The recent furore over Channel Four’s decision to include a photographic image of the late Princess of Wales dead in her Mercedes car in Paris, as part of a documentary about her death, has raised a number of issues. Concerns have been aired about the appropriateness of showing her dead (or close to death). Indeed, my own Party has called for Channel Four to change its decision and remove the offending image from the final cut of the documentary, citing concerns over the adverse impact upon Princes William and Harry.

On June 8th, 1972, almost exactly 35 years before the date scheduled for the showing of the Channel 4 documentary about the death of Diana, the picture above was taken by Associated Press (AP) photographer, Nick Ut. It earned him the Pulitzer Prize. The photograph showed Phan Kim Phúc, a naked 9 year old girl, running towards the camera fleeing a napalm attack near Trang Bang during the Vietnam War. Phúc sustained third-degree burns to half her body (mainly her back) and was not expected to live. But thanks to the assistance of Nick Ut, and after surviving a 14-month hospital stay and 17 operations, she became an outspoken peace activist. Interestingly, an editor at the AP initially rejected the photo of Kim Phúc running down the road without clothing because it showed frontal nudity. Pictures of nudes of all ages and sexes, and especially frontal views, were not then allowed at the Associated Press. Eventually, after much argument, the New York photo editor, Hal Buell, agreed that the news value of the photograph overrode any reservations about nudity. This chilling, yet impressive, photograph encapsulated the awful reality of the war in Vietnam. It was taken at a time when public opinion had shifted firmly against continued American involvement. Undeniably, it contributed further to the deep unease felt about the military engagement. On reflection, to have not published the photograph would have been a further crime.

The power of this photograph to change minds in a pre-24 hour news media age was truly remarkable. It is that very power that can lead to photographic censorship. There are many arguments against showing images of the dead Princess of Wales. The most persuasive have concentrated on respecting the privacy of her death. Those pleas to protect her family are, sadly, less convincing. Neither Kim Phúc herself, nor her family, were asked about the use of Ut’s photograph. Arguably, it was more intrusive. However, to have not published the image would have been to sanitise the reality of that dreadful incident. And this is the nub of the issue. Who decides whether the publication of a particular picture is justifiable? Who determines the public interest? Who can predict the impact of a photograph upon public opinion?

I, for one, wish that images of Princess Diana trapped in her car did not exist. They do and are easily accessible on the net. An argument could be made that they were taken in an attempt to satisfy the public’s insatiable demand for images of this woman. For those that had chased her to her death to have taken such photos is difficult to stomach, however, before we become too morally judgemental about the paparazzi’s behaviour, we must ask ourselves why there was such a demand for pictures of her with her new boyfriend? What does it say about our society?

Censoring the images may be more about assuaging our own collective guilt for her death than about protecting the Princes from the awful reality of their mother’s end. By airing the images, Channel Four may aid those of us who want to see more decency, respect for individual privacy and less emphasis on celebrity culture. Rather like the awful photograph of a burning Vietnamese child, the terrible images of the last moments of the Princess may bring about positive change through a re-evaluation of our society’s moral standards.

….is a sign of inherent weakness

– King George V