Minister’s comments tone deaf
In the wake of the controversy over the killing of a supplied royal photograph by several global picture agencies, Camilla Tominey looks at the problems associated with the royals supplying the media with their own photographs.
The Minister in charge of Disability Services, Penny Simmonds, is tone deaf in regard to her comments about a shortfall of funding for services.
Many of Whaikaha’s clients are extremely vulnerable and cannot cope with sudden change. There may well be some cases where carers misuse funding, but that will be the exception, not the rule.
Most carers, often family members who have put their own lives on hold to look after disabled others, do it pretty tough on everything else. Basically saying “let them eat cake” is at best ill-advised, and at worst, cruel.
Patrick Doyle, Hoon Hay
Drivers the problem
When I travel through the Church Corner intersection (Church Corner changes urged, March 20) I give way to cars travelling from Riccarton Rd into Yaldhurst Rd. It’s not difficult to do.
The problem is the drivers, and as
I do a fair amount of driving around Christchurch, I despair of the standard of driving. I have come to the conclusion that the driving schools are not doing a proper job. Just look at drivers trying to do a right turn; most are clueless.
As for the work of Christchurch traffic engineers, a Sockburn resident said: “It’s not the community board’s place to undermine professional advice”. I would suggest that this person travels a little further down Riccarton Rd and looks at what a nightmare the Riccarton/ Ilam/ Middleton Rd and Riccarton/Wharenui/ Clyde Rd intersections are.
Not to mention the Middleton/Blenheim Rd intersection and the Suva/Lochee/ Peverel/ Centennial/ Elizabeth cycleway, and while I’m at it, the shambles of the Ilam Rd cycleway.
I’m sorry, but the work of our traffic engineers leaves a lot to be desired.
N Butterfield, Ilam
How can this be?
Apparently the intersection at Church Corner is in the top 3% of accident hotspots in the city.
I've been trying to work out how this might be possible. The only situation where conflict might occur is where traffic turning right from Riccarton Rd into Yaldhurst Rd might encounter vehicles trying to cross their path when they are trying to get from Main South Rd to Riccarton Rd.
Media Council
The Press is subject to the NZ Media Council. Complaints must be directed to letters@press.co.nz. If the complainant is unsatisfied with the response, the complaint may be referred to the Media Council via its website mediacouncil.org.nz
The traffic exiting Main South Rd faces a clearly marked Give Way sign and any vehicle they might be required to give way to only comes from one direction.
How is having an accident there possible, let alone a frequent occurrence? Malcolm Graham, Woolston [abridged]
Positive experience
So, on Tuesday, I fell from a tree (long story). After gathering my senses for a number of minutes, I realised I was very, very sore, and had a severe cut on my upper lip. A visit to an A & E was in order.
And here is the rub. The Bealey Ave 24-hour medical facility is wonderful - just a brief wait (sure, it probably was a quiet evening) to go into a triage room and I must thank nurses Hollie and Ioana for their humour, empathy and positivity in getting me back (after just a couple of hours) to functioning again.
At a time when there seems so much negativity about public services, it is so heartening to have something positive to share.
The tree can wait …
Christopher Dickson, Heathcote Valley
Financial woes
It is distressing to read of the financial woes at the Arts Centre. Distressing because for over 50 years people have invested much in ensuring the Arts Centre was central within the community.
In my view it was a mistake to become beholden to the city council for
Letters
Send letters to letters@press.co.nz or the Editor, Private Bag 4722, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch, 8014. Letters may be edited or rejected at The Press’s discretion. Correspondence will not be entered into. Letters should be no longer than 150 words and a name, postal address and phone number must be provided. Pen names are not accepted. Letters may be edited for clarity. operational funding. That was never the intention of the original trustees and the trust itself was deliberately set up to be entirely independent of any form of government funding. For 40 years that served the Arts Centre well.
My understanding is that the Arts Centre Trust is around $1.8 million short to cover annual operational funding today. The solution seems quite simple to me. Thirty years ago two activities generated more than half of annual revenues. They were the market, with over 100 stallholders both weekend days, attracting thousands of good-spending visitors. And there was the Dux de Lux, in the Student Union Building, the only major tenant of the Arts Centre that could afford to pay good commercial rents. These two activities alone allowed the Arts Centre to fulfil the altruistic objectives of the trust.
Today the market has gone and the Student Union Building remains in ruins. In today’s money resurrection of the market and commercial activity formerly run as the Dux de Lux would generate close to the $1.8m necessary. There would also be the need for a return to frugal but effective administration. The outcome would be a welcome return to solvency that enabled the trust to serve and pay respect to the original intentions of all. Geoff Ellis, Arts Centre director 1988-1993, Smithfield, Queensland [abridged]
Centre funding
Our city councillors are agonising on many things at present, not least the costs of the draft LTP.
However, I was most disturbed at proposals to cut all funding to the Arts Centre, especially in light of the amount already spent on the flawed Gloucester St roading project. Even with little public support, they had the audacity to bring an 'expert' from Barcelona for his assessment.
Today’s a lovely sunny autumn day, but spoilt by an unfriendly nor'easterly wind.
People flock to the Arts Centre on such days in changing seasons for the many sheltered corners to sit, enjoy the shops, galleries and hospitality.
I wonder how many folk are scurrying out of Gloucester St to find some sun. It'll be worse in winter. Brrr! Are you listening, councillors?
JA Sixtus, Halswell
All feedback valued
Your correspondent S M McNeill (Letters, March 16) questions the time and effort involved in making a submission to council 10-year budgets. I’d like to reassure all readers that I and fellow councillors at Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) appreciate and value the thought and effort that goes into submissions on the draft Long-Term Plan. It is important we hear from a range of people, and I’d extend an offer to community groups around the region that if they want to discuss our work plans and funding options with a councillor, to call 0800 266 567 so we can come to your group.
Submissions will be a key part of the information we consider when we make our final decisions on the LTP 202434. We’ve tried to make it as simple as possible for you to tell us what you think, and I’d encourage readers to head online to ecan.govt.nz/whatsthecost to check out the options.
Peter Scott, Chair, Environment Canterbury
Not surprised
Are we surprised a person who owns seven properties would outright reject the IMF’s recommendation that New Zealand should have a capital gains tax on properties? I’m not.
Rod Lewis, Sumner
Best people
It seems Ursula J Rose (Letters, March 20) wants to ignore the Labour imbalance, and the Greens with two women as co-leaders.
Surely most rational New Zealanders would much prefer having the best people available and it doesn’t matter how many men and women there are in any organisation? So it becomes quality, not gender.
Rob Heath, Avonhead
Amid the furore over the Princess of Wales’ “manipulated” Mother’s Day photograph, it is easy to forget that the royals have a long history of taking pictures of themselves. While the names Lord Lichfield and Lord Snowdon may immediately spring to mind when thinking of in-house royal photography, even the late Queen used to carry a camera in her famous handbag.
As the author Phil Dampier revealed in his 2007 book What’s In The Queen’s Handbag, she would frequently use it “to take pictures of visiting presidents and other VIPs”.
The Duke of York, Prince Andrew, published his own book of photographs in 1985 and that year an image of Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother at the Castle of Mey was used as Her Majesty’s Christmas card. Another series of four portraits, taken of Prince Andrew’s mother at Sandringham House in 2001, was included as part of the portfolio released to celebrate Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee the following year. Historically, royals have taken control of their own imagery – in a literal as well as a figurative sense.
Yet the decision by picture agencies to issue a “kill notice” withdrawing the Mothering Sunday photograph, which was taken by Prince William but edited by his wife, lays bare a tension that has been building in recent years over the extent to which the royals have exercised that control.
It’s not just a problem that members of the Royal family are sidelining professional photographers, and consequently the picture agencies that distribute their work, such as Getty Images, Reuters and Agence France-Press.
It is also the amateur nature of the editing – and its implications for a media trying to be as accountable as possible to the public. Eric Baradat, a photo director at Agence France-Presse (AFP), has described Kate’s efforts as “really amateur” and pointed out that scrutinising images has now become a key part of his job. Adding that “no single image can be trusted”, he has laid bare the dilemma facing picture agencies presented with photographs not just taken by the Royal family but members of the public.
Just as citizen journalism has exacerbated the problem of fake news, people doctoring images they have taken themselves (and often not owning up to it) has the overall effect of eroding trust in the mainstream media.
As Martin Keene, a former group picture editor at the Press Association, points out: “All picture agencies have truth and accuracy [in] their DNA – it’s something that really matters to them.
“The only thing that they have is their trust and their credibility and they need to know that, for their clients and the people who look at their pictures – the readers, the viewers – that their picture really was what the photographer saw when the picture was taken, and that it hasn’t been manipulated since that time.”
So how can picture agencies now be having to withdraw a royal image they previously thought was unedited? As Phil Chetwynd, the global news director of AFP, said last week, it is normally photographs from the North Korea news agency or the Iranian news agency that are “killed” for reasons of manipulation.
One former royal photographer explained: “A lot of this has stemmed from William and Harry being control freaks when it comes to pictures of their own children. They grew up hating the paparazzi for chasing Princess Diana around and have had a tendency to tar all royal photographers with the same brush.
“So, with the odd exception, we no longer see royal photographers – the ones who cover the day-to-day official engagements and all the overseas tours – being invited in to take more candid family photographs. Instead, the royals either photograph their children themselves or choose their own pet photographer to take more intimate shots. And that can sometimes lead to problems.”
While photographic agencies do allow photographers to make minor adjustments to images (such as cropping), photographs which have been digitally
manipulated must carry an editor’s note before being sent out. According to one agency insider: “It’s nice that the Princess has been shooting her own stuff but she appears to have no understanding of the gravity of what she’s done by changing the image before putting it out for circulation.”
The Princess of Wales did personally apologise, saying: “Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing.” But that admission has prompted a re-evaluation of all the images she – and others – have taken in recent years.
The picture agencies are now investigating two other photographs, including Prince Archie’s official christening picture, taken by fashion photographer Chris Allerton in 2019. Getty said the portrait – showing the two-month-old with Meghan, Prince Harry, King Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland and Princess Diana’s sisters – had been “digitally enhanced”, a claim Allerton has described as “a load of cobblers”.
It came after an editor’s note was placed on an image of the late Queen with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, which was snapped by Catherine in August 2022 at Balmoral.
According to Dampier, one of the reasons such swift action was taken against the Princess was because the picture agencies recently had to “pull” a royal rota image taken by veteran royal photographer Tim Rooke after it was revealed to have been digitally manipulated.
As Dampier points out: “Rooke was effectively blacklisted by agencies he’d been working for for decades, so that’s all part of this. They couldn’t look as if they had different standards for Kate.
“The solution will surely be to use professional photographers who don’t doctor images and if there’s any comeback it’s down to them.”
As the controversy around Allerton’s photograph shows, however, even using professional photographers can present a challenge for the royals – especially if they are perceived to be “in the pay” of the principals. Royals have traditionally always had their “favourites”. For Diana, it was Tim Graham. For Camilla, it is Hugo Burnand, who took the official Coronation photographs.
The Duke and Duchess of York used to prefer Gene Nocon while both William and Catherine and Harry and Meghan have handpicked Getty photographer Chris Jackson, who is married to Catherine’s stylist Natasha Archer, to take more intimate shots. (The Sussexes have also repeatedly commissioned Meghan’s friend Misan Harriman.)
Unlike photographs taken of the royals in the conduct of their public duties, these “unofficial” photoshoots tend to cast them flatteringly. This habit of using “pet” photographers has also filtered into political life, with prime ministers now directly employing people to take official as well as unofficial pictures.
Andrew Parsons, who was once a member of both the political and royal press packs, is an example of such a photographer, having been personally commissioned by David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak.
As one picture editor explained: “The trouble with this approach is the images produced are designed to cast the subject in as favourable light as possible. Therefore the images aren’t a true representation. It’s not the same as having a photojournalist take the pictures from a position of complete impartiality.”
Invariably such photographs end up being “edited” by a spin doctor, rather than a professional picture editor, which can again lead to problems.
“These people aren’t trained to spot inconsistencies and potential manipulations,” added the picture editor.
Ironically, this is despite the fact that metadata now exists which leaves a virtual trail on any digital images, showing exactly how it has been manipulated. According to the royal photographer: “It’s always tempting to play around with Photoshop, but the rule of thumb is that you can do what you used to do in an old dark room – so adjust the light and shading, and obviously crop the image – but everything else is a no-no.
“The truth is that the royals have got form when it comes to manipulating their own pictures. I remember being quite suspicious of some images taken by Kate’s father, Michael Middleton. There was obvious blurring and movement and darkening. Elements of it have been going on for years.”
In taking direct charge of their own photography, there is no doubt that the royals have succeeded in killing off the paparazzi who used to plague the private lives of Diana and her sons.
But such excessive control undoubtedly comes at a price if there is something freaky about the images it produces for public consumption.