"A Royal wedding we adore, The pomp and panoply of yore, We'd just as soon headline, of course, A Royal scandalous divorce."
(Leon Rosselson, "Song of the Free Press"). THE PAST FEW weeks have seen a frenzied attempt by sections of the British press to underline the accuracy of Leon Rosseison's comments.
Other passages from the song also ring remarkably true. Speculation on ung stake or the wars mamage, ok tures of Diana in tears, reports of suicide attempts and bulimia nervosa all Bnghten up the breakfast food.
The nauseating hypocrisy stories of his affair with Pamella Borrivalled only by the sanctimonious condemnations of others who have never hesitated about prying into privacy and dipping into dustbins.
Their indignation about revelations concerning Charles and Diana has spreading les about Arthur Scargill. dencuncing strikes (except in Poland) and trendy lefty loonies, or stoking up racism, xenophobia and homophobia.
When he was alive these cuardians of the national interest covered up for Already turned into a frog? every bit of Robert Maxwell's dirty dealings. Only after his death do they feel able to expose him as a crook. After all, Maxwell was one of them and tion - could afford litigation.
Their now found enthusiasm for privacy has more to do with Down with ad those rival bleeders, Trying to lure away our readers than any concern for morality. They wax lyrical about newspaper ethics but still publish the same stories. After all, the main prony is to give a mostle boost e sales*.
The relationship between the media and the Royals has hardly been private in the past. We have all been vestitures, jubilees, marriages and births etc.
The Royals never complained about privacy when their every deed was used to increase their popularity.
NALGO Conference Union news naigo