ITV apologized for showing the photo of Kate Middleton. (Credit: ITV, screenshot)

The Italian magazine Chi won’t be alone in publishing the pregnant bikini photos of Kate Middleton on vacation in Mustique. The Australian magazine Woman’s Day said it plans to publish the photos, the Guardian reported.

Woman’s Day editor Fiona Connolly defended the photos of a pregnant Middleton walking on the beach in a bikini, The Australian Herald Sun reported. Connolly is quoted as saying that Australians “see these sort of photos every day” and that the photos are “more of a celebration.” She added:

“Kate looks amazing and fit and fabulous, she looks so much better than the poorly and sickly woman we saw coming out of hospital which make these photos more of a celebration.”

Connolly addressed the privacy aspect of the beach, claiming:

“She is on a public beach and she was mingling with holiday makers. There are other holiday makers in the photos. It’s a very different situation to the nude photos, there is no photographer hiding in the bushes and she is not inside a private villa.”

The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade countered, noting that Elle Macpherson won a 2006 Press Complaints Commission complaint over photos of her in Mustique under the defense “all of Mustique’s beaches were private.”

The Herald Sun noted that Woman’s Day recently garnered “criticism for publishing pictures of a pregnant Chrissie Swan enjoying a clandestine cigarette.”

According to a Feb. 7 Australian Associated Press story, Connolly defended running those photos because “Chrissie herself has admitted how grateful she is the photos were taken as they not only stopped her smoking but have sparked one of the most significant debates for women’s health in years.” However, Swan reportedly commented that she “begged the photographers not to run the story” and that it was “a deeply shameful secret.”

Woman’s Day Publisher in UK Says It Wouldn’t Run the Pics

The Guardian noted that “the UK arm of the Women’s Day publisher, Bauer Media, sought to distance itself from the Australian title” by releasing this statement:

“Bauer Media Australia’s editorial decisions are made entirely independently from those of Bauer Media UK. We would like to reiterate that Bauer Media UK would not publish images of this nature in any of our titles.”

Bauer Media similarly issued a statement last year when its French “licensee” Closer ran topless bikini photos of Kate Middleton.  At the time, Bauer Media’s chief executive Paul Keenan slammed Closer for publishing the “instrusive and offensive pictures” and called for the French Closer to unpublish the photos, which it said were “a gross intrusion of their Royal Highnesses’ privacy.”

After running the photos, ITV Apologizes, ShowBiz Spy defends

As iMediaEthics wrote earlier this week, the UK Palace called the pregnant bikini photos of Middleton an invasion of privacy and many outlets in the UK have witheld from publishing the photos. The Daily Mail went so far to block out the photos of Middleton when showing the cover in its article, as did Australia’s the Herald Sun.

ITV, however, showed the cover with the photo of Middleton on its show This Morning, the Guardian noted. Shortly after, ITV apologized for the “deeply regrettable error.”  That on-air apology, provided to iMediaEthics by ITV’s Sarah Hitching, reads:

“ITV’s This Morning statement:

“Earlier during today’s news review we were discussing photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on a beach in Mustique published in an Italian magazine.

‘Unfortunately we accidentally showed an unblurred image of the magazine cover, which briefly showed the photographs. This was a deeply regrettable error and we are very sorry.

“We apologise unreservedly to the Duke and the Duchess.”

On the other hand, UK “gossip website” Showbiz Spy ran the cover with the photo intact and defended it because of the traffic the photo would bring, according to the Guardian. Showbiz Spy’s editor Adam Nutburn is quoted as saying:

“Unless I get a very angry lawyer’s letter I’ll probably keep them up. I think we can just about get away with it because we’re reporting on the fact that someone else has printed them.”

Hat Tip: E Online