The press fail to take accountability for their actions in 'The Princess'

'You can't turn the paparazzi on and off '

As always, the paparazzi choose not to see the impact of their intrusive tactics on those in the spotlight in HBO Max documentary The Princess.

The Princess poster
Credit: Yahoo News

Prior to Diana Spencer being formally engaged to Prince Charles, the press was at her door questioning her closely about what marriage to the Prince of Wales would mean. Even then Diana knew not to tell the enquiring journalists much.

25 years after her unfortunate death there are an inordinate number of documentaries focused on the life and death of Princess of the Wales. Spoilt for choice and questioning the motivations behind every documentary, I choose the one I saw first, The Princess directed by Ed Perkins.

Perkins film unsurprisingly has no interviews with people in or close to the royal family sharing their love for Lady Di, instead it is crafted from paparazzi footage (obtained at all costs) and public appearances by the royal family.

The overzealous nature of the press meant that the British public were aware of every aspect of Charles and Diana’s private life. They were as a result more than willing to offer their thoughts on their ‘marriage of convenience.’

Despite it being evident that the press was a catalyst to Diana’s decision to take a step away from her public role, blame is thrown on all parties involved. 

Members of the public chastise the journalists that they are able to come in contact with about their unethical pursuing of Diana. But over time their opinion of Lady Di sour as they argue the Princess of Wales enjoys the attention, allying with the press. 61% of the country polled later agreed that Charles is still fit to be king in spite of allegations that he was having an affair with married friend Camilla Parker Bowles, his current wife. 

The press also claims ‘the buck stops with the reader’ attempting to explain that they do what they do because people want to see it.

This was a belief that I previously held. Paparazzi wouldn’t take these pictures if people didn’t want to see them and this I don’t think is wholly incorrect; however I’ve seen too many documentaries now where photographers have overvalued their career and their role in these celebrities lives to believe they seek these images just for the public.

 In Framing Britney Spears, the photographer who captured the viral video of Britney attacking his car with an umbrella, Daniel Ramos, claimed that Britney wanted to be photographed that she liked the attention. He glossed over the large sums of money he garnered for every Brittney photo and his constant pursuit of ‘a money shot’. 

Like The Princess of Wales, Britney Spears’s boundaries were invaded on a regular basis by the press and this was a contributing factor to her decreasing presence in the public eye. 

25 years, one biopic and at least 11 documentaries later the press is still defining how we see Diana, making it seem like much hasn’t changed. 

You could argue that 25 years later that the press has become less intrusive of people in the public eye and perhaps the disbandment of the News of The World would support your idea. 

But Megan Markle’s recent court case against the Mail on Sunday as well as her and Prince Harry deciding to relocate to America where they are less popular media fodder tells me that the privacy of the royal family and public figures alike is still non- existent in the eyes of the press.