Annotated Bibliography

 ‘The surge in celebrity interest - more than 2 million copies of celebrity magazines are now sold in the UK each week. "I cannot think of time when we've been more celebrity-obsessed," says Jacqueline Young, a lawyer at Russell Jones & Walker.’ ( Tait, N., 2002) It is not uncommon for journalist of today to breach both an individual’s or a whole corporation’s privacy for the sakes of a sake. This annotated bibliography will explore three various news reports surround Prince Harry’s nude scandal. It will discuss how the incident was reported differently throughout the media, how it was seen as a privacy violation to the Royal family and the minority of the public and ultimately, how the majority of the public felt they deserved to see the images.  The mediums analysed include reports from newspapers Mail Online, The Sun, a video interview from The Telegraph and an Article from journalist, Nikki Tait.

Tait, N. (2002). Celebrity versus public interest, FT.com, pp 1-1. Retrieved from:

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/docview/228710244?accountid=14723

The author of this article, Nikki Tait, is journalist for the Financial Times (UK). Because of her extensive prior experience in the field of journalism this is a credible source. The article focuses on the media using public interest over human’s rights when reporting a story on a celebrity.  She also covers that when most celebrities have taken legal action against the media, they have lost due to ‘loop holes’ in the privacy laws. The article does present figures and scenarios that support the view that breaching this privacy is acceptable for news. Some judges claimed that photographs accompanying a story are legitimate and even an essential part of the journalistic package (Tait, N,. 2002). The article also presents the notion that because of public interest in celebrity life is so high, it is the public’s right to be thoroughly informed of what is happening to celebrities, even if it is invasive and does break human right acts.  

Sun Says (Personal Communicator) (2012) The Sun Publishes Photos of Naked Prince Harry The Sun. Retrieved from: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/4502239/Prince-Harry-Vegas-Pictures-The-Sun-publishes-photos-of-naked-Prince.html

The Sun personnel speaks on behalf of the whole newspaper when they claim that they have published naked images of Prince Harry despite warnings from the Royal Family’s lawyers. This source seems less creditable due to the unknown author or authors and the experience they have in the field of Journalism. However, the article does present in depth research such as statistics such as 77% of British house holds with internet access could see these images before they published them and quotes. The Murdoch – owned paper said ‘Harry has compromised his own privacy’ due to his royal status and scandalous behavior when the image was taken. In an attempt to suit the desires of the public, as these images were previously posted online, the article claims ‘we are posting the article because we think Sun readers have a right to seem them” and to those who don’t have internet access ‘Taking full part in the national conversation’. However they also affirm they are not making any moral judgments about Harry, suggesting that it is less invasive of the Prince’s privacy. Because of the push for the public to know, audiences will be much more willing to read The Sun over other newspapers, as they feel they ‘deserve and have a personal right to’. In conclusion, this can be seen as invasive reporting as Harry was on private property and the Royal family had warned the newspaper prior to publishing.

Unknown author, (2012) Max Clifford: The Sun publishing photos of Prince Harry naked is 'clearly an invasion of privacy' The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/9496616/Max-Clifford-The-Sun-publishing-photos-of-Prince-Harry-naked-is-clearly-an-invasion-of-privacy.html

A short interview with Max Clifford conducted by The Telegraph, is a very credible source as it is presented in a video, filming Clifford’s responses. Clifford claims that because of what he contributes to society, an event like this would not affect his popularity. He also claims that to him, it is an invasion of privacy and he was in a private suite attending a private party. However, he did say that it is unfair that the British public was banned from seeing it, again putting forth the public interest notion and that Britain should have access to the photos.  This article differs from The Sun as it does recognize that those images are of Prince Harry’s privacy, but again like the previous article, enforce the view the public still deserve to see the images therefore making the breach is considered ethical, for the good of the public. This approach could be suited to some as it is from a company not owned by Murdoch and presents a different medium and point of view.

Robinson, M (2012) Wall of Silence From the Palace: Despite threats to stop the British press printing naked Harry photos it has not complained over Sun front page, Mail Online. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193122/Prince-Harry-Vegas-pictures-Palace-complained-Sun-page.html

Like the previous article, the author of this piece, Martin Robinson is an experienced journalist. This report presents another side to the public, which thinks the images of harry were an invasion of privacy as more than 850 people had officially complained about The Sun putting naked images of Harry on the front page.  The image also explains how The Sun went against the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) guidelines and how the Royals emphasized their views on the pictures going public. However, despite supporting that it was an invasion of privacy, the article still finds a way to get the reader to view the images. Without showing the images, the writer describes the images of Harry in such detail; it makes the reader curious to see the images, which are conveniently hyperlinked below. This angle of the story appears to be in Harry’s favour as it is acknowledging that his privacy was breached, but when looking deeper, the undertones of the story are no different to other views due to hyperlinks attached to the text. The reporting of the incident is different as they were not the original newspaper to release the images.

Unquestionably, it is clear that a celebrity’s privacy is sacrificed for Journalism and the desire of public interest, even if it breaches human right acts and the PPC . The Prince Harry nude scandal is a great example of this as he was on private property, attending a private party, yet the public felt they had a right to see the images. This desire can be seen across of number of newspaper articles, outlining that their readers feel that have a right to see images of a Naked Prince Harry, especially because it was available on the net first.