It’s time to step up our protests against intrusive pictures of public people in their private moments.

Celebrities deserve more off-duty privacy

This week we have seen two examples of shameful media intrusion and outright hypocrisy.

The first is the publication of pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge’s royal baby bump, revealed while she was wearing a bikini on a private holiday.

As I’ve written before, we must ensure that we give Kate, and her husband Prince William, enough privacy to enable them to stay sane amid unprecedented global scrutiny.

Given that they are both more than adequately fulfilling their public roles, I think it’s time to give them a little more privacy off-duty.

There is a difference, I think, between snapping them walking along a public road while shopping, and hunting them down on a private island with a lens longer than an arm.

But it’s the hypocrisy that has accompanied the publication of the pictures that really annoys me.

Who, for instance, covered the story this week with the headline: “Leave Kate Alone! The expectant royal couple’s privacy plea is ignored as new photo scandal breaks”.

And yet the Who story reproduces the cover of Star magazine, clearly showing the bikini baby-bump pics, as well as the cover of Chi magazine showing the naked Duchess shots from earlier in the year.

Who notes that the publication of the naked shots promoted a “global furore” and caused “humiliation to Kate”, but yet it is happy to prominently display the very same photos – albeit pixelated of course.

Just wait for next week when Woman’s Day, which is understood to have paid $150,000 for the full set of bikini baby bump pics, hits the news

The same hypocrisy is shown in Woman’s Day’s treatment of the photos of radio and TV host Chrissie Swan.

Swan, who is pregnant with her third child, was snapped taking a drag on a cigarette in her car outside work by a paparazzo.

Woman’s Day outbid Swan’s managers and bought the pics for $53,000, and then nastily put one on their cover with the headline: “Chrissie Swan: The photos that saved my life”.

A beaming pregnant Swan is pictured next to the shots of her smoking in the car, giving the very misleading impression that she has consented to the story and is grateful to the magazine. What total rot.

Swan has admitted that the taking of the photos has ultimately been beneficial because after the furore the last thing she feels like is a cigarette.

But the job was done in the taking of the photos: the publication of them clearly has caused her additional shame, hurt and humiliation.

Sure, she wouldn’t be in this position if she didn’t smoke while pregnant in the first place, but it’s really no one’s business but her own.

However, the hypocrisy doesn’t end there: Channel Ten is also to blame for taking advantage of one of its biggest stars.

First, they wheeled her out to do a humiliating mea culpa interview on The 7PM Project about the topic – which I am sure was the last thing she felt like doing in the circumstances.

They then used clips of Swan crying to promote the new season of her late night talk show Can of Worms.

(Interestingly, it didn’t work, with the return of the show rating just 351,000 capital city viewers nationally.)

Swan is a rare television and radio talent, happy to admit her own failings in the public eye, but instead of protecting their star, Channel Ten exploited her.

Now, we all know smoking while pregnant can be hugely harmful to a baby – but so is the kind of acute stress that this entire episode would have caused Swan and her family.

We need to start asking where the public interest is in these kinds of degrading, intrusive photos.

I think it’s time to allow people in the public eye a little more self-respect in their private daily lives – particularly those who do nothing to court this kind of attention.

Ironically, those who are more private are often subjected to additional unwanted scrutiny.

As I wrote recently, people like Nicole Kidman have paid a price for failing to open up about key parts of their private lives.

I know it’s often hard to draw the line between public and private: shotslook as if they are gross invasions of privacy are often cosy orchestrated deals between celebrity and photographer.

But there are a few give-aways: are they pictured in glamorous matching outfits, perfect bodies and designer swimwear? Does the glossy photo spread come with exclusive quotes from those pictured? Are they trying to sell something?

I also think it’s not enough to blame the photographers.

Let’s also blame the people who spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year buying the magazines that provide a market for such pictures.

I’m not saying we should just leave celebrities alone totally, but allowing them to have a bit more dignity wouldn’t be a bad thing for all of us.

Comments on this post close at 6pm AEST

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:32am | 17/02/13

      I am a member of a camera club, and I believe there are laws in Australia about photographing people which involve asking their permission. Or perhaps it is jusr a protocol to avoid being sued ?

    • monkeymind says:

      08:06am | 17/02/13

      not quite correct. If you are in a public space you can take pics of anyone. You only require premision / a model release if the shot will be used for commercial purposes.

    • acotrel says:

      08:22am | 17/02/13

      Do ‘commercial purposes’  include selling publications using those photos ?

    • Chillin says:

      08:59am | 17/02/13


      Think about it.

    • Anniebello says:

      09:46am | 17/02/13

      You can’t take photo’s in public without consent but it seems only the general public must abide by the rules or protocol as acotrel mentions, or maybe just good manners. More so these days with everyone having a mobile phone in their pockets.

      Every year schools and clubs get parents to sign a form giving (or not) permission to use their child’s photo if it is taken. Go to any children’s sporting event with a camera to take photos of your own child and chances are someone official will tap you on the shoulder and say it’s not allowed - they usually quote child protection as the reason but more often than not they have engaged their own photographer and want you to buy the photos.

      I work at a public library and every event we have where we take photos we must ask permission if faces are easily identified - particularly the ‘with the special guest promo-type shots. We usually offer the participants an electronic copy of the photo so most of the time there are plenty of takers.

      Its not just the photographers that need a smack up the side of the head here - the mags, their publishers and most of all - as stated above - the people who buy these trashy mags. How would they feel if it were them, or their loved ones in the camera crosshairs. Being in the public eye is not 24/7 - have we not learned the Diana lesson?

    • NSS says:

      11:38am | 17/02/13

      Anniebello, the only reason you need to ask for consent is because you intend to publish the photos for promotional purposes. Everything you display in a library is public, and whether formally or not, is being used to promote said library.

      Monkeymind is correct about photography in general. I often take “street” photos as a hobbyist, but I needn’t to ask permission unless I’m going to make money from them, or unless my subjects are likely to object and I’m being intrusive, which I avoid anyway. Some photographers have ethics, you know.

    • HT says:

      11:39am | 17/02/13

      Commercial purposes does not include an intention to sell the images. You may think it stupid but that’s how it is. The law is that essentially there is no expectation of privacy for people in a public place.

      And if you think it about the law makes sense, if nobody could take a photograph without having first gained consent, then you have no television news, newspapers or any media at that used pictures…

    • NSS says:

      02:50pm | 17/02/13

      Thanks for the link, Canonical. Very interesting. Good to clear up what “commercial purposes” actually are.

      Who knows, maybe I’ll try to sell some of my street shots now after all. smile

    • Mik says:

      05:58am | 17/02/13

      Surely the title sould be respect rather than self respect? Yes, Chrissy could have shown her health and child more respect but only she, and not the public, can give her that.

    • CD says:

      09:38am | 17/02/13

      Strange how smoking is bad but abortion is perfectly ok.  Ask a baby which they’d prefer. Oh wait only the mother has rights now.

      Oh boo hoo Swans rights were infringed upon. Susie you’re bad enough in the Herald now The Punch shows just how pathetic your whinges are.

    • Fiona says:

      12:51pm | 17/02/13

      So CD, you used this article as an excuse to go off on an anti abortion rant? Pot, kettle, black.

    • Hmm says:

      02:59pm | 17/02/13

      Fiona CD has a valid point. How abortion can be dismissed in this article is beyond me


      06:07am | 17/02/13

      Hi Susie,

      You know the old saying “it takes two to tango”?  Most celebrities and famous people in the public eye do enjoy and crave for a certain kind of attention from the world wide magazines in the publishing industry.  It happens to be a huge industry as millions of curious consumers wanting to know all the tiniest details about others in the public eye.  Especially the ones always posing for cameras on special occasions such as the Oscars and Grammy Awards, however when there is an intrusion on their private lives and personal troubles, it becomes a bit difficult to deal with. 

      The best answer to that problem would be to have some kind of rules and regulations to guide this greedy industry to say the least. However is anyone really listening?  What makes the world go around these days, happens to be the money, fortune and profits made at other people’s expense.  And it could be the easiest money ever made, really.  Why do we buy into it as a society?  I most certainly believe that “other people’s money, power and fame will always give the rest of the population something to talk about”.  And it doesn’t look like it is going to change anytime soon? We have to examine our obsessions and reactions to certain events as a society first. If we want to be treated in a more respectful manner, we just have to try harder to examine the issues beneath the surface.  Kind regards.

    • acotrel says:

      08:26am | 17/02/13

      ‘The best answer to that problem would be to have some kind of rules and regulations to guide this greedy industry to say the least. However is anyone really listening?’

      More rules and regulations when the root cause is another abuse of freedoms by the media? Perhaps the existing laws are adequate , but rarely exercised ?

    • acotrel says:

      08:53am | 17/02/13

      Perhaps the media could be regulated by one great big new law titled ’ Inappropriate Conduct’  Which could call together all our existing restraints on abuse and intrusion by the media into one big list ?  After review of the media’s actions over the preceding year, anything not on the list could be brought up for annual review by the media ombudsman for possible incusion in the great big new media law about everything .

    • Stained says:

      10:35am | 17/02/13

      “Inappropriate Conduct”, accept when it involves the Unions, eh?  Open slather, your weekly contributions is their play money.  Extremly screwed up brain in some people.

    • acotrel says:

      11:26am | 17/02/13

      ‘Open slather, your weekly contributions is their play money.’

      So the unions have done nothing for you personally ?  You are probably too young to remember when if you got sick, you could lose everything ? Whitlam’s social reforms were about 30 years overdue, and after him many of us got a fair go with a social safety net which you obviously take for granted. The Liberal party has never been anything other than callous and uncaring towards the great unwashed.

    • Robert Smissen says:

      01:26pm | 17/02/13

      OK acotrel, who decides what is inappropriate & what isn’t You? ? Julia Gillard? ? Swan decided that her own gratification was more important than her baby’s health, sounds like child abuse to me, clear & simple

    • iansand says:

      06:42am | 17/02/13

      This article, from a journalist working for a tabloid newspaper, is an example of shameful media intrusion and outright hypocrisy.

    • acotrel says:

      11:34am | 17/02/13

      No self-respect ? Makes it obvious, they don’t know about it ? -  Don’t they teach them about that at Journo School ?

    • Smith says:

      11:46am | 17/02/13

      Says the guy who pretends he is a lawyer smile

    • Ben says:

      06:56am | 17/02/13

      Let’s go one step further. Let’s bring in a law to make sure we act “appropriately” around celebrities. Nicola? Oh, hang on, she’s buggered off.

    • TChong says:

      06:59am | 17/02/13

      Susie , who is this “we” who need to stop these photos, who is the “our” making such demands ?
      I, and most blokes I know , couldnt give a rats arse about any of this nonsense.
      If Channel 10 were exploiting Swan, Swan was a very willing participant of this alledged exploitation.
      Swan and company were milking the whole incident - CS is now the
      “everywoman” .
      “Celbs “and “royals"wouldnt open a toilet door , without press coverage , when it suits them.
      Its a monster the “royals “and “celebs"have created for themselves.
      A very first world problem., of no revalance to anyone, but those who are fixated about the meaningless.
      Live your own life, before worrying about “celebs “and “royals”.

    • Chillin says:

      07:05am | 17/02/13

      It’s time to step up our protests against intrusive pictures of private people in their public moments.

      When you do it, we will.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:11am | 17/02/13


      If you’ve spent your whole life trying to make a living out of being in the public eye then you can’t complain or control how that happens.

      Moreso if you’re the type of person that gets paid to have an opinion on an opinion show (eg Can of Worms or The Circle). Even better when those pics show what a completely irresponsible hypocrite you are.

    • acotrel says:

      11:52am | 17/02/13

      ‘It’s time to step up our protests against intrusive pictures of private people in their public moments.’

      It’s time to step up our protests against intrusive pictures of private people’s private parts in their public moments.  However at least we all know Tony has got balls, not like some other contenders ?

    • Chillin says:

      01:54pm | 17/02/13

      Hey Tube,

      My point is the media are quite happy to exploit everyone else’s privacy but whine when theirs is exploited.

    • Tubesteak says:

      02:23pm | 17/02/13

      That’s sort of my point, too. Only I’d argue that these celebs give up their “right” to privacy as soon as they seek to become celebs. Live by the sword; die by the sword

      They also give up the moral high ground as soon as they are exposed as the type of fool that smokes whilst pregnant

    • Chillin says:

      07:11am | 17/02/13

      Swan was probably paid extra to appear on television, she seems to have had not hesitation in participating in her supposed exploitation?

      Tell me if she had of killed her child or damaged her child’s health, would you still imagine she needs our pity.  It’s must be a shame the media have to conform to social standards.  The real hypocrisy is you think you don’t.

    • jtz says:

      01:39pm | 17/02/13

      @chillin this is normal for the media. Two great examples are the two djs and the artist who painted nude pictures of children. The rule of thumb for the media is that its okie to attack and put down other but our own are protected.

    • Alfie says:

      07:13am | 17/02/13

      Chrissie Swan is a celebrity - now that is news.

    • SAm says:

      07:13am | 17/02/13

      ethics in the media? Too early for that kind of humour

    • Sickemrex says:

      07:17am | 17/02/13

      “I think it’s time to allow people in the public eye a little more self-respect in their private daily lives – particularly those who do nothing to court this kind of attention.”

      I think one’s self-respect is one’s own to have or not have, it can’t be granted by someone else. I really don’t see the appeal in those magazines anyway.

    • monkeymind says:

      07:17am | 17/02/13

      Meh. The royal family’s whole job is to be living wax works figures to sell to tourists. They have no private time. They live off the public teat and shall be available to do a monkey dance at any time.

    • acotrel says:

      08:43am | 17/02/13

      How will you define the cut-off point which establishes which public figures are royalty and those who are not paid to be in the limelight ?

    • Ray says:

      07:21am | 17/02/13

      “People in the public eye deserve more self-respect” ?????

      Susie did you really mean to say ‘SELF-respect’?????

    • John says:

      07:46am | 17/02/13

      It is bad for pregnant women to smoke during pregnancy because this greatly increases the likelihood of them having low birth-weight babies. But it is not certain that this will happen.  Chrissie Swan had nothing to worry about, for there is no chance of that she could be associated with anything that is low-weight.

    • Sickemrex says:

      08:35am | 17/02/13

      I thought that too John, then I thought, “I shouldn’t say that”. Oops now I’ve said it too!

      Silly me, I’ve exercised and eaten healthily for both pregnancies. I should have eaten donuts and smoked, would have been the same thing?!

    • Nurse says:

      09:47am | 17/02/13

      I worked with a colleague who smoked all through her pregnancy. Child was born a healthy weight.

    • Chillin says:

      01:56pm | 17/02/13


      Yes,forget science, medicine and health recommendations, your friend did it so we all should.  As I said before, if you are a nurse, you are highly irresponsible.

    • Overit says:

      03:03pm | 17/02/13

      Chillin I know for a fact that the nurses friends experience is not the exception but the rule. Don’t believe everything you hear or read.

    • Marjorie says:

      07:50am | 17/02/13

      Well said!  There are times when photographers go too far..  Magazine people are no better, It’s all about the bottom line - money.  William and Kate are entitled to their privacy. They are not entitled to have perverts intruding on their private moments.  And we all have private moments that we don’t want to share.  As for Chrissy Swan smoking whilst pregnant - well anyone who has been pregnant knows what it is like to crave something.  Even crave things we don’t usually eat/drink/do.  As you said, Susie, she was photographed ‘taking a drag’.  For all we know that’s exactly what it was - one drag on a cigarette.  I hope people read this column and decide to take a stand and not buy these magazines. It would only take a couple of weeks for the message to get through,

    • Terry2 says:

      08:04am | 17/02/13

      I had just been reading the News Ltd Sunday tabloids with photos of the Abbott girls with our Tony and telling us that women will be voting for Tony in their droves as they warm to him. This appears to be a coordinated strategy to overcome one of the remaining disabilities that Abbott has : his lack of appeal to women.
      We are now having his wife and daughters (and sometimes his sister and mum) presented to us in the media with the non too subtle message that he loves women. In the context of your article and the media management, I don’t think the ladies will be doing interviews as the photos and supportive articles are doing the required job in convincing those who were wavering. This is clever use of the media whereas the Chrissie Swan episode was just sad.
      There are those who use the media to their advantage and recognise that a symbiotic relationship can be be mutually beneficial and profitable: step up the Kardashian family, Shane Warne and Liz Hurley.
      Now, just watch to see how the Labor spinners try to have us all fall in love with Ms Gillard; quite a challenge !

    • acotrel says:

      11:31am | 17/02/13

      ’ This appears to be a coordinated strategy to overcome one of the remaining disabilities that Abbott has : his lack of appeal to women.

      Along with his self-confessed deceitfulness ? ‘Scripted comments ’ ! !He must have thought Tony Jones of the ABC,was George Pell ? Facing the Inquisition is probably habit forming ?

    • Geronimo says:

      08:10am | 17/02/13

      One suspects the Fearless Leader of the Ferocious Opposition would agree. Imagine the discomfort of the Pope Potentate if he was sprung swinging off the Monkey Bars with the Kindy Kids or practising his People Skills in Fish Markets, Sausage Factories and Early Openers.

    • acotrel says:

      11:39am | 17/02/13

      You will be talking about the Fearless Leader of Planet Earth, if George Pall becomes Pope.

    • acotrel says:

      11:41am | 17/02/13

      Tony has great people skills, he studied under George Pell.

    • jtz says:

      02:18pm | 17/02/13

      Yawn avotrel. Its getting old.

      Also dont lie about the fact you werr posting that you were sick of the alp and wanted ppl to vote as you would do for an independent but only if tgey put labor second.

      Pls point to me as an accountant the unions helpef me. All i remember is the great help the uinions gave nazi germany when they refusef to load suppliesor go slow.

    • Ben says:

      03:01pm | 17/02/13

      >>You will be talking about the Fearless Leader of Planet Earth, if George Pall becomes Pope.>>

      Why would a pawnbroker become Pope?

    • dolly ness says:

      08:22am | 17/02/13

      Regarding Swan and her ciggie - what’s the drama? She isn’t in any way doing anything illegal.

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:22am | 17/02/13

      Unfortunately stupidity isn’t a crime

      But when I become Supreme Overlord of Everything stupidity will be a crime

    • marley says:

      08:32am | 17/02/13

      Somewhere, there might have been an interesting article about media intrusion into all our lives.  This wasn’t it.

      What strikes me as interesting is the ubiquity of phones capable of taking snaps or videos of anything and anyone.  Name an accident, a tragedy, an embarrassing moment, and someone’s got a picture of it.  It’s not just celebrities that are living their lives in the public eye;  it’s fast becoming all of us.  And there’s not a damn thing we can do about it, either.

    • gary says:

      09:40am | 17/02/13

      Freedom of speech isn’t it marley?
      you can print whatever you like otherwise our freedom of speech is in jeopardy. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or false.
      Photos or text -... photo-shopped by the press for our consumption is good for democracy isn’t it marley?

    • marley says:

      10:39am | 17/02/13

      @Gary - you really need to get treatment for your obsessive behaviour.

    • acotrel says:

      11:47am | 17/02/13

      You should get treatment for your cognitive dissonance.  If something doesn’t fit your mindset, it doesn’t exist.

    • marley says:

      02:49pm | 17/02/13

      @acotrel - cough! gasp!! sputter!!! coming from you, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read on The Punch in months.

    • acotrel says:

      08:39am | 17/02/13

      When Andrew Bolt made racist comments he was prosecuted for it.  His actions were clearly an abuse of the right to freedom of speech, and the media are regularly into that stuff.  A little self-restraint from the media would perhaps be a good thing.  Rights - abuse them and lose them ! If we keep going with inappropriate intrusion and trespass into the territory of others, the lot of us could end up living in a massive regulatory straight jacket.  All you need to do to see it happening is recognise the regulatory responses of the Gillard government to these abuses.  It has been labelled ‘political correctness’ by the idiots who cannot see that their own actions cause it. My opinion is that it is not a real problem, there are not enough lawyers and courts on the planet to enforce the regulatory regime we could end up with. The whole law and order thing will fall over its own feet, and only on-the-spot fines will apply.

    • marley says:

      10:45am | 17/02/13

      Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under the Racial Discrimination Act.  A great many people have issues with the particular section of the Act under which he was prosecuted, precisely because it is an affront to the concept of free speech.  Jim Spigelman, who presumably is a reputable source on matters legal, said quite recently, “The freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech. There is no right not to be offended.”  I’m inclined to take Spigelman’s opinion over yours.

      And anyway, if you can “lose” fundamental rights, then they’re not rights, are they;  they’re just privileges.  The right to free speech is not like a drivers’ licence - to be granted or taken by the state. It is a right that is yours, not a concession by government.

    • Ben says:

      11:15am | 17/02/13

      I found it ironic in the Andrew Bolt case that the nine applicants - many of whom noisily emphasise that their “aboriginality” distinguishes them from European ways - were very quick to resort to the white man’s law to shut Bolt up.

      As for your lecturing the media on “self-restraint” and your cheering on Gillard’s so-called regulatory responses, that’s also not without irony. You’ve made numerous false claims, outright distortions and taken part in plenty of cosy little hate sessions. However, no-one here seems to be arguing that you face the sanction of some court or tribunal for it.

    • acotrel says:

      11:44am | 17/02/13

      ’ I’m inclined to take Spigelman’s opinion over yours.’

      Definition of an expert :
      ‘a drip under pressure’ !

    • jtz says:

      01:49pm | 17/02/13

      @acotrel yet you seem not to mention when racial abuse goes the other way. Look at the racism with in labor itself before commenting. Also remrmber your attack on the pope yedterday. Well guess what, under the laws you support you will find that you can be prosecuted for it. Funny how you and christian real talk about freedom of speech but only when it agrees with your views only.

      Also i did a little research yesterday and found that a few ex-labor members have in the pass been charged with child abuse so by the arguement you put yesterday should apply here.

    • marley says:

      02:44pm | 17/02/13

      @acotrel - Spigelman is the former Chief Justice of the NSW Supreme Court.  He’s just a tad more qualified than a retired motorcycle hobbyist to comment on the Racial Discrimination Act, don’t you think?  And he’s by no means the only prominent lawyer, retired jurist or opinion writer to feel the same way.  If you think they’re wrong, produce an actual argument and not a silly one-liner.

    • Anna Lee says:

      08:51am | 17/02/13

      We’re living in the age of exploitation, the famous exploit the punters, paparazzi exploit the famous, the royals exploit their “subjects”!, miners exploit the natural world etc, etc….thats where the big bucks are and thats what they all want, comes with the job, so if they don’t like it they should drop out of the public eye….oh wait, they won’t get the big bucks!!

    • acotrel says:

      08:57am | 17/02/13

      ‘People in the public eye deserve more self-respect

      Did you mean to say that people in the public eye should have more self-respect ?  Perhaps you next article should be about the importance of teaching English expression in schools ?

    • Mad Man says:

      09:04am | 17/02/13

      Susie, please don’t use the collective “We” when recommending a course of action and include males. A cursory glance at the titles of the “waiting room magazines” gives the lie to your thinking that all Australians are guilty. Instead, as you neatly neglected to mention, it’s women who are the ones buying the pictures. As a white, employed, married man in his 40s who’s normally to blame somehow for everything else in society according to most of your writing I do believe this time your sisters and yourself are firmly in the guilty zone.

    • Gerard says:

      09:33am | 17/02/13

      I’ve always found it strange that ‘men’s magazines’ (ie porn) are considered socially unacceptable, while ‘women’s magazines’, whose stock in trade is slander and libel, are widely available, promoted and read in public.

    • Kel says:

      11:43am | 17/02/13

      And I’m offended that all us women are put in the same category of trash mag reading harridans .... I can’t believe women actually spend money on these mags, which aren’t even useful for arse wiping due to their gloss finish.

    • Sickemrex says:

      11:57am | 17/02/13

      @ Gerard, I don’t know about porn but I don’t mind reading my husband’s Zoo and FHM mags, and don’t see them at all as socially unacceptable. There are funny jokes, usually something about cars or bikes, beer or sport, and the women have much more attainable figures (silicone excepting) than the waifs in the the crap peddled to my demographic. I’m a 40 year old woman and the last magazine I bought was Runner’s World. The one before that was Two Wheels.

    • AFR says:

      09:08am | 17/02/13

      Ironic that Swan makes a living from talking about others, often in a derogatory and unflattering way…. if she can’t stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.

    • lower_case_andrew says:

      09:44am | 17/02/13

      Respect is earned.

      If you promote yourself by choosing to share some aspects of your personal life, you’re pretty much fair game.

      The cult of celebrity is a double edged sword.

    • Iggy Crash says:

      11:42am | 17/02/13

      No. Respect for basic human rights is not earned, it is deserved and the right to a private life is one of those. If people deman respect for shallow things (ie their career) then that must be earned.

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      10:14am | 17/02/13

      It is ironic.
      It seems all of the people who are paranoid about Wikileaks seem perfectly content to leave the tabloid trash mags well alone- despite all the nonsense arguments about ‘privacy’ and ‘leaking the juicy details of your private life for no reason’ are more applicable to the magazines.

      Even more ironic are the people who support paparazzis because they are ‘sick of seeing these celebrities everywhere in the media’ and aren’t seeing the irony. Really, whose fault is that?

    • Ohcomeon says:

      10:39am | 17/02/13

      What Bullpucky.

      Celebrities only exist because of public fascination. They produce and offer nothing else of value. Chrissy Swan is getting paid exactly because she is a public spectacle and should be bloody grateful shes even getting that.

    • QLDer says:

      11:06am | 17/02/13

      Chrissie Swan put this on herself for smoking when pregnant- she deserves the torment and if the photo was never taken she would have probably continued doing it.

      Celebrities need publicity for there career and paparazzi/women’s magazines are a necessary evil. They may hate it after a while but this is what they signed up for! So why feel sorry for them?

      And yeah Chrissie Swan is a celebrity??????

    • Christine says:

      01:15pm | 17/02/13

      We have all heard warnings about the dangers of smoking generally let alone when a woman is pregnant with child.  I think our first consideration should be for the safety of the baby.  Sure some people may claim they smoked while pregnant and their baby was okay, but I wonder how many of these children suffered from respiratory associated illnesses.

      As for the Abbott family, I understand that photo was part of their Christmas wish.  Great to see a happy photo.  Isn’t it better to have a family photo released rather than having sneaky photographers taking photos of familes in their private lives.

      Many years ago,  I actually saw a medical certificaet of death signed by the doctor which stated in bold print,  ‘the mother was a heavy smoker’.  The medico was actually suppose to write the more technical reasons for the death of the baby but I suspect his anger got the better of him.

      Perhaps instead of blatantly taking photos of the expectant celebrity mom, a private caution should have been given to her.  She no doubt knows the risk and needed some prodding or shaming for the sake of the baby.  Broadcasting the photo through media was cruel but perhaps some good will come out of it as she herself acknowledges her difficulty now with smoking.

      As for royalty and other celebrities, there are public occasions for photo shots and there are private occasions when they should not be taken. The media and journalists in general could perhaps be more discerning and develop a conscience about these matters.  Maybe that is too much to expect of some when money is involved.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      11:22am | 17/02/13

      I agree with you, Susie, but only to a certain extent.
      Yes, it was wrong for some sleazy creep posing as a member of the Fourth Estate to use her/his super-powerful telephoto lens-equipped camera to take a snap of Katie. Does any really care if she has a brat or not?
      You object on the grounds that Katie was “on a private holiday”
      Is she ever Not on Holiday?? That is all these damned royals ever do. Go on holidays - & if they can manipulate it they make bloody sure someone else pays for them.
      As for Ms Swan, well, who the hell is she? If she wants to portray herself as the responsible mother-to-be then she should bloody well stop smoking. All it takes is a bit of will power. Or if she must put her baby at risk of heaven knows what then let her do her smoking behind closed doors, with the curtains drawn.
      It’s weird isn’t it? These people put themselves out there, lapping up the adulation (Katie & Wills et al.) the breathless shouts of ” Oh! I just saw XYZ”, by sycophantic, pathetic individuals who have nothing better to do than read sleazy, brain-dead magazines. These people who, though there is nothing special or remarkable about them, hire some PR company to turn them into something only they think is important: “Celebrities”. Then when the oh-so-pure image they have had created for them gets blown away they start demanding “Privacy at this difficult time” or some sort of other nonsense. Then when they are afforded that privacy they come out all guns firing so that they get into the headlines!!
      Willie is supposed to be in the RAF. He is getting paid. let him stop with the holidays & get back to work.
      Katie has a perfectly good job. Yes, she’s in the very early stages of pregnancy
      10s of 1000s, if not millions of other women are as well & many of them getting close to term. The difference is that they keep on working. Katie has got her title & so she suddenly thinks she is someone special & everyone should bow & scrape to her. No matter how they spin it Katie is still, & always will be, a British middle class woman whose parents have made lots of money.
      If she & Willy don’t want the spotlight then they can simply go back to work & stay out of it.

    • lordy says:

      11:29am | 17/02/13

      Talk about shameful media intrusion. What about the time When the PM of Australia was demeaned on several occasions by the right wing propaganda machine. When the PM made a visit to her widowed mother for Chritmas, Joe Hockey called her gutless for not being in Canberra to make an announcement on the deficit. You’re a real man Joe! I could go on about the Alan Jones ‘put her in a chaff bag and drown her episode and others, that seem to remind me of US style tea-party politics from the loonies over there imported directly to loonies over here. It’s a shame Australia has started to kowtow to these cranks and crazies.

    • vox says:

      11:31am | 17/02/13

      If there had been more media attention given to Di on that fatal day with permission, we would not have had the high-speed chase and the dire result.
      I’ve worked for a few newspapers, and you would be amazed at the number of “celebrities” who ring and ask for a bit of a mention. Sometimes they throw in, “My wife is about to give birth to quads we think”, or something similar.
      Their press guys, and Kate would have a few, simply ask her to step out onto the porch to meet the world press, who take ten photos each, even playing field, and the papparazi bloke has a near-worthless photo. Easy!
      Bit off topic, but not much ... Yesterday I said that I had proof that iffeminate men tended to father girls and masculine men tended tofather boys.
      BJ and NSS jumped up, and in NSS’S case gave me a kid’s lecture about how babies came to be, and asked for the proof of my statement.
      The proof is embodied in one Anthony Abbott.
      That came back to me whilst I was thinking of Australia’s most photographed, (but not interviewed), “celebrity”. Mind you, he has his own crap-snappers.

    • Christine says:

      02:48pm | 17/02/13


      Regarding, your last few sentences, is there no limit to the extent to which you will lower and belittle yourself in an attempt to falsely denigrate the Abbott family.

      Is your judgement really that poor?

    • youdy beaudy says:

      11:51am | 17/02/13

      Seeing that we are writing about self respect and photos then why should we not think that putting photos of the PM and others on here for instance and then writing some crap article to bring them down and asking for comments on the photo and what is written is not the same. So, with that in mind why does the punch and other media do the same thing. Different strokes maybe. hey.!

      What is the difference between this article and slandering the PM. Well, to me it’s just the same thing. Why, for instance doesn’t the PM and Treasurer get the same sympathy. Why is that.?

      So, instead of writing some feel good article on here, crying for the TV hosts and the Royals re their privacy why doesn’t the punch and other blog sites consider what they do as the same violation of privacy acts.

      Anyway, just a thought there about it. Then i suppose that Kates belly photos and the distress it causes the poor thing are more important than having respect for the office of PM.

      It’s similar in the Parliament when the bloke who would be PM crowing about the respect of the office and wanting the job dearly shows respect for the office of PM by turning his back on the PM when in question time, showing his ignorance and apathy for the Job he desires. Anyone get that, at all. And people will vote for this bloke who has no respect for the office he seeks to get hold of. Why then, knowing that would people vote for him. Oh no, well it will obviously change when he gets in but not when they are in. Why then, knowing that would people vote for him and further demean the PM’s role. Let’s figure it out one day shall we.!

      The rest of the article re some wannabe tv star and the royals is just what it is, a waste of time. They like their photos taken because it gives them the profile they seek and then there is the money and what a lot of money it is for such a small thing. As we know many people will do anything for money and publicity and that includes the Royals. Why would they be different to anybody else in that regard. Being Royal doesn’t automatically make you anything and being a TV wannabe star the same. People need to get a grip.!

    • Christine says:

      03:04pm | 17/02/13

      I trust you are not trying to suggest that the PM don’t turn her back on coalition speakers. I have seen her doing it quite blatently. As I recall even the Indian PM checked his watch while she was speaking in India last year. The Treasurer is of similar cloth. Respect is a two way street, so please lets not be one eyed about this.

      Let’s face it the long winded speaches some of the pollies make are boring. TV may show us bits and pieces of parliament in operation, but try listening to them over the radio.  Boring!  They could take lessons in how to shorten their speeches.

    • Anna says:

      11:57am | 17/02/13

      SELF-respect??? You keep using that term, I do not think it means what you think it means!

      Back to journalism school, Susie.

    • NikRaf of Victoria says:

      12:31pm | 17/02/13

      “People in the public eye deserve more respect”  so you want your cake and eat it too as well as the pie . ok then dont do the wrong thing or go where you people in the media can see you .

      its your own fault live with it you or get out of the spot light

    • Philosopher says:

      01:20pm | 17/02/13

      The solution is for all people who are dissatisfied with Womans Day to write to them and tell them that is is unnacceptable and that we will never buy their magazine again, as I have done.

    • marley says:

      02:45pm | 17/02/13

      I shall follow suit.  Do I have to admit to them that I’ve never bought it in the past, though?

    • Cedric says:

      01:51pm | 17/02/13

      Swan, [not the brilliant politician] didn’t get published in the New York Times, or the Washington Post, but importantly will probably be given headlines in the sensational New Idea, Women’s Weekly and other mags, so she’s not important, nor will be be spotted by the Republican Party. Not in the same league as Whitehouse aides of notoriety.

    • Robert Smissen says:

      01:56pm | 17/02/13

      Smoking whilst pregnant ischild abuse. You don’t think so? ? So if she was caught smoking in the car with a baby in the back seat would that still be OK or child abuse? ? The “she couldn’t help it ” excuse is also trotted out when Mothers belt their kids too

    • NikRaf of Victoria says:

      02:14pm | 17/02/13

      she got caught-out smoking being pregnant with her 3rd but what about the other 2 times she was pregnant ?

    • Watcher says:

      01:58pm | 17/02/13

      Sorry, but I have to ask this question.

      Who is Chrissie Swan?

    • Watcher says:

      02:00pm | 17/02/13

      I know there is new invention called the internet and there is something called Google. But I couldn’t be bothered

    • ramases says:

      02:52pm | 17/02/13

      Sorry but the mere fact that you put yourself in the public eye negates any type of privacy entitlement.
        As for Kate, who really cares as who in their right mind would wont to see a skinny woman who looks like she had swallowed a cricket ball, very English.    They put themselves out there like it or lump it, they live off the public purse therefore they belong to the public so privacy is just a pipe dream.
        As for “celebrities” and their antics is it really that mind blowing what they do, this preoccupation with what others are doing fascinates me, are peoples lives so dull and uninteresting that they get some vivacious thrill from watching the antics of people who in the greater scheme of things don’t add up to diddly squat and to tell you the truth wouldn’t give you the time of day if you asked them.
        Its a really sad world if that’s what gets people off and gives them some sense of being to live their lives through others.
        On the reverse side can you imagine the furore if nobody paid any attention to these people at all, the tantrums and the insistence that their picture be taken and published whatever the cost to themselves, it would be a sight to see.

    • No_Fame says:

      02:53pm | 17/02/13

      sorry but I believe that the ‘spectacle’ of wealth/power/beauty will always attract both wanted and unwanted attention. With technology and a shrinking world, if privacy is big on your agenda in life, then you need to avoid being any kind of celebrity. I do. I refuse to have facebook and if googled little comes up (NO PICS anywhere online). I want to be rich, but never, never famous. If wealth has to have fame attached, I choose neither. As a psychologist I know the risks of fame. It is simply not worth it in my opinion.

    • Luc Belrose says:

      04:45pm | 17/02/13

      Maybe the celebrities like being photographed and to exhibit in flashy and vivacious magazines when they have the rare opportunity to be like the rest of us. Paparazzis would not be averse to heavy fines and even imprisonment in chasing the most attractive shots of celebs as part of their jobs.
        “Global furore” or “humiliation for Kate”: I doubt it; they knowingly go through the motions and know full well that their innocent frolics will be splashed on the prominent European magazines who have a gasping readership who will lap it up.
      Also, people who voluntarily go on TV to open their hearts to TV journalists know that their private miseries or happiness will become public property and endure the consequences of personal exposure.
        Shame, hurt and humiliation may be the unwanted consequences of private media confessions or exhibitions but these must be overlooked when considered against the cold calculated media outlets benefits and gains ie ratings and big increases in publicity and revenue.
        Susie, you’ve aptly summed it up “Glamorous matching outfits, perfect bodies and designer swimwear? Does the glossy photo spread come with exclusive quotes from those pictured? Are they trying to sell something?”.

    • Craig says:

      04:55pm | 17/02/13

      Why should the public care about the respect or self-respect of celebrities?

      They place themselves in the public eye for an income. It’s their choice.

      They selectively leak photos and news to stay in the public eye. It’s their choice.

      Photographers & the mainstream media take and pay for photos of them. That’s the choice of photographers & mainstream media.

      The public is increasingly not buying magazines and newspapers because news content is replaced by celebrity unnews. That’s our choice.

      The issue is for celebrities & media to solve. Not the public.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter