Sir, - As I witness the reporting of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the backlash against the so-called paparazzi, I am bemused at the defence of their intrusiveness as a product of the public's appetite for any expose of Diana's private life. Whether we like it or not, there are voyeuristic tendencies in us all. Even if one was not compelled to buy the tabloid with the "hot from the camera" picture of Diana's latest kiss or cuddle, we all, I suggest, had an ogle. But while I accept that is part of our nature I cannot accept that we, the public, are responsible for the sick monster that has grown in our midst over the past few decades - the "gutter press".
The media moguls are primarily responsible. They prey on human weakness to sell papers and, in their blinkered drive to stay on top of the gutter press mountain, they pay increasingly large sums to the paparazzi to provide the catch. One picture can set up a member of this hunting cadre for life. The large sums being paid for these pictures creates a hunting frenzy which eventually destroys the lives of their prey.
I do not know the detailed circumstances of Diana's death. Nor do I know whether or not the paparazzi had any direct hand in her demise. I do know that during her short life Diana was highly sought-after prey, hounded to the end.
We have adequate if not good laws to protect us from misrepresentation through the written word. We have nothing comparable when it comes to photography. If a picture paints a thousand words, it does so by its snap-shot representation of people in circumstances that can only be accurately represented by a full understanding of the dynamic of that moment of their lives. Without this, the thousand words it paints are all in the viewers' mind. Placed in the pages of a newspaper accompanied by suggestive text, it becomes a tool to manipulate our interpretation. In this way pictures can be a form of libel or slander. We must strive toward better regulation. We must challenge the arguments against regulation.
A legal remedy providing the opportunity to challenge a photograph after it has been published on the grounds of intruding on a person's privacy is not futile. It would serve as a deterrent. This, coupled with restrictions on the amounts of money a newspaper could pay for a photograph would serve to reduce the intensity of the photographers' hunting-frenzy. I hope that this tragic event serves to give urgent impetus to this debate.
Finally I would like to extend my sincere condolences to Diana's family and to the families of the others whose lives were lost in this tragedy. - Yours, etc., F.J.CONATY,
Norwood Park,
Dublin 6.