The Week

■ Replying to the Republican theme of “family values,” Bill Clinton vows: “I’ll wake up every morning worring about your kids.” And if you’re elected, Bill, so will we.

■ Much merriment was occasioned in the 1930s by the failure of the British press to mention the romance between the Prince of Wales and Wallis Simpson when the U.S. papers had headlines about the next King’s “Cutie.” It could, we were told, never happen here. Aswegoto press, however, the British press has had two days’ worth of banner headlines and reports about tapes of an intimate conversation between a woman, who seems to be the Princess of Wales, and a young man called James, who seems to be at least a would-be paramour. The conversations are in their way quite moving, full of repressed emotion and tender sentiments in the style of Terence Rattigan, or Noel Coward’s Brief Encounter. But they are undeniably sensational, with the putative Princess Diana describing marriage to Prince Charles as “torture” and the couple blowing kisses down the blower. Nary a peep about any of this, however, in the investigative U.S. media—although their self-control will surely break down in a day or two. Why this unaccustomed reticence? It cannot be that Princess Diana is a figure unworthy of media attention. She long ago overtook Elizabeth Taylor as the world’s most photographed woman. Nor is the story without serious implications; last time, it caused an abdication. What then? Well, the story, which first surfaced in the National Enquirer, consists of a telephone conversation, taped without the knowledge of those concerned, which at least hints sexual indiscretion. Remind you of anything? Right. Having asserted the principle that taped conversations appearing in supermarket tabloids and involving sexual indiscretion could never interest a serious journalist, the media are now somewhat caught. The ghost of Gennifer Flowers is protecting the American reputation of Princess Diana. And you thought it was journalistic chivalry.

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

■ Replying to the Republican theme of “family values,” Bill Clinton vows: “I’ll wake up every morning worring about your kids.” And if you’re elected, Bill, so will we.

■ Much merriment was occasioned in the 1930s by the failure of the British press to mention the romance between the Prince of Wales and Wallis Simpson when the U.S. papers had headlines about the next King’s “Cutie.” It could, we were told, never happen here. Aswegoto press, however, the British press has had two days’ worth of banner headlines and reports about tapes of an intimate conversation between a woman, who seems to be the Princess of Wales, and a young man called James, who seems to be at least a would-be paramour. The conversations are in their way quite moving, full of repressed emotion and tender sentiments in the style of Terence Rattigan, or Noel Coward’s Brief Encounter. But they are undeniably sensational, with the putative Princess Diana describing marriage to Prince Charles as “torture” and the couple blowing kisses down the blower. Nary a peep about any of this, however, in the investigative U.S. media—although their self-control will surely break down in a day or two. Why this unaccustomed reticence? It cannot be that Princess Diana is a figure unworthy of media attention. She long ago overtook Elizabeth Taylor as the world’s most photographed woman. Nor is the story without serious implications; last time, it caused an abdication. What then? Well, the story, which first surfaced in the National Enquirer, consists of a telephone conversation, taped without the knowledge of those concerned, which at least hints sexual indiscretion. Remind you of anything? Right. Having asserted the principle that taped conversations appearing in supermarket tabloids and involving sexual indiscretion could never interest a serious journalist, the media are now somewhat caught. The ghost of Gennifer Flowers is protecting the American reputation of Princess Diana. And you thought it was journalistic chivalry.