•  
  •  
  •  

Was it too over-the-top? Did otherwise good journalists toss their cred, or do all those eyeball-rollers need to loosen up? And, most importantly, did the Toronto Sun cross the line with Kate's "Marilyn" moment? We wade through thousands of articles so you won't have to.

Was it too over-the-top? Did otherwise good journalists toss their cred, or do all those eyeball-rollers need to loosen up? And, most importantly, did the Toronto Sun cross the line with Kate's "Marilyn" moment? We wade through thousands of articles so you won't have to.

In 1986, internationally-renowned Canadian photographer Peter Bregg took a shot of the Queen in Hong Kong. A gust of wind exposed a twee more skin than the normal Royal ankle. The photo caused some sensation in London, remembers Bregg, with one tabloid running it with the headline: Nice Gams Mamm. "My photo," he adds, "is tame by comparison to the Kate photo."

No doubt. In an otherwise tasteful week-long catalogue of what-Kate-wore, her so-called Marilyn moment stands out. That photo, taken by QMI Agency's national photographer Andre Forget and published in the Toronto Sun, shows Kate Middleton's exposed derriere in Calgary.

"As her bright yellow skirt skittered, the former Catherine Elizabeth Middleton hastily reached for the hem in a bid to stall a cheeky exposé," writes the Sun's Ian Robertson, in the accompanying article, "Despite her quick efforts, the wayward wind revealed the leggy royal brunette was wearing a thong beneath her frock."

Tellingly, the Sun waited until Saturday — two full days after the photo was taken and after the Canadian Royal tour had ended — to publish the article. It has since been pulled from the Sun's website — without explanation.

Indeed, in a Canadian Press article examining the Sun's decision to publish the photo — and the subsequent reaction — Toronto Sun editor-in-chief James Wallace stands by his choice. Not only was the shot compelling and newsworthy, he says, "We promis[e] our readers news with edge and attitude they don't get elsewhere, and that's what we do every day."

Edgy, perhaps, but not everybody agrees the shot was newsworthy. Plenty of readers were outraged and other publications with similar shots, such as the Canadian Press, who said the only purpose of doing printing the photo be to embarrass the Duchess, chose not to run with them.

"The young couple captured the hearts of many and by accounts I have seen all media coverage has been gushingly positive," says Bregg, "One might think that choosing to run the photo after they had left Canada would be an indication that some editors found the photo objectionable enough to hold … I would think we would not run such a photo of our mothers or our daughters if we were making  the choice."

Even so, he adds, it's important to remember the photographer was just doing his job: "Decision to publish rests with the editors who answer to publishers and readers."

(For the record, Forget has said he didn't notice the shot until he was reviewing his photos after he had sent it and others to editors. The shot, he told the Sun, "all happened within two or three seconds.")

So, what about all the other coverage?

As Bregg said, gushingly positive — not to mention abundant. Between Canadian and American media thousands and thousands of articles were printed on the Royal visit, most of them dedicated to what Kate wore (maple leaf fascinator: a hit. Not putting on the white cowboy hat: a flop. Or was it? Articles are dedicated to both), or how down-to-earth and in-love the newlyweds appeared (William played street hockey in Yellowknife! They joked around after William beat Kate in a dragon boat race! They're just like us!), or how much they loved Canada ("William and Kate vow to return to 'beautiful' Canada").

Then there's "Prince Charming vs. Prince Charles: William and Kate have wowed Canadians and many would just rather King the kid", published in the Toronto Sun, and also an exception to the lovefest, but also: "All Glamour aside, being a royal is a tough job" published by Postmedia, which considers the dangers of being a terrorist target.

So, was it all over-the-top? You won't have to look far to find a journalist that says it was — or to find somebody who says the eyeball-rollers need to lighten up. Which side are you?