Catherine, Princess of Wales, announced in a video on Friday, March 22, 2024, that she has been diagnosed with a form of cancer.
Photo Credit: BBC
***
“Time, space, and privacy,” are words unfamiliar to members of a prying press and its voyeuristic mass audience.
But “time, space, and privacy” was just what Catherine, Princess of Wales, was asking for when she stunned the world by announcing she’s been diagnosed with cancer.
What type of cancer remains unknown.
In a two-minute and 15 second personal video released on Friday, while sitting at a bench in the gardens at Windsor Castle, wearing casual jeans and a white striped sweater, Kate Middleton, ashen-faced, announced she first learned she had cancer in post-operative tests after her abdominal surgery in January.
The diagnosis was as stunning to the princess as it is to the public.
Kate Middleton is only 42, a picture of health and vigor, fit as a fiddle, and about as athletic and agile kicking a soccer ball or swinging a tennis racket as you can possibly find with a woman her age.
So, yes, this news is stunning beyond belief.
According to Macmillan Cancer Support, 393,000 people, on average, are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United Kingdom and each year about 167, 000 die from cancer.
Research additionally shows that half of those diagnosed with cancer in the U.K. survive for at least 10 years after diagnosis.
Since the announcement, Kensington Palace has been flooded with well-wishers, messages of love, support, and kind words for her bravery to announce her condition instead of keeping it hidden under a cloak of secrecy.
This comes shortly after King Charles III made a public announcement that he has been diagnosed with a form of cancer, which was discovered after undergoing treatment for an enlarged prostate.
The hope is the medical staff of both the princess and the king have caught the cancer early enough to prevent it from spreading.
During her video announcement, the princess said, “I am well and getting stronger every day by focusing on the things that will help me heal in my mind, body, and spirits.”
The princess began her “preventative chemotherapy” in late February. She was administered drugs, most likely directly into the vein, which slowly progress into the bloodstream from a bag of fluid in a treatment typically lasting several hours. The objective is to destroy cancer cells, keeping them from spreading any further or even returning.
The chemo treatment usually takes several months and can cause unpleasant side effects, the most common being drowsiness and feeling nauseous.
Whether Kate Middleton will be given the “time, space, and privacy,” she’s pleading for while dealing with this trauma, only time will tell. The Royal Family has always eaten up lots of ink with daily newspapers spanning the globe. The guess is the press will continue to press hard for what type of cancer she’s been diagnosed with and delve into how the rest of her family is coping with this crushing news.
This photo taken for Mothering Sunday by William, Prince of Wales, was later revealed to have been photoshopped or edited by Catherine, Princess of Wales and became a stinging source of embarrassment.
***
Hopefully, the demonization of Princess Catherine by the press will end.
Before her revelation of cancer, the princess was ridiculed, mocked, and became the subject of merciless conspiracy theories for Photo shopping, or editing, a picture Prince William took of her with her children George, Charlotte, and Louis for a Mothering Sunday photo.
Soon after major news agencies, including the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters, and Getty, issued “kill” notices to take down the photo because it had been manipulated, conspiracy theories came thick and fast, including that she had a face-lift, was in a coma, she was in hiding, there was a body-double used in the picture and some even wondered whether she had died.
You would have thought she had committed an unspeakable crime.
I never quite understood the crime in trying to put her children and herself in the best possible light before it's released to the world. What’s wrong with making the photos more polished and aesthetically pleasing?
There must be something I wasn’t quite understanding, so I turned to some photo experts to help me understand what lies beneath the crime of the century.
Kelley Wilder, professor of photographic history at De Montfort University Leicester (DMU) in the U.K., tells me, "Kate Middleton is entitled to her personal health privacy and that of her children. That much is clear. "
"What is not clear," Professor Wilder explained, "is why did the family and their media consultants allow the publication of a clearly manipulated image (it really is quite poor by the standards of what is possible today) as a family photograph? It wasn’t necessary."
There certainly was a strict uniformity to how Queen Elizabeth II handled photos intended for public consumption. She was known to have the same photographer at Windsor, Buckingham Palace, or even on her tours around the U.K. and the world. She didn’t have to go through a complicated process of having the photos approved by a hierarchy of public relation staff--she had one photographer and trusted him or her completely.
Wilder points out that news photos have been manipulated for a long-time, including coloring, and printing the sky with clouds.
"Photographers for the Matthew Brady studio," Wilder pointed out, "famously moved bodies to ‘capture’ the feel of battle in the Civil War. There are the notable ‘cannon balls on, cannon balls off’ images of the Valley of the Shadow of Death by Roger Fenton."
The Valley of the Shadow of Death is a photograph by Roger Fenton, taken on April 23, 1855, during the Crimean War. Many believe Fenton deliberately placed cannonballs on the road to make the scene appear more dramatic than it really was.
Nadya Bair, assistant professor in the Department of Art History at Hamilton College (Clinton, N.Y.), reminded me that there has always been some manipulation of news images which is why, Bair argues, "so many of the controversies around staged photos like Joe Rosenthal's Flag Raising at Iwo Jima and Robert Capa's Falling Soldier are really about news images. They get to the heart of the public's long-standing suspicion of what they see in the news and the extent to which what they are being told happened really happened."
There are other examples. For example, Joseph Stalin having his enemies removed from pictures. And, of course, Hollywood was famous for manipulating photos of their glamor movie stars, airbrushing photos to remove wrinkles and dark shadows under their eyes.
In 2012, The Metropolitan Museum of Art devoted a whole exhibit to the topic: "Faking It: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop."
Doug Nickel, professor of art at Brown University, thinks the furor of the amateurish photo surfaced after “considerable distrust about the Royal Family's lack of disclosure of information about Kate surgery.”
Echoing that sentiment is Darren Newbury, professor of photographic history at the University of Brighton (south coast of England), who explained that "what has happened here, is that the conventions of news photography have changed over time, and certainly from mid-20th century (in the West, at least), the idea of truth has become seen as part of the rhetoric of the news/documentary image. And news organizations have evolved codes of practice that reflect that it was the current expectations and codes of practice of news photographs that Kate’s photograph violated and the threat it posed to those news organizations credibility that led to the furor."
The Photoshop software was developed by brothers Thomas and John Knoll in 1987. Later, they sold the license, and in 1988, Adobe Systems launched the software.
While minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable (dodging and burning, cropping), the Associated Press Code of Ethics for photojournalists states that "the content of a photograph must not be altered in Photoshop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool."
Others aren’t quite buying the so-called “ethical standards” mantra the media asserts it clings to with digital photos in the 21st century.
Anne McCauley, professor of the history of photography and modern art at Princeton University, thinks this case over photoshopping was simply royal-bashing.
"Frankly,” McCauley said, "the line between going into Photoshop and erasing an ugly detail and doing things that are today accepted as legitimate and not manipulation (like increasing contrast, changing the color intensity, etc.) is rather a ridiculous one. All photos are ‘distortions’ from ‘reality.”’ That’s something people are going to have to get used to (also in video, of course) because of AI. Throughout all of history except the last 150 years, all imagery was handmade."
From McCauley's vantage point, "This picture was made to be controversial by people who feed off controversy, especially the tabloid press. It’s not controversial."
There certainly wasn’t anything manipulated or distorted with Kate Middleton’s face from the two-minute heart-rending video she delivered from Windsor Castle on Friday.
John Tagg, professor of art history at Binghamton University (Broome County, N.Y.), had a decidedly more blistering take on the Photoshop storm.
"The exaggerated fuss over Middleton's Mothering Sunday family snap,” Tagg explained, “seems to be the product of Britain's toxic and voyeuristic tabloid culture, higher end anxieties about journalistic privileges, and the outdated default secrecy maintained by an out of touch, over-protected and now roleless Royal clan.” “The missing fingers,” Tagg observed, “then become a metaphor and alibi for other claims and discontents, swirled around, of course, in the addictive cycles and free-for-all of social media."
Whoever was to blame or not to blame in this Photoshop circus, I think it’s fair to say the Royal Family has learned a valuable lesson about retouching photos and are probably much better off (as Queen Elizabeth II did) leaving photos of the family in the hands of their public relations staff, who are better equipped to examine the photos before they’re released to the tumultuous environment of social media.
And, hopefully given what Kate Middleton is dealing with, the media and voyeuristic press has learned that there are bigger crimes in the world than a Photoshopped photograph of the Royal Family.
Winston Churchill, while serving as British Prime Minister, suffered an acute stroke in 1953, which was never revealed to the public.
Photo Credit: BBC Archive
***
With Catherine, the Princess of Wales, making full disclosure of her condition, fully prepared for the challenges it presents and what kind of excruciating toll it will likely take on her family and loved ones, she (and her father-in-law, King Charles III) have clearly broken new ground.
In the past, the health of the Royal Family and British prime ministers was usually shrouded in a cloak of secrecy.
And you didn’t have to go back very far to find cases of covering up the true condition of the Royal Family.
When Queen Elizabeth II died in 2022 (age 96), the cause of death was given as “old age.” But according to a book written by Gyles Brandreth, "Queen Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait," the queen had a form of myeloma, or bone marrow cancer.
Similarly, the British public certainly wasn't aware that Charles III’s grandfather, King George VI, was diagnosed with lung cancer before he died in February 1952. He was 56. Some argue that even the king didn’t realize he was terminally ill when he died in his sleep.
In 1953, British PM Winston Churchill, unbeknownst to the general public or even the press, suffered an acute stroke, which incapacitated him for two months. It wasn't until 1966, when Churchill's personal doctor, Lord Moran, published an account of the former PM's condition, that the public came to realize his true condition while he was in office. Many considered it a breach of confidence.
Across the Atlantic, the true condition of U.S. presidents was often concealed from the public in the past. This includes Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in his last years, was coughing heavily, losing weight, and constantly fatigued. A report after his death disclosed that the president was weighed down with “acute congestive heart failure.” He was 63 when he died on April 12, 1945.
It wasn't until 2002 that the public came to a fuller understanding of John F. Kennedy's health while in office. Medical files opened up to historian Robert Dallek showed that he took painkillers, anti-anxiety agents, stimulants, and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress. Biographers have since concluded JFK suffered persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, “a life-threatening lack of adrenal function.”
If King Charles III and Catherine, Princess of Wales, are fortunate enough to survive their cancer diagnoses, it certainly will send a strong message to those spanning the globe about the importance of early diagnosis of cancer and how critical it is in saving lives. Their courageous disclosures also comfort others diagnosed with cancer, that they are not alone in their battle against this deadly disease.
For now, all we can do is support the king and princess, keep them in our thoughts and prayers, and express to them our unwavering confidence that they’ll successfully lick this cruel disease.
--Bill Lucey
March 24, 2024
***
Examples of Photo Manipulation in the News
Circa 1864: Thanks to some razor-sharp researchers at the Library of Congress, it was discovered that the photo below of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in front of his troops at City Point, Va., during the American Civil War is actually a composite of three separate prints: (1) the head in this photo is taken from a portrait of Grant; (2) the horse and body are those of Maj. Gen. Alexander M. McCook; and (3) the background is of Confederate prisoners captured at the battle of Fisher's Hill, Va.
Circa 1930: Stalin was famous for air-brushing his enemies out of photographs, including this one, in which a commissar was removed from the original after becoming a bitter foe of the Soviet leader.
May 1970: This Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by John Filo shows bystander Mary Ann Vecchio (not a student) wailing as she kneels over the body of student Jeffrey Miller at Kent State University, where National Guardsmen sprayed a hail of bullets into a crowd of demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine. The fence post behind Vecchio was removed when it published by LIFE Magazine.
August 1989: The cover of TV Guide shows daytime talk-show host Oprah Winfrey. This picture was manipulated by joining the head of Winfrey onto the body of actress Ann-Margret, taken from a 1979 publicity shot. The composite was created without permission of Winfrey or Ann-Margret, and was detected by Ann-Margret's fashion designer, who recognized the dress.
June 1994: This photograph of O.J. Simpson appeared on the cover of Time magazine soon after Simpson's arrest on suspicion of murder in the death his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. This photograph was manipulated from the original mug-shot that appeared, unaltered, on the cover of Newsweek. Time magazine was accused of manipulating the photograph to make Simpson appear "darker" and "menacing."
September 2000: As a way of showcasing its diverse enrollment, the University of Wisconsin at Madison edited a photograph on a brochure cover by digitally inserting a Black student in a crowd of white football fans. The original photograph of white fans was taken in 1993. The additional Black student, Diallo Shabazz, a senior, was taken in 1994. University officials said that they spent the summer searching for pictures that would show the school's diversity, but as you can see they had no luck.
July 2003: The photograph of actress Julia Roberts, published by Redbook, was a composite of Roberts' head taken at the 2002 People's Choice award and her body taken at the Notting Hill movie premiere in 1999.
Hearst, its publisher, apologized for its “mistake:” "In an effort to make a cover that would pop on the newsstand, we combined two different shots of Julia Roberts. We acknowledge that we may have gone too far and hope that Ms. Roberts will accept our apology."
March 2005: This digital composite of retail businesswoman and television personality Martha Stewart's head on a model's body appeared on the cover of Newsweek as Stewart was leaving prison, purportedly "thinner, wealthier, and ready for prime time," as the headline screams.
Newsweek disclosed the source of the cover image on Page 3 with the lines: "Cover: Photo illustration by Michael Elins ... head shot by Marc Bryan-Brown."
April 2005: The photo below, which appeared on the cover of Star Magazine, was a digital composite of actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, who were rumored to have been involved in a romantic relationship.
The picture of Pitt was taken in Anguilla, a Caribbean Island, in January 2005. The picture of Jolie was taken in Virginia in 2004. Not until page 8 of the issue would readers find a disclaimer noting the image was a "composite of two photographs."
September 2006: A photograph of CBS news anchor Katie Couric was digitally modified from this original to give Couric, a slimmer, trimmer waistline along with a thinner face.
This photo appeared in CBS' in-house magazine Watch!
CBS spokesman Gil Schwartz said, "The doctored image was the work of a CBS photo department employee who got a little zealous." Schwartz added, "I talked to my photo department; we had a discussion about it. I think photo understands this is not something we'd do in the future."
April 2007: The New York Times published this digitally manipulated photograph. In a correction, the Times' editor stated that “the wood siding at the far left of the building was out of alignment because the picture was retouched by a Times staff member who took the picture, but who is not a staff photographer. He altered it because a flash created a white spot on the picture when he shot it through the window of a train. “
The retouching tool additionally left a round circle on the building's window at the right.
The editor's note stated, "Times policy forbids the manipulation of any photograph. Had editors been aware of the manipulation and seen the original picture, they would have either published the picture with the blemish or not used."
June 2010: This cover of The Economist magazine shows President Barack Obama appearing alone on a Louisiana beach inspecting an oil spill.
The original photo, shot by Reuters photographer Larry Downing, shows Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen and Charlotte Randolph, a local parish president, standing alongside the president.
A Reuters spokesperson said, "Reuters has a strict policy against modifying, removing, adding to or altering any of its photographs without first obtaining the permission of Reuters and, where necessary, the third parties referred to."
In response, Emma Duncan, deputy editor of The Economist, stated: "I was editing the paper the week we ran the image of President Obama with the oil rig in the background. Yes, Charlotte Randolph was edited out of the image (Admiral Allen was removed by the crop). We removed her not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers.”
Duncan further explained, “We often edit the photos we use on our covers. We don’t edit photos in order to mislead. I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story. The damage beyond the spill referred to on the cover was the damage not to Mr. Obama, but to business in America."
Source: "Photo Tampering Throughout History"--examples collected by the Georgia Institute of Technology
bill,
thanks for that comprehensive look at this issue.
i thought the response to the photoshopped photo of kate and the kids was over the top. shouldn't be done but that was too much.
and it looked like small taters compared for what was to come.
bruce
Posted by: Bruce Picken | 03/24/2024 at 08:28 PM
Very informative Bill. Princess Kate - I wish the media and public would just let her be and give her time to heal. The photo - for heaven's sake - this is what we have to worry about! Royal bashing in my opinion.
Wow - your comprehensive list of sources about 'photoshopping' was very complete. Thanks Bill for a very interesting article.
Posted by: BETTY MAURICE | 03/25/2024 at 08:19 PM