The British royal family’s popularity with the public is largely due to its careful control of its image and perception. For example, the wedding of Prince Charles (the current King) and Lady Diana Spencer, which began airing on television in 1981, was watched by 14 million households. Thirty years later, Prince William and Duchess Kate’s wedding in 2011 drew 18 million viewers, and Queen Elizabeth’s funeral in September 2022 drew millions of mourners around the world.
Perfectly orchestrated fairy-tale grandeur (coupled with copious media coverage) has added to the royal family’s long-standing appeal. But this week’s uproar over doctored photos has turned the royal fairy tale into a public relations nightmare for the family. This episode not only reveals the importance of myth in royal lore, but also what the public can expect as AI becomes increasingly mainstream: More people will question the legitimacy of the photo, and the telecom industry It shows a crisis of trust in the whole thing. Statements and information released by once trusted institutions.
“The Katherine Middleton photo controversy marks a turning point for a broader public questioning what they see,” said Rebecca May, founder and director of London-based public relations firm RM Publicity. speaks. luck. “Being such a global institution and a family trusted around the world, there are legitimate concerns about the future of these trusted and prestigious organizations and institutions.”
To be clear, no one has confirmed that the photos Duchess Kate released this weekend were generated or manipulated by AI, but the public’s reaction seems to be a sign of trust in the media. This highlights that the decline is likely to accelerate in the coming years.
What’s going on with Kate Middleton?
If you haven’t seen Kate Middleton’s photo drama yet, here’s a quick synopsis. In mid-January, Kensington Palace issued a statement informing the public that the Princess would be away from public life until Easter (the last weekend of March) due to “planned abdominal surgery.” Since then, conspiracy theories about her real whereabouts have abounded, especially after the recent release of three photos that appear to have been manipulated.
Last week, a pixelated photo of a woman believed to be Duchess Kate wearing sunglasses was leaked in a car with her mother Carole Middleton. And on Sunday, Kensington Palace published a photo of the Prince of Wales and his three children (Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, 8, and Prince Louis, 5) on Instagram with , Getty Images, Reuters and other major news organizations were allegedly manipulated. The next day, Kensington Palace issued a statement regarding Duchess Kate’s X, saying that she was, in fact, the one who had edited her photo.
People from all walks of life weighed in on the botched Photoshop job, from Charlotte’s skirt sticking out at odd angles to Kate’s lack of a wedding or engagement ring to the position of Louis’ hands. He pointed out a variety of mistakes, ranging from oddities. Only 3 out of dozens of criticisms.
But Kate’s sketchy photo reveal didn’t end there. On Monday, daily mail Just hours after Kate publicly apologized for the “confusion” caused by her Mother’s Day photo, she shared a photo of Kate and William in a car. The newspaper said Prince William was on his way to Westminster Abbey for the annual Commonwealth Day service, while Duchess Kate was on her way to a “private engagement”. daily mail. Online observers have studied this photo, comparing it to past photos of the princess, which have also been manipulated in some way, and claiming that the image of the princess has been embedded within the photo.
Kate photo fiasco is just the beginning of mistrust in the media
Photo editing is not a new concept. For decades, the royal family has manipulated their photos to maintain their pristine appearance. In fact, we usually expect photos of celebrities to be airbrushed or perfected. And the same goes for us ordinary people. Remove acne from your face photo, adjust your body to look thinner, crop photos and change lighting to look more attractive.
“Image manipulation is not a new concept. To this day, images are airbrushed to remove ‘imperfections’ or add things that aren’t there. But AI technology adds a new, insidious layer to image manipulation that could disrupt it. Georgia O’Brien-Perry, digital PR manager at UK-based Bulldog Digital Media, says: luck.
The advent of generative AI has greatly increased the level of image manipulation, even making it possible to create completely fabricated and believable scenes. That would undermine public trust.
“The increasing sophistication of AI means these fabricated images will become increasingly indistinguishable from the truth,” O’Brien-Perry says. “When photos of celebrities like Kate Middleton are accused of AI faking, the question arises: how do we know what to believe anymore?”
This outrage by the palace team ultimately accomplished the opposite of what they had set out to do with the Duchess’ initial notice that she would be out for several months. By releasing the doctored photos, all they have done is stir up public distrust. And it’s all a sign of where AI operations are heading, communications experts say.
“This is the first of what I fear will be a number of ‘fixes’ in the coming years as the use of AI proliferates,” said the marketing and public relations firm. said David Thalberg, president of Stryker Manley Group. luck. “AI will establish itself as a very useful tool in many businesses and industries, especially in media and communications. However, as with any new tool or technology, the philosophy is that it is simply ‘ready to go. I can’t afford it. shoot. target. ‘”
Other experts believe that AI-generated and otherwise manipulated photos are only going to become more mainstream, and we have no choice but to embrace it.
“This is truly a new reality thanks to AI,” says Jonathon Narvey, CEO and founder of Mind Meld PR. luck. “News organizations will have to get used to receiving and accepting AI-generated images of breaking news and celebrities. Certainly not ideal, but definitely dystopian.”
