Should The Sun Have Printed The Naked Prince Harry Pictures?
Author: Mack Rawden
published: 2012-08-24 02:47:37
Britain’s tabloids might stereotypically be known for their willingness to say and do almost anything to sell copies, but for three long days, not a single one published the naked pictures of Prince Harry. A spokesman for the Palace asked all newspapers in the United Kingdom refrain from showing the Prince’s behind under threat of lawsuit, but after much deliberation, The Sun finally decided to run the scandalous pictures.
Along with the photographs, the outlet made a case for why publishing the shots was the right play. Essentially, editor David Dinsmore’s argument boils down to this: every paper in Britain wrote articles commented on the pictures. They were widely available on foreign websites on the Internet, and since 77% of British households have the Internet, it’s safe to assume the majority looked at the pictures. Consequently, it was unfair for the Palace to pretend the shots were private when everyone had already seen them, especially considering how little precautions Harry took to keep his wild weekend a secret.
”We believe Harry has compromised his own privacy. These are not pictures of him and a girlfriend at Balmoral. The Prince was in Vegas, the party capital of a country with strong freedom-of-speech laws, frolicking in the pool before inviting strangers to his hotel room for a game of strip billiards.”
Of course, there’s clearly a financial reason for The Sun to publish the photos too. Whether they’re right or wrong morally, more people will buy the paper since it’s splashed with Prince Harry in his naked glory. Still, I’m actually kind of on board with this argument.
What about you? Do you think The Sun should have published the pictures, or should its editors have taken the classier approach and followed the Palace’s orders? Let us know your thoughts by voting in the poll below…
Should The Sun Have Printed The Pictures?
For more questions of the day, head here.