Kate

Discussion in 'Media' started by Flanders, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    This is one classy lady:

    [​IMG]

    Kate is no deer caught in the headlights like her late mother-in-law. Her face tells me she is smart enough not to be surprised by anything, and tough enough to handle it.

    The flap in France about running photos showing Kate below the neck should not be a trivial thing to Americans because Europe has different rules; rules designed to accommodate the paparazzi.

    In this country a photo has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of the press because there were no cameras when the US Constitution was ratified. I’d sure like to hear the media argue that the Founders would approve.

    The “living, breathing, document” crowd in this country would probably allow media ghouls to run pictures without the subject’s consent; the more embarrassing the better.

    To me, the media should have to pay to run images of anybody. Pay means negotiate. Even people in TV clips who appear in a crowd scene should be compensated. The way it stands now TV news shows get images for free. Isn’t getting something for nothing the very essence of the welfare state?

    Finally, smart people know that Kate above the neck is what counts.
     
  2. blastoff
    Offline

    blastoff Undocumented Reg. User

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13,587
    Thanks Received:
    1,717
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    In a galaxy far far away...
    Ratings:
    +4,665
    Kate seems like a decent person even though she decided to marry into the dysfunctional Royals, but if she's going to be outside topless, no matter where, she's gotta be smart enough to know there's a good chance some snoop with a telephoto lens might be lurking within range.

    Best thing to do IMO would have been to just ignore the photos and it would have blown over fairly quickly, but getting the courts involved only serves to hype the incident.
     
  3. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Blaming the victim.... curious - and intellectually vacuous - stance.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. blastoff
    Offline

    blastoff Undocumented Reg. User

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13,587
    Thanks Received:
    1,717
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    In a galaxy far far away...
    Ratings:
    +4,665
    LOL...duly noted.

    Edited note: Perhaps to help make someone's day in here...Vacuous: emptied of or lacking content...marked by lack of ideas or intelligence: stupid, inane...devoid of serious occupation: idle.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2012
  5. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    To blastoff: I see your point, but I think Kate is doing the right thing. If nothing else she is entitled to the money the paparazzo got, not to mention a sizable chunk of the dough the newspaper will make.

    Frankly, I never understood why every country punishes criminals for stealing material things while they allow crooks to steal a person’s image? You might even say that the press is guilty of buying stolen property.

    Incidentally, primitive natives who believe a photograph steals their souls might be onto something.

     
  6. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587

Share This Page