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?
Royal coverage: The good, the bad, and the crass
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?
Lauren McKeon
July 15, 2011
Just IMO. We were going to
Just IMO. We were going to and may still see a lot of great things from Kate in terms of worthy work for world issues. Kate and William have a chance to really do something – something special – in the world. Why try to degrade Kate in this way.
It's easy for jounalists to turn her into a clown, harder for us to pursue poignant stories that contribute to the social good and honor Kate and William as human beings. Sure, the pic was captured. But the discretion existed NOT to show to the world.
Go to porn sites if you want to see some skin. Leave Kate alone. Toronto Star, she's not your play-thing. She's William's wife and the world's hope for better future.
July 15, 2011
To the above commenter Diane
To the above commenter Diane Walsh:
It was the Toronto SUN not the Star, thank you.
As for the photo, it occurs to me that, even if the shot was accidental, not intentional, or whatever, everybody could tell Kate was having trouble keeping that flimsy skirt down in the wind. I chalk her wardrobe choice up to inexperience.
However, a veteran photographer shooting from behind knew damn well what he was doing and there is no way that shot could have happened unless Forget was 4 feet tall.
Calling it a "Marilyn Moment" is also disingenuous since, when Marilyn did it, it was a carefully staged shot, part of a movie script. This was totally inadvertent on Kate's behalf.
This was not news but blatant exploitation. But then The Sun is very good at that.
July 15, 2011
I’m not so much exercised by
I'm not so much exercised by the Sun's decision to run a cheesecake photo–what's new with that?–as by James Wallace attempting to justify it with a boast of the paper's 'attitude' and 'edge'. That 'attitude' is 'knee-jerk', which is a very easy pose to strike, and any 'edge' the Sun has is on the back of the knife, not the part that cuts anything. The Sun's mission has always been to confirm its readers in the attitudes they already have, and do to so, one might say, 'bluntly'.
July 17, 2011
I’m amazed at how much
I'm amazed at how much knowledge so many people have regarding the contents of the ToronTo Sun. These are the same people who will tell you publicly, they only know the Sun by the front page headlines they read through the locked newspaper box on every street corner.
And, if it please the purists. Kate and Will are famous human beings, nothing more. They've had their spats, and arguably there will be more. I seriously doubt their tiffs will be over pictures taken in public, regardless of how crass they may seem in the minds of some.
July 17, 2011
I’m amazed at how clued in
I'm amazed at how clued in people are to the content inside the Toronto Sun.Anyone I know swears the on info they garner from the Sun is the headlines they can read through the newspaper boxes stationed at every corner.
With respect to our famous couple Will and Kate. That is what they are, a famous couple, nothing else. They've had their spats and breakups like many other couples and probably will have tiffs in the future. But I hardly suspect they will duke it out or even give second thought to pictures taken of them at work. A job that requires meeting the public under the silliest of circumtances.
July 19, 2011
“What is [m]ajest[y], when
“What is [m]ajest[y], when stripped of its externals, but a jest?” Edmund Burke