TV & Film Magazine
Update: July 17, 2007

Thanks for visiting this site, but it is no longer being updated. I've moved on over to and I invite you to join me over there from now on. Thanks for your understanding.

Princess Di docu Takes Criticism

  -  Digg!Submit to NetscapeBookmark at del.icio.usreddit

I understand that Princess Diana was loved and revered in many parts of the world, but something about her death has bugged me all of these years, and in fact continues to befuddle me even today - why do people run from photographers? You'd think they were terrorists bent on kidnapping, or brain-eating zombies, or something that's actually worth fleeing from at 100mph.

Forget that the morons who run like this are putting other innocent people's lives in danger, they don't tend to give much thought to their own safety either. Had Diana been wearing a seat belt, the woman would probably be alive today.

Lindsay Lohan runs from them like the plague, and for what? So they can only get 73 pictures of you instead of 98? How could you possibly be that delusional that you'd put your life and everyone else's at great risk (breaking half a dozen driving-related laws in the process no doubt) just to run from photographers?

Never made sense to me, and now there's all this controversy of this documentary that's going to show "graphic" video from the accident scene, such as Diana laying on the ground with an O2 mask on her face.

Wow, that's pretty graphic. What kind of monster would do something like that? For shame.
Diana's body appears thrown in the footwell behind the driver's seat — and also has new interviews with photographers and other crash witnesses, the Observer reported.

Channel 4 said it had "carefully and sensitively selected" the images and that in a photo showing the car's occupants, the victims had been blacked out. It said that image had previously been published in the British press and that reports about the film's content were inaccurate.

"These photographs are an important and accurate eyewitness record of how events unfolded after the crash," Channel 4 said in a statement. "We acknowledge there is great public sensitivity surrounding pictures of the victims and these have not been included."

This has nothing to do with images that are too graphic to air, and everything to do with royalty not getting their way the way they used to in the good old days. Film maker won't bury his own movie? Off with his head!

Seriously though, I sympathize with the families plight. I'm sure they don't want to see her on the TV like this, but the answer isn't the conservative mantra of don't like it, take it off the air, it's don't like it, change the channel.

Also, let's not forget this little gem.
A French investigation ruled that Paul was drunk and lost control of the car while trying to evade photographers. The British investigation concluded that Diana was not pregnant or about to marry Fayed, and that the crash was caused by Paul, who was drunk and speeding.

Okay, let's leave aside the drunk speeding driver part for a moment, because I'd like to know why the hell an inquest into the accident determined that Diana wasn't pregnant or about to marry some guy. What the hell that all about?

See, they need to air this thing in the United States, I'm tired of seeing our own dirt, I want some of theirs for a change. They investigate totally unrelated circumstances just to make it all the more entertaining.

What pillars of journalism they are.

Topics: , ,
Like this post? Subscribe to RSS, or get daily emails:

Got something to say? Post a Comment. Got a question or a tip? Send it to me. If all else fails, you can return to the home page.

Recent Posts
Subscribe to RSS Feed Add to Google
Add to Technorati Favorites
Add to Bloglines
Powered by Blogger
Entertainment Blogs - Blog Top Sites

The text of this article is Copyright © 2006,2007 Paul William Tenny. All rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Attribution by: full name and original URL. Comments are copyrighted by their authors and are not subject to the Creative Commons license of the article itself.