IT is a month since The Northern Echo found itself at the centre of
national controversy after publishing a photograph of Leo Blair taken by a
local school at a public event.
We said at the time we believed our actions were harmless and that Downing Street's reaction was unnecessarily heavy-handed.
Over the weekend, the privacy debate has again blown up, with several
national newspapers defying Downing Street requests not to take and publish photographs of baby Leo at his christening in Sedgefield.
The Northern Echo, despite reservations, chose not to send a photographer, but we again believe that Downing Street has got it wrong.
That does not mean we are unsympathetic to Tony and Cherie Blair's
admirable determination to shield their children from publicity. But it has
to be kept in a common sense context and out of the realms of control
freakery.
Of course the Blairs wanted Leo's christening to be a private family
affair. But it was also inevitable that it would be a very public one too.
In the run up to the big day, family friend and priest Father John Caden
had openly given radio interviews on how the ceremony would unfold inside his church. Hundreds of well-wishers turned out to share the family's joy.
Telling the media to stay away in such circumstances was like waving a red rag at a bull - and it could have been avoided.
With the Press Complaints Commission investigating Downing Street's
complaints that pictures of the baby were used in Sunday national
newspapers without his parents' permission, we have decided not to follow suit.
But we consider it ridiculous that we should feel unable to publish
photographs, taken in a public place and already viewed by newspaper
readers nationwide.
Someone is giving the Blairs very dodgy public relations advice. Why didn't they just follow normal convention for occasions considered to be
sensitive? For years, newspapers and television companies have happily
agreed to pooled arrangements - where one photographer and one television camera crew are allowed controlled access.
Non profit-making agreements could have been signed, a media scrum would have been avoided, and the public would have been able to see harmless, joyful pictures of a famous baby on an historic day.
Would that really have been so awful?
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article