We can all agree that Prince Harry is a wild card. A good boy with a self-destructive streak. Not unlike his mother’s brother, Charles Spencer, who had a knack for grabbing the attention of the tabloids in his day, too.
And for the record, it is clearly not true what they say about What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas. Somewhere in New York City, a marketing team is already at work on a new catchy slogan, one that will undoubtedly capitalize on some Royal’s Highness.
No matter how many times you say it, this generation of 20-30 somethings just don’t seem to grasp the threat that booze and camera phones pose.
One columnist suggested that Prince Harry’s indiscretion would only endear him even more to the general public. I can’t speak for the rest of you but public nudity has never endeared anyone to me. The few times I’ve seen it, I’ve turned and headed in the other direction. The only emotion I have for such people is one of pure humiliation, something these 20-30 somethings don’t seem to know anything about either.
I can’t speak for all of England but I think it is safe to say here in America showing one’s arse in public has become standard fare. Politicians do it. (Rep. Akin comes to mind) Celebrities do it. (Lady Gaga) And even toddlers do it. (Honey Boo-Boo).
Snooki and her Jersey Shore castmates have even made a good living exploiting their own foolishness. The Kardashians have followed suit.
So it’s not all that surprising that when Prince Harry showed up dog-hump nekkid on TMZ.com, the general public barely blinked.
Americans are bored. If it’s their attention you seek, you’ll have to do something far more outlandish than strip off your royal BVDs. We’ve become so acclimated to people pimping themselves out for five minutes of fame on Facebook that a little white hiney doesn’t warrant a yawn from us.
So far only one British tabloid has dared to run the nude photos — The Sun. Claiming a “clear public interest” (previously referred to as voyeurism), editors for the paper said that the photos will help the public have a more informed debate about Harry’s full frontal.
Besides The Sun’s editors maintained the Prince, third in line to the throne, compromised his own privacy.
They do have a point there.
If you are going to act the fool in Vegas, or anywhere else there is cell phone reception, don’t be surprised when you make the morning news.
This especially holds true if you happen to be famous already. You know what they say — One chap’s nekkidness is a tabloid’s financial gain.
The Press Complaint’s Commission is threatening to investigate The Sun.
Go right ahead, says Sun managing editor David Dinsmore. He said the decision was an issue of freedom of the press. “This is about the ludicrous situation where a picture can be seen by hundreds of millions of people around the world on the internet, but can’t be seen in the nation’s favourite paper read by eight million people every day.”
Harry’s tinky-winky has become a matter of public debate (something you’d think everyone would want to avoid, Royal or Commoner.)
Some say the PCC ought to take action against The Sun for exposing Prince Harry’s indiscretion.
Others maintain that censorship would be a threat to Freedom of Speech. Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie says, “People should stop worrying about privacy and start worrying about what free speech will mean to this country if the Levesons and the Camerons of this country have their way.”
Of course MacKenzie has a troubling journalistic history of his own. So he might not make the best spokesman about the ethics of Free Speech, given his reported propensity of making stuff up.
What about you?
Did you root around on the web searching for the photos?
Should Harry be punished for his bad boy behavior? Or is Harry being given too much exposure by The Sun?