Papers query ethics of siege of Lady Diana

Press, 28 November 1980, Page 7

Papers query ethics of siege of Lady Diana

By

JOHN WITHEROW

of “The Times” (through NZPA) London It may be some small consolation for Lady Diana Spencer that the departure of the Prince of Wales to India and Nepal for three weeks should herald a respite from the overwhelming attention of the media. After weeks of finding that a stroll to the corner shop attracts the kind of attention usually reserved for a Royal film premiere she is no doubt yearning for the anonymity of once again being a kindergarten teacher. The press and television believe it unlikely that an engagement will be announced or denied while the Prince is abroad and the siege of her flat and school should be lifted.

Speculation about her relationship with the Prince has brought Lady Diana under immense pressure and raised questions about the validity of such ruthless hcunding. She was quoted recently as telling a journalist living in the same block of flats that “the whole thing hasj got out of control ... I am not so much bored as l

miserable. Everywhere I go there is someone there . . . If I go to a restaurant or just out shopping in the supermarket they are trying to take p h o t flgraphs.” Photographers have surrounded her flat, she has been interrogated in the street, on park benches, in her car, and on the telephone: her every move has been followed and significance read into the most routine comment. An official at Buckingham Palace said some of the treatment was very shoddy and had “degraded the whole trade of journalism.” A report in the “Sunday Mirror” that Lady Diana had secretly met the Prince on the Royal train in the London Country outraged the Queen whose press secretary Mr Michael She demanded an apology from the newspaper. The editor refused but agreed to publish Mr Shea’s letters.

The Press Council this week said it would take no immediate action in the absence of any complaint over the report “We are getting very fed up with inaccurate and invented stories in relation to members of the Royal family,” Mr Shea commented.

The “Daily Mail” in an editorial added an element Ci dog-eat-dog: “Most newspapers have tried to behave responsibly and not hurt a likeable and innocent young girl. In publishing his unappetising Royal train scandal story, Mr Edwards (the editor of the “Sunday Mirror”) has brought the whole media coverage into disrepute.” Mr David English, editor of the “Daily Mail” said he was planning to reduce every-day coverage of Lady Diana. “I think we should leave her alone until there is some significant development Much of the coverage is conditioned reflex and has become embarrassing with the harassment she is receiving.” Mr Paul Hopkins, London West editor of the down-mar-ket tabloid “Daily Star,” felt compelled to remove his photographers last week after one newshound tried to climb into Lady Diana’s school through a lavatory window. “We will not be involved in the scrum,” he said. But, he added: “She is a valid news story. Although we feel sorry for her, it is something that must be done.”