers have run with the picture in their printed versions, no one has put it online. And people haven’t scanned the pic in and posted it up on the Net either. Not yet anyway.
There is a palpable fear out there in cyberspace about publishing this picture. Why? Has the very openness of the Net caused people to be overly censorious? Are people worried about hosting the pic, being linked to by everyone else (who don’t want to host it), and then being hounded by thousands of Netizens in a fake frenzy? Well, yes.
The Diana pic is apparently taken from a new book that covers the investigation into her death and includes some autopsy details. Fine. There is a book on her death and it includes some details.
Boycott
But people’s response has to be call for newsagents to boycott this Chi magazine - which no one had ever heard of before - and ban the book, before anyone has ever even seen it. This is madness. Why has society become some hopelessly intolerant? Why is our first response to censor, to condemn and to ban? And where have the sensible majority gone?
Is it just because it’s Diana? Well, yes, partly. But at the same time, look at what we see of Iraq and Afghanistan - wars in which our citizens are being killed. Nothing. And what about Israel and Gaza and Lebanon? Isn’t a bit of old-fashioned horror at the reality of death exactly what we need, rather than white-clean, wipe-clean fantasies?
You’re not going to get any of that horror from the Diana pic though. Have a look at it. I am sticking it below. If you are shocked by this photo, it is because you are determined to be shocked. What if I told you it wasn’t Diana - are you still shocked? What exactly is there in the photo to be shocked about?
Censorship and mob outrage are the enemies of logic and the tools of propagandists and crooks.
Technorati Tags: Chi, Princess Diana, Diana
Princess Diana photo…
The British newspapers have gone beserk (hypocritically so) at the Italian publication which has published a photo of the late Princess Diana after the accident which killed her. Now the photo is below, and it isn’t a gruesome photo - in fact fairly u…
I actually saw this pic years ago. On a website called Ogrish.com
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the photo, although, I do find it disgusting that people would publish a photo of someone on the brink of death.
For example, when my uncle passed away, his sons (my cousins) took a photo of their father in the casket during the visitation. I thought that was grotesque, but I did understand that there are those, like my cousins who believe that life and death should be cherished. If one can take pictures of life, why not take pictures of death? I would never do it, but I’m not going to say it’s wrong or chastize someone for it because to that person it may be right to them. Their belief is death should be celebrated just as much as life.
Also, I actually possess a Woman’s Weekly Magazine that gives a horrific description of how Princess Diana was found, and the description is more horrific than the photo you’ve posted. I don’t have the magazine article in front of me, but I can still, somewhat recall the description. It went something like this:
The g-force of the impact from the accident was so strong, that both earrings were ripped from Princess Diana’s ears; one of Princess Diana’s earring’s was found embedded in the dash board and the other earring was found laying outside on the pavement.
That description is more haunting than that photo and I purchased that magazine back in 1998 and I can still remember it.
You’re absolutely right, that photo is very tame compared to what I thought it was going to be.
Writing about death can be difficult but done well, strangely elevating.
One of the greatest examples I would argue is Hiroshima by John Hersey. Extraordinary book. It took over an entire edition of the New Yorker and it was read out - in full - on the radio in the US if I remember correctly.
I have also just found this website (herseyhiroshima.com) about a bloke who did his PhD on the book and the impact and has made his work available for free online. Isn’t the Internet great?
Kieren
I don’t think a pic taken in casket is grotesque. Have you ever seen post mortem pictures? They were awesome and popular in victorian age. It was a duty to have a post mortem pic of a dear one, also as postcards or visit cards.
Princess Diana was such a beautiful and wonderful all around. She was a true princess…one that can never be repeated in history again. There is something magical about Princess Diana in that her presence whether in reality, tv, magazines, etc. touches people who have and have never met her in real life.
Regarding the disputed death pic of the princess, although some people felt that it was wrong and hurtful to the close families and friends of Princess Diana to have the awful pics or the tv show the accident scene…in part, the it may have helped millions of people accept the truth that she did passed away. After all, she was a public person who both private and public people all over the world loved dearly. Her name, good works, and memories will never fade. God bless Princess Diana’s soul…
I’m sorry but i don’t get the Diana was so amazing thing. She married into royalty to become famous, and complained about Charles, she didnt have to marry him. She had several affairs… and lets be honest, one was with that ginger bloke, then she has a ginger kid coincidentally 9 months after the affair that looks a lot like him. She didn’t think about her children once while she was having the affiars (plural) didn’t think about her husband or the rest of the family, yet got away with everything because she is so beautiful blah blah…. do you think if it had been Charles who did all that he would get away with it. People say she did a lot of charity work, she married into a rich family and didn’t have a job, so she should, the day i become rich and no longer need to work for a living, i will dedicate my life to third world countries and volunteering to help anyone in more need than myself, i haven’t got a medal! Don’t get me wrong, i far from hate her, all these things happen, but i dont understand why people think she should be a saint!
Wow. Other than agreeing that the photo is tame, I totally disagree with you.
But I did want to thank you for getting the picture to wiki.
Disagree how? Feel free to argue with me, death is a very difficult subject especially in Western society. I think it suffers more than anything by not being discussed, so you tend to end up with extremes: people refusing to discuss any element of it at one end; and people being horribly insensitive at the other.
I think there is also an element of time with death. To show pictures of someone’s death soon after they have died is often gruesome and unnecessary, but then Diana died a decade ago. I think we should be capable of dealing with that fact by now.
Kieren
Okay I searched to find this photo only to find out you can’t see a daggone thing. How boring is that? I was expecting a gruesome sight and instead the whole picture is dark and you can see Diana’s head. Wow… it’s so horrid, whatever.
like everyone else i have been looking to see what all the fuss is about and maybe its a morbid fasination with an idol, but really this could be anyone, with what could be anything in their month, although it does look like diana from the side, but the picture is so unclear but not sickening or sad as she looks peaceful.
I think it is horrific that, as a society, some people are so desensitized as not to understand the reason that people would not want this photo published. Isn’t it enough that we saw the horrific state in which the car was after the accident? Must we go further to see images of this woman as she lay dying. Has no one any compassion for her friends, family, especially her children…whether they are celebrity or not - seeing their mother dying is painful to anyone. The magazine’s reason to publish such photos only stems from their knowing that such a large part of society has lost total appreciation for the sanctity of life and will purchase their soul-less magazine. I hope that karma finds those, who seek these images, not so well.
I’m worried that your response is pre-decided before you look at the realities.
> Isn’t it enough that we saw the horrific state in which the car was after the accident?
It isn’t the sight of a crushed piece of metal that unnerves you, it is your thought processes connected to what must have happened to people that were inside that crushed piece of metal. In that sense, it is you that is creating your own heightened emotional state, and you need to recognise that other people will have different emotional responses.
Everyone who dies has a mother and father, and a very large number have children. This is a simple fact. It is for that reason more than any other that death is painful. But everyone dies and every death is painful. It is not something that a single soul can escape from and so wouldn’t it make more sense to try to comes to terms with death, rather than consciously decide not to review it, or consider it, or discuss it?
On a different point, if it is the coldness with which some people deal with dead and dying people that offends you, that is because you do not understand it. All doctors and nurses, and a great many people in society - thank god - have an ability to separate the human body from the person within. To extremely useful ends.
Where the grey area is with Diana is that there is a sense of voyeurism, which rightly makes alot of people uncomfortable. The fact remains however that it was nearly a decade since Diana died and it is important to be able to separate her physical body from her personality and legacy in order to ensure it is her legacy that becomes her, and not the fact that she was killed in a car crash.
The picture isn’t shocking, so we musn’t pretend it is.
Those are my thoughts anyway.
Kieren
Kieran,
you offer an almost spooky insight into what you perceive to be the ‘realities of the world’ and the ‘way life should be seen’. However, the only reality in this photo and in the death of a 37 year old mother is - why do we need to see it at all? It doesn’t matter if Diana died ten years ago or ten days ago, there is no reason on this earth to publish a death photo, other than a desire to look into a place you have no right or need to be.
I am sure as always, that you will on this comment have the last word and rightly so i’m sure..But you do tend to ‘preach’ and that in a website is rather offputting, so alas I will not be able to read it.
Michelle
Sorry if I sound preachy to you. It’s not intended.
My basic point remains though: death is the one certainty in life. Lots of people for one reason or other chose not to review or reflect on death. That’s up to them. But it’s ridiculous to believe that reviewing death is a bad thing. It has been one of the most significant factors in medicine that has kept people alive for longer.
If you don’t feel comfortable about it, fine. Just don’t try to push your viewpoint onto others - especially when reviewing death is actually one of the most logical things you can do in life.
Kieren
I AGREE WITH KIEREN, IT IS HUMAN NATURE FOR US TO BE CURIOUS ABOUT SUCH THINGS IN LIFE AND IN DEATH (AS BOTH AFFECT ALL OF US) WHY IS THERE A PUBLIC OUTCRY BECAUSE THIS PICTURE WAS PUBLISHED IN AN ITALIAN MAGAZINE??….I NEVER HEARD A COMPLAINT WHEN THE LATE POPE JOHN PAUL DIED AND PICTURES OF HIS BODY (WETHER LYING IN STATE OR NOT) WERE TELEVISED ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!! WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE???
yeah you read it, and you visited the sitre for the same reason everyone else did, to see the body. no other need to comment
Firstly thanks for posting this image (in light of the reaction against it’s publication elsewhere..), I too agree that the photo itself is not horrific, and that the memories of the day she died will cause a lot of people to percieve it to be much worse than it is. However, I do question the necessity of Chi publishing it in the first place, I can only assume that it’s a revenue generation / publicity exercise and for that reason somewhat condemn it, because the underlying fact is that it is a princess moments before her death and therefore should not be abused in this way.
David
Well, an Italian magazine publishing it is the difficult part of this whole saga. It was clearly done to elicit attention and to sell more copies - and it will have worked. But then, we are not talking about a big global title here - I had never heard of Chi before.
At the same time, had there not been an almighty and largely artificial fuss, this magazine would have been printed and no one would have been any the wiser.
There are no real issues of importance here. For example, the picture does not show something that sheds new light on the crash, or put under question someone’s testimony. Likewise, the picture wasn’t stolen or leaked. There is nothing about the picture appearing that makes it worthy of serious review.
As such, the main reason why we know about this is because other newspapers know that a frenzy over the publication will add sales. That is how the media works.
The picture had value and that was why it was printed. The problem is that even if everyone agreed it shouldn’t be published and then sought to provide a mechanism whereby such pictures would be prevented from being published in the future, you would end up in a situation where photos that really should be published are wrongly held back by the people with most to lose.
Kieren
I appreciate your unbiased views in your article. Espetially you highlighted the dual standards of the west. It is ok to show a 12 year phalistinean boy who is wounded by israeli shelling and died in his father arms while being video filmed (and not deplored at all), but a picture of Lady Diana,receiving help, can be such a big issue. I think there is nothing gruesome about this picture. Those who loved her will still love her perhaps even more. I liked when you said “Censorship and mob outrage are the enemies of logic “. Bravo
The photo in itself is hardly shocking although what one gathers from the British tabloid press is that they are trying so very hard to gauge the general public’s reaction while attempting to be the ‘protectors’ of the royal family. The word “Hypocritical” springs to mind. Never has the tabloid press been one to pass up a story (or photo) regardless of the shock factor, apparently up until now.
The royals have always been prime sources of scandalous news in the past and the papers have never held back in printing such material. It all smacks of double standards. On a human level I’m sure Diana’s family would not want to see the photo and that it would most certainly cause some distress to them but what of the countless thousands of other families in other parts of the world who have had images of their deceased loved ones plastered all over the media? It seems that there is one rule for some and an entirely different rule for another. The british tabloids really should review their stance of ‘… that’s OK but not in our backyard’.
to those of you commenting negatively about the photo and why it was taken,isnt it strange that you have searched for this very information and landed on this site?if the picture was as disgusting as you claim, why did you ever bother searching for it?
I read this site regularly, that’s why.
Personally, I feel it is an invasion of someone’s privacy at the moment in which they have a pretty fundemental claim to it. We have reached he position where journalists consider nobody to have any substantial right to a private existence and the fact that we are discussing whether it is right to be photographed for public entertainment as you sit dying is an indictment of this attitude.
It also troubles me that by purchasing the picture, the newspaper in question encouraged further such invasions by providing demand and incentive.
There is a distinction to be made between an actor pretending to be dying and a real human being gasping their last. I do not believe the latter should be shown without an overwhelming public good to be obtained by it.
I agree with your fundamental point about there being a difference between an actor and a real person.
But the reality is that at a crash scene, people take alot of photos in order to record how things were at the time. This has been seen as incredibly valuable by people involved in saving lives and understanding what happens for later reference. These pictures are taken, that is a relatively normal part of modern life and medicine. There is nothing incredibly special about that fact.
Kieren
I don’t, with the greatest of respect, think you connect with the following points.
1) Right to privacy of the dying person; and
2) Publication of the photograph for public titlation being unmeritorious.
Because the “people [who] take alot of photos in order to record how things were at the time” are professionals involved in the examination of a crime or accident scene.
Anyone else taking such photographs is doing it for money or indulging the public’s baser whims.
I don’t, having read your blog for some time, get the feeling that you are the sort of person who thinks that someone’s death is an appropriate visual for public entertainment.
I understand what you’re saying. I was just seeking to stress that photographs are taken on such occasions, because alot of people seem to think that this incident was somehow entirely different to how other crashes are dealt with.
It is a difficult area. Family members are normally given the right of consent over photographs that show someone dying or dead, and there have been a few notable exceptions in things like drug campaigns where people have bravely allowed images of a loved one to be made publicly available.
Whether you like it or not though, Diana’s case is somewhat different. If you were asked to name someone that had died in a car crash, probably 80 percent of people would think of Princess Diana first. It is undeniable that there is fascination with the circumstances surrounding her death, and that in turn has meant that there is a market for more information about it.
Someone has written a book about it - which I haven’t read and nor it seems has anyone else - and that book has, quite rightly to my mind, published as many images and details about the crash as it can. Books play a very special role in society and they are the considered and specialised accumulation of information about specific important events.
Without books, we risk losing not only our history and past but also the lessons to be learnt and the great historical threads that have enabled the human race as a whole to evolve.
And so we have what I hope is a well produced book about what was a big event in the 1990s. It is inevitable then that the media, in doing what it does and informing people about what is current, will seek to publicise the book, particularly because the media knows it will put on sales.
Now the reason I published the front page of Chi magazine was because that same media was purposefully misleading people about the photo’s content and I felt it was important to point out that in fact the photo was not graphic or in fact in any way shocking, despite claims to the opposite.
I think it is highly likely there are more graphic photos in the book but Chi’s editor choose what he felt was the least shocking pic for the cover knowing that people would be offended by anything stronger.
I don’t really have any intention to buy the magazine or the book as I have never been interested in the minutae of Diana’s death, but I felt it was important to point out that people were being misled and that that in itself demonstrated a very strange and hypocritical approach to life’s realities.
Kieren
Unlike you, it has taken me 3 days to find an internet site that would show Diana’s Photo. Your right, censorship over this photo is riduculous. It’s not offensive. It’s tame when compared to violence on t.v. and the war in Iraq and the escalating war in Israel. People in the UK need to chill out and try looking at the autopsy photos of one of our most beloved Presidents John F. Kennedy. Our country is reminded every year marking his assination, with a show detailing his arrival, assination and funeral. I think it is because even 43yrs after the fact, our country still asks “Who really shot JFK”. Thanks for posting the picture.
This photo of Princess Diana is evidence. The significance of this photo is there is a person clearly seen EASILY reaching in and placing an oxygen mask on Diana’s face. Diana was easily accessible, therefore the excuse of taking a long time to extract her from the car is blatantly and completely bogus. The British public is NOT stupid. The actual reason for the outrage of the so-called ESTABLISHMENT media regarding the publication of these photos is they provide the evidence of Princess Diana being very much alive and very sustainable. I definitely think THE ESTABLISHMENT media are protesting too much - far too much - in protecting the SENIOR members of royal family.
P.S. Thank you very much indeed, Kieren, for publishing this photo. There is nothing offensive about this photo. Actually, this helps people including myself in dealing with our grief for the loss of Princess Diana.
–
I must correct the omission in my previous post: “in protecting the senior members of THE royal family.”
Cheers!
Regards,
Anne Eversley, London, England
Good Lord! I knew there had to be a conspiracy angle attached to this somehow. I know from bitter experience, Anne Eversley, that you are following a phantom. Please don’t allow it to eat up too much of the time you should be spending out there in the real world, talking to people, laughing and having fun.
Kieren
Typical response of THE ESTABLISHMENT media, Kieren McCarthy. Supposedly, you’re a somewhat successful columnist, therefore you didn’t get where you are by “rocking the boat”. I inadvertantly discovered your blog in a search engine. I read the various national and international newspapers and online news services daily on many subjects, particularly national and international issues and politics. I have been living in the real world for several decades. Perhaps, you should get out more. Prior to yesterday, I never noticed you, therefore you are one phantom I won’t be following.
Wow, sounds like Kieren hit close to home there…. Either you are easily offended or Kieren was dead on. There’s no conspiracy here, the chick died, so there was someone putting oxygen on her face, that doesn’t mean she was savable from the wreck. Get over it.
I must admit the pic is not as offensive as i thought as anne from london said it helps us to come to terms with the death of someone so special princess diana.
PS
SHE WILL NEVER BE FORGOT EVER
it is true that this photo shows clearly that Diana was not tangled up in the wreckage as we have been told all these years . something is very wrong with this whole case .
What’s wrong with this case is that people are trying to make a big deal out of it almost a decade later. We have no JFK conspiracy here. Quit trying to act like we do.
god pless you for all what you Wrote about what happen in lebanon and for muslims in general……thanx man.
Palestinians and Lebanese are not all Muslims…
And Christians die in the bombings, too.
Jeff you are an extremely rude and disrespectful coward. Your disrespect to Princess Diana and President John F Kennedy shows just what kind of ‘person’ you are. Your kind is so common on the internet. All talk and no trousers! You are completely wrong on all counts in your posts, therefore, Jeff, I suggest you do shut up as you’re talking out of your arse. You have no idea what you are talking about. You’re a cross between Georgie Bush and Charley Windsor! LOL!
Anne,
This is aimless abuse and since this is my blog I will delete any further comments that aren’t useful or constructive and block whoever posts them.
Kieren
Kieren,
Not to worry!
Anne
kieren
you have your opinions on the demise of diana and i and thousands of others have ars unfortunatly we differ in opinions as i strongly agree diana was murdered
i also believe we will have a modern day henry the eigth on our throne if charlie boy ever decends the throne from which i strongly doubt
i believe diana was used and abused from the start and yes she did learn to manipulate as i would living in those surroundings,
while we respect your opinions and what you think please have the decansy to have the same morals to us who adored diana and what she stood for
i have no respect for our monarchy as they are not for the people not that it bothers me personnally as i dont mix in there circles and dont say the monarchy is good for the commo man as i pay a lot of taxes and they spend it.
respect other peoples opinions and you wont go far wrong
barbara
It is shameful to attack someone because their views are different than others . To me that is rude , but also that is what the probblem is now days people refuse to listen to each other . Then there are misunderstandings and then it leads to fighting . It is awful to put down someone because their view . I also beleive that it was no accident with Princess Diana . I do also beleive that it was planned and plotted . It has also been reported that there was intelligence that kept an eye on Diana and knew everything about her comings and goings . I still do not understand peoples hatred of Princess Diana . I sometimes wonder if it was jealousy . They were so jealous that hate came to play in this situation . Those are my thoughts . I do not care whatyou think about what I have stated . I just know it is sad in this day and age that people sit around and cut people down think hatred is the only way . If you take a look around you and see all the fighting and hatred . I also think that all the fighting resolves nothing . I also think that there are wounds left and that people never forget it either . So , in that respect no one wins . All that is is pain , sorrow , and loss life . Life is so short and is way to short for people . LIfe is a gift and it is sad when it is eaten up with anger and rage . The hatred and rage only affect you the person ( not you personally , I am saying everyone } . Princess Diana loved people and showed and helped people . She visited hospitals and noe example is a little girl who was ill . Diana visited her regularly . Life is way to short to be spending it hateing someone who tried to bring a smile or a caring hug to let them she cared . My views are different . That is what makes life more interesting . It would be boring if we all thought the same way and had the same views . I also think that the slamming being done to Princess Diana when she is not even here to defend herself is shameful . I think there needs to be some respect for her and let her rest in peace . It is ahameful to talk ill of the people who have died . That is my comments and what I think .
Look, it does not matter if the pictures are graphic or not. I think that a lot of you are losing sight of what is really important here. William and Harry have asked for photos of their mum dying not to be published.
Surly you can understand why, I mean to take a picture of someone dying and turn it into some sort of money making opportunity is wrong, OK Diana did use the media when she was alive, but she has been dead for nearly 9 years and the media had milked her memory for everything it’s worth.
Look at this from a human point of view, If my mum had died in a car crash and someone took a picture of her dying NOT DEAD but dying and put it on the internet. God.. I cant tell you how I would feel. It’s worse than having a naked picture of yourself on the web, At least then you can defend your self, But when it’s a picture of someone you love dying you must get a feeling of totally helplessness. You look at that picture and it‘s the moment in which you think something could have been done to save her maybe you could have saved her. And to take that turn it into some kind of morbid entertainment or a money machine is so wrong.
Forget that she was a public figure or a princess just stop for a second and just look at her as a human being, and trust me you’ll see that publishing these pictures was wrong.
Hm, to those who don’t understand what they read: I never said anything disrespectful, and definately not to JFK. And reguardless of waht anyone else might say (or block, etc) of me, I just do not see any conspiracy here (like I do with JFK). And one cannot forget that she was a public figure. That’s like asking us to forget that Clinton was a president (in office) when he did what he did. It ain’t gonna happen, that’s the way of it when you are a celeb or, in this case, a royal celeb. Such is life. If my own mother was in the picture, and she had been famous, maybe I would not like the pic being viewed as is, but at least I would understand the ways of this world we live in. For those who don’t understand, go watch the Zapruder film. Ask anyone who has grown up in the United States since 1963 if they have seen it at least once. Censorship is wrong, this pic isn’t even anywhere near close to as ‘gruesome’ as watching JFK not only get shot, but watching his head blow apart while his wife is trying to recover pieces from the back of the sedan. THAT’S graffic. A picture of a dying woman, entangled in a car, with someone trying to assist her with oxygen is not graffic. As said before, you can barely see anything as the picture is so dark anyhow. Once again I tell the people of the world to get over it. Such is life. One day we will be dying, it’s the natural course of things. If someone takes a pic of me at my time… wierd, but so be it.
I used to believe actually hoped Our Beloved Princess died as the results of an awful accident. BUT More and more there ARE unexplainable answers. Things just don’t add up!! Like whats the deal with Henri Paul’s blood mix up and no extra samples available?? And he was cremated ASAP. It could be for religious reasons but who knows. And Trevor Rees-Jones supposling knows more than he says Fearing for his own life.??? I too believe IF Diana was taken to the HOSPITAL ASAP she would of LIVED or at least had a BETTER chance for LIFE. Sad to say I have a feeling we will never know the REAL TRUTH. Thanks for letting me say my 2 cents. Jamie
The photo clearly shows that the Princess was not mortally injured. President Reagan suffered from the same internal injury and he survived because he was quickly taken to the hospital. The Princess was murdered in that ambulance and it was driven slowly on purpose. The ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT wanted the job completed and their tracks covered. All because that donkey eared mamby bamby baby wanted to marry that polo pony of his. May they all roast on a spit with an apple in their mouths.
Hmmm. A link to this blog posting has clearly appeared on some website or mailing list where people believe in the idea of a conspiracy behind Diana’s death.
Let me make it clear that I do not believe in any such conspiracy and that I do not consider my blog an appropriate place for people to outline their emotive beliefs and clear frustrations on this matter.
As such I will begin deleting comments of this type from this point on.
Kieren
Thank God! I for one certainly don’t subscribe to your blog to hear these sorts of theories. However, some of your new found readership might take the deleting as evidence of your being a twelve-foot lizard… good luck!
Neil, Falkirk
I don’t understand why everyone thinks that the royal establishment would want Diana dead. What the heck is the point of that. It isn’t like she was a bad person, or did anything remotely controversial (other than divorce), and it isn’t like she had direct control at all of the country, like a political assassination. I don’t understand peoples determination of a conspiracy. It was a fatal accident. A very sad and fatal accident. I’ve never read this blog myself until I searched for this photo, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the last couple days looking to see what people think and say on here. You might say I would like to be a regular, lol. Unfortunately I think Neil is right and people will condemn the removal of conspiracy theorists as proof of the conspiracy. There’s no way around that unfortunately.
Reguards,
Jeff
who is this women? still in the media after death ? we still cant stop talking about her, keeping in mind two days before she said to the media that there was a big surprize coming and then dead? living your life in the public eye 24/7 could you handle that? I would do the same if it was me I would stage my death so all the ppl on the planet did not know my every move and was not no the cover of every news paper and magazine. May be its time to let her have her PEACE living or dead.
Hi, thanks for mentioning my site! I wish I had a PhD. I did the Hersey paper for a night-school course I took ten (?) years ago when I was thinking about going for a Masters in History. But I gave that up - I’m doing the “daddy” thing instead. -Steve
No i dont think it is linked Kieren. It’s a shame that some very interesting aspects of this story are not appropriate for these comments. I’m no nutbag.. but some very shady details of the case have sparked my interest.
But of course will not share them for fear of my comment being deleted.
“Censorship and mob outrage are the enemies of logic and the tools of propagandists and crooks”
censorship and editing are in many ways very similar but there is a fundamental difference. Censorship seeks to wipe all trace of a particular viewpoint or belief. Editing on the other hand is used to condense an unbiased view from all angles into a suitable length without undue repetition. If you analyse the comments above you will see that Kieran has not deleted posts if he does not agree or like their viewpoint. He deletes posts to avoid a proliferation of repetitive arguments.
“Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.”
Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)
I can see why people seem to be ‘outraged’ by this photo but i can’t help but think it is a good thing for people (who choose to do so) to view it. Before i saw it, i thought it would be very gruesome and i’m glad it isn’t. She looks remarkably peaceful. I was a Nurse at the age of 17 and i think maybe this has helped me come to terms with death as i dealt with it on a daily basis.
I admittedly don’t know much about the ’staged death’ and the ‘royal establishment wanted her dead’ thing so if someone could post a site where i could read up on it, i would be greatful.
I don’t think the picture is “horrific” like I’ve been hearing. However, I don’t agree with the reason it was taken. It was taken by paparazzi trying to make a buck.
I totally agree with Karen. The picture its self isn’t as bad as I was expecting however its still really disrespectful to try and make some money off a tragic event such as this. It should be a crime.
I’m not really bothered about the Diana issue…I just think Kieren has a very salient point to make about the double standards within the politicised media, and between that media and the ‘entertainment’ media. We NEVER see the reality of war, we never see the true images and devastation which ‘liberating’ Iraq has created..but those sorts of images should be seen, if we are too be responsible for war, we should face up to the fact that children are killed in said war. Whereas images of glorified violence and death are used constantly and gratuitously in the entertainment industry..but because they use actors, means we can view those images for entertainment reasons..becoming desensitised and numbed to the implications of violence. Perhaps if we did see a few more depictions of real violence and less of glorified violence the world might be a more responsible and sensitive place?? But , then, perhaps the images of real violence would become entertainment rather than education and that would be very sick indeed, leading to less awareness, I’m not sure. But thanks for posting a sensible article, this topic is clearly one where some kind of debate is needed.
Whether or not the photo is “gruesome” or shows detail is not relevant. The fact is that the person who took the photo and all the other parasites out there who do that line of work were and are the direct cause of her death, her companion’s death as well as their driver’s death. Not to mention the pain and suffering they have caused to their families. The picture (s) - regardless should never have been allowed to have been printed.
And as far as people the world despises such as Sadam’s sons or for that matter the so called hanging video of Sadam himself. All in poor taste. But what is worse is that all of this shows a clear desensitization on a global, scale. As a world community we are no longer bothered by scenes of brutality or what was once called violent material; now it is all mainstream. Go to any grade school in the world and pop in a video displaying scenes of characters dying (heroes or innocents) and the response is horrifying - children actually laugh. The appropriate response would be to be sad. I have experienced this first hand on more than one occasion in more than one country. This is more than just about photo’s..
i think it is wrong what about william and harry.
I’ve only just discovered this after looking for an article about the up and coming Channel 4 documentary. This picture is indeed tame, but having lost someone and seeing that person dead I can appreciate both sides.
Death is taboo in the UK and their is little or no support for those that have lost someone. Trying to pick up the pieces and live on, but never being allowed to talk about it, only bottles up the grief and causes long term problems. I know I’ve been there. Sometimes, it helps to have closure too, so I can see the damage this picture could have on the family regardless of who she is. It keeps the feeling of loss and grief alive like an open wound. It doesn’t allow the family to heal or have closure, which they need in order to feel okay about being alive and being at all happy in their lives.
I agree with much of what you said and also agree on the double standards. Were a country that’s gone PC mad, but then doesn’t question parents who leave their two and three year old unattended whilst they wine and dine, and one of them gets abducted. Yes the doubles standards are shocking, bearing no logic or reason.
I can see both sides of this argument.
Other scenes of dead and dying people are published without comment, and are often much more shocking.
Some of this is censored from the main news, which keeps us from appreciationg the true horror of war.
I have felt that if pictures I have seen on the internet were shown on t.v. the war in Iraq would not last 5 more minutes.
On the other hand, we could become even more desensitised if that was the case…
As for Diana, I initially thought ‘what’s the harm?’.
Then I remembered, whilst reading these posts, that the whole reason why this was so sick and shocking was that the crash was CAUSED by endless hounding by photographers. Yes, she had courted it, but that just makes it even more chilling.
The ‘fairytale princess’ was clearly in one of the darker Brother’s Grimm tales after all- the ones that don’t have happy endings.
Just as an aside- I would like to comment that as a parent I can only conjecture that children’s reactions to death scenes would be highly dependant on context and presentation. To say that children inevitably laugh at that is so much hooey. I’m not calling you a liar- just questioning the circumstances on which you base your conclusion.
Hi Kieran - it might seem a tad ghoulish (of me) googling to find this last image of Diana. It was not intended. Channel 4 is planning to use it in its programme tomorrow night, and I wanted to see for myself whether it should be included. [And protest on their site]
In the event, she seems a lot more peaceful (and not obviously physically damaged) than could be gathered from media reports of the time… and the photo could be seen as proof that the medics were trying to help.
If it helps to give the paparazzi a conscience, then maybe it will have served a purpose. (I don’t quite subscribe to any conspiracy theories, but there are far too many not properly answered questions)
Euphrosene
look i live in england and not everyone in england agree,s about the royals i would say most people i no wish they would all die, they are just a drain on the ordinary people, they are the biggest land owners in the uk and own nearly one third of the british isle and gelously gaurd it from the rest of us their poor subjects…if only this country was free, you dont no how lucky you are in the states seriously because if you lived over here you would realise that only multi millionaires own any land in england most people live in tiny houses on sixth the size of a small house in the states. so enjoy your freedom to roam cause we are still fighting a seamingly endless battle just to walk in our own country side. thanks for reading and peace from nottingham (robin hood city)england.
There is a reason why the therm for annoying noisy photographer is the Italian “Paparazzo” or in plural “Paparazzi”. I am not surprised the Italians published this, then was followed by Channel 4. They have set a low bar lower.
I can see this link started a while back but I have only just come across it. I wanted to post some comments on another site, that of Channel 4. The station aired a documentary The Witnesses In The Tunnel and it caused a frenzy of replies by the public. The people’s voice should be heard but it is ironic that the media is quickly criticized for sensationalizing when individuals tend to over react themselves at certain things and pass quick judgment. It is true there are those who capitalize on pain and misfortune. There are paparazzi with apparently an absent moral ground. But without the images brought by journalists the public would be uninformed. Sometimes a tough decision has to be made on whether to publish an image or not. We run the risk of becoming desensitized to violence, the risk of even practicing voyeurism.
But think for a moment about the world we live in: things have changed. We live in the age of the reality show. Everything from Big Brother to Temptation Island seems to pry into the lives of individuals. I’m not advocating a lack of dignity and respect. What I’m advocating though is the need to bring real images to the world as important events unfold. If some journo didn’t risk his life in a war torn Iraq we would never have seen the horrors that such events bring with them. We would not have been moved by Mohamed the boy who lost his entire family and all his limbs through a bomb raid. Then we would not have been in a position to oppose the crimes that go on around us every day. Events can be described in words but pictures speak louder. An image can move you emotionally like nothing else.
In any case, I don’t see what the big deal was with the abovementioned Diana doco. The photo in regard published by Chi isn’t all that freakish. Why over react? I believe that we should be sensitive to the Diana’s boys and to her loved ones but I don’t understand how the specific image disrespects the Princess. I think that William and Harry would want to see the final moments of their mum, if the photos capturing them aren’t graphic. Maybe it is saddening, I don’t know if it would be damaging or cathartic to the sons of Diana as I am no psychologist.
However let’s not be hypocrites. We want to know what goes on in the world. We tune in to watch telecasts because we can’t be directly there when events unfold. The main issue is to retain morality and humanity throughout it all. As someone else commented, we have seen hundreds of pictures of people suffering, are they less human than a princess was? If we had not seen the severity of the torture the Iraqi prisoners of war were subjected to by forces on assignment, we would have not united as a race to retaliate.
I understand that Diana’s accident is somewhat different to a war crime, but for Heaven’s sake people, if you really oppose invasion of privacy then turn off your TV sets when BB is on and let the networks know how you truly feel about this new age of infotainment. Don’t have double standards!
Maria, I agree with a lot of what you typed, however: The reason this image is disrespectful is that, besides denying the wishes of the children — who requested such images to NOT be published, it is the way it is presented.
It isn’t done in a way that is unbiased and with objectivity; it is not done in a way where it is inside the pages of a book showing pictures detailing the accident and trying to piece the whole story together.
The picture is of a dying Diana, who although outwardlly seemed unharmed, but in fact horribly so inside, is used as a way to make more sells. The image is glorified as “L’ultima foto” on a magazine cover for easy access.
Had it been presented differently, with a respectful picture of Diana, with perhaps a picture of the wrecked car as an inset, and presented as more insights into her death … although there may still be some outcry the picture was still published, it would probably have met with much less criticism … and perhaps less sales or publicity in the minds of the publishers.
The magazine only had one intent: to make money off the death of a beloved icon in as sensational manner as possible.
So to anyone who reads this, whether one believes she was murdered or not, or acknowledges there are indeed unanswered questions surrounding it, the picture in question isn’t so much objectionable as the method used to publish it. Autopsy photos of JFK, Marilyn Monroe, and other icons in our history are out there, but in my knowledge those images aren’t used as cover spots.
Similar is the notorious coffin picture of Elvis on the cover of another tabloid magazine, which may or may not be less ghoulish, for lack of a better word, the real problem is not only that the media publications have no qualms about using someone’s death as a means to make money … and the fact that there are people who will buy such material readily.
It can be established then, that this magazine sought to profit and exploit a human being’s death, so let us move on to a bigger task of not allowing those who would do such a thing to profit. Don’t buy the tabloids that hunt down stars and give them no peace; don’t fuel the need to find out if such and such a star or figure used one or two ply toilet paper today, but find a way to use “uncomfortable” images as a way to desensitize one’s view of a war, or to show more truth to a subject, war or otherwise –even if it is difficult in our Photoshopped world to do so.