Monday, July 31, 2017

Princess Diana … and so called voyeurism

b) Princess Diana's friends urge Channel 4 not to show 'private' tapes
c) Princess Diana's brother Earl Spencer 'begs' Channel 4 not to air new documentary
d) Channel 4 Diana documentary condemned as 'exploitative' and 'hurtful'

It is highly bemusing to witness the fuss and furor being made in the UK about the media proposing to broadcast “sensitive” stuff about the late Princess. There is a clarion call of condemnation. It is claimed that such “voyeurism” into the personal life of the good lady is bad, unacceptable, even contemptible.
Now please do what I have done. Sit back, clear your mind, take a deep breath and think it through.
Diana was a member of the royal family. That family enjoys “a cradle to grave” life of truly fabulous proportions at public expense, no more, no less.
Is the public then not entitled to know what they are up to?
Is the public not entitled to know what it is paying for?
Is the public not entitled to the “whole truth” about these very expensive dependents?

With respect, it is simply impossible to answer any of these questions other than in the affirmative.
The seemingly silly adage that “he who pays the piper calls the tune” does actually have application here. No doubt whatsoever!
In addition, it is a hard reality that the royal family very understandably postures that it is doing a good job and is deserving of its fabulous privileges. So it has very efficient and effective public relations capacity to assure and re-assure the general public that its money is well spent and not being wasted.
The reason why we know all the good things  Diana did was because she and her PR office made sure that we were informed of this.

At one time  Diana went on record in a long interview revealing really intimate details about herself, her life, her then husband Prince Charles, the state of their marriage and just about everything and anything to seduce the general public to empathise with her, love her more and accept that she was really a good person.
It worked. We all loved her more for coming over as this fragile but really beautiful human being.
Now on what basis exactly can it be claimed that an interest in the “whole truth” about all this is unseemly prying into a private life? Why is it to be regarded as a morbid curiosity? Why is the flow of information about Dianna our business only when it is good but not so when it is bad? How can the “whole truth” ever be a bad thing?
How can it possibly be morbid voyeurism??
It is a simple truism that those in public office are accountable. They are accountable dead or alive. That is why the good, bad and ugly of all historical leaders is routinely published, examined, discussed and judged by all and sundry.

The other analogy is that of film stars. They expect pubic acceptance and adulation. They profit greatly from this. Not for a moment do we accept that this lot can then hide their sins. We insist that if they want to be up there, as stars, they need to deserve it and there must be no hidden nonsense going on.
So when one considers the matter of Dianna dispassionately it becomes obvious that there really can be no censorship regarding information in her regard.
I would agree that the “bad” news about her visits pain on her undeserving children. However that is the case for all of us. What our parents do or omit to do hits us as part of life’s challenges. They cannot be spared this just for being royals.

For my part, I accept that everybody and just about everything is made up of “good, bad and ugly”. That is the reality.
There really is no problem about loving  Diana, not for being some sort of imagined Saint, but for having far more good than bad and ugly.

Free counters!