Royals and American media coverage

[ButteryPuffin]

Saw this cover posted on Twitter and noted that it seems the tabloids do indeed exist in the US (amazing, huh?). This is pretty much what you'd expect from the source, and I think it's pretty deplorable, but I am interested to see how the American media in general cover the presence of the former royals who've now arrived to make their home there. Of course we can discuss their coverage of other Royals too and related topics. All welcome.

Link to cover story - please note I'm not endorsing it, I'm just sharing it:
66.media.tumblr.com/79912301ec9c6e0f2cbf902a7a42a540/da60395e577b1897-aa/s540x810/61af854a1eed0d02b6bfa026133d16f8bdb87f41.jpg

Myimaginarypenguinhasfleas

(mathanxiety:)
"How many more [racist comments] do you want?"
"Is there an acceptable number?"
Entirely up to you, mathanxiety. Obviously the more you can quote, the more substance that gives to your assertion.

@Myimaginarypenguinhasfleas
Do you think they should have put up with the "two disgraceful racist comments" and moved on?
Do you think those "disgraceful racist comments" were only to be expected, and they should have taken those "two disgraceful racist comments" on the chin?

If "two disgraceful racist comments" are not racism, then what is?

You asking me to prove that racism isn't a thing in the UK but you won't accept disgraceful racist comments in a national rag that despite those comments still sells 1.1 million copies daily as evidence.

It seems to me that your ground rules here are rather self serving.

And it seems to me too that your assertions here are without substance if the assumptions on which they are based do not include evidence of out and out racism.

Needmoresleep Mon 06-Apr-20 17:46:59

Seneca, why the broad generalisation. I doubt very much that all leavers are insular. The EU is a trade block, which aims to give competitive advantage to its members by erecting trade barriers. Insularity on a grand scale.

Or did you not study economics at school.

Maybe I can correct the misapprehension there:

"The EU is a trade block which aims to give competitive advantage to its members by negotiating trade agreements as a single unit."

It strikes me that the UK somehow missed the whole point of the EU, which is a pity.

Well frankly my dear, the fact that these rags are referred to where you live doesn't say much about where you live.

Not where I live. I don't live in the US. However, the point made was that they were, and are, referred to as tabloids in the northwest US. It appears, from the news articles I linked, that they are referred to as "tabloids" quite widely across the US. Unless, of course, the WSJ, NYT, and Forbes are also in the northwest.

The fact that tabloids exist doesn't mean that anyone with blood supply to the head takes any notice of them. Tabloids can print away. Nobody will care.

Most of these tabloids sell 250,000 units per print run. That's small potatoes, and certainly down from their zenith.

I don't disagree with your premise. The point of this thread was not tabloid influence, but whether they will print articles.

If you've never been in the UK then you may not understand fully what British tabloid culture is, or its reach.

There are a lot of Brits in my city. Anyone I know personally views the tabloids as garbage. Fun to read, just as The Enquirer can be (more so at its zenith in the 1980's), but no one takes it seriously. I'll let the Brits here comment on whether that is their perception in the UK today.

Oh, and incidentally, the Daily Mail's largest traffic is online, and it comes from the US, not the UK.

These Americans all believe the National Enquirer is a tabloid

yes because supermarket tabloid means a different thing in the US than tabloid does in the Uk

Is that really so difficult for people to understand.

The National Enquirer did not win a Pulitzer. There was some discussion that it might for its investigative work on the John Edwards story. But it didn't win.

Ah now Seneca, several posters here have referred to the Enquirer as the pulitzer prize winning enquirer - surely this can't be so????

The level of ignorance of actual american life on this thread is very amusing. Not surprising though. yeah sure the enquirer is a newspaper, people care deeply (even know who they are) about the sussexes and we are all praying for boris johnson. sure we are

I’m not the one who claimed the Enquirer is not a tabloid. It is.

I also never claimed U.K. and US tabloids are similar, nor has anyone else. So stop alleging something that exists solely in your mind. All others have stated is that tabloids do exist, and they’re now covering H&M.

And nobody with half a brain bothers about what's in them, so what's your point?

Bear in mind that these publications carry their fair share of alien sightings, photos of flying saucers, and the like.

Anyone I know personally views the tabloids as garbage. Fun to read, just as The Enquirer can be (more so at its zenith in the 1980's), but no one takes it seriously. I'll let the Brits here comment on whether that is their perception in the UK today.

Yes, the DM is taken seriously because it carries political news with a right wing, atavistic slant, which appeals to the 1.1 million people who buy a copy daily. You haven't been to the UK, and you clearly don't understand the culture the DM represents.

The US online version is not what people are looking at in the UK. There are separate online versions for the UK, US, India and Australia. It's called the Daily Mail online only in the US (elsewhere it's MailOnline).

The UK and US tabloids are different animals.

I have something to add to the tabloid and Meghan debate. In societies based on free markets, what is available to trade and consume (products and services) coexist with the demand for them. No third party, such as the State, intervenes in this relationship (Things are slightly more complex in reality, of course). This raises several key issues: 1) 'good' and 'bad' products and services coexist side-by-side (because they haven't been 'policed by the State) 2) the choice to consume or abstain is shifted from someone else (the State) to the individual. Individuals will partake of what can be deemd the 'bad' by some (e.g., Kardashians, Coke) but this has to be allowed to happen because the other way is to have an imposition of someone else's will on your life choices.

I wonder if people were drawn into the Meghan saga, just like I was, through puzzlement rather than anything else such as racism or some other factor? People were puzzled by her actions and pronouncements which seemed immature and deceptive - 'There is no tabloid culture in the US'. Anyone who has grown up in a free market society, even if they haven't researched it, will nevertheless know that good and bad products coexist, and some individuals will partake of the 'bad' (tabloids) and some will partake of the 'good' (broadsheets). To portray the world as only being populated by 'good' things and acting surprised that 'bad' things exist seemed disingenuous to many.

It strikes me that the UK somehow missed the whole point of the EU, which is a pity.

Lol! I think you’ll find there are very knowledgeable posters on this subject here. If you want to know more about it, start a thread.

Not for the first time, mathanxiety you have completely missed the point. Whether deliberately or not I don't know, but I'll be charitable and assume the latter.

Let me put my post more simply for you.

The DM posted two indisputably racist comments about MM. No-one, certainly not me, has excused or minimised them. They were roundly condemned for them, and rightly so. Nowhere did I say these were not racist. You are letting your imagination run away with you.

Whenever people talk about MM being the victim of racism, they can only ever point to these two examples, which were robustly challenged at the time.

I did not ask you to prove that racism isn't a thing in the UK, I asked you to provide any other examples of racism against MM that you knew of.

You don't seem to be able to.

It seems to me that your ground rules here are rather self serving.

You might want to consider what you are implying here, and ask for your post to be removed.

Harry and Meghan plan non-profit empire under the name Archewell, 'to do something of meaning' - link to the Daily Telegraph article.

Fleas if there was a like button I would have clicked for your post

www.forbes.com/sites/guymartin/2020/04/07/prince-harrys-dilemma-the-new-harry-and-meghan-charitable-foundation-will-be-called-archewell-but-whats-he-actually-going-to-do/#11f04a125b47

Is it my imagination or are the UK papers kinder ?

pallisers

The level of ignorance of actual american life on this thread is very amusing. Not surprising though.

Well, no. It's not surprising. After all, MN was set up in the UK originally. People in the UK are more likely to know about life here than in the US.
And of course it's very easy to say "I live in the US; you don't, so you don't know". Even if others who know about the American way of life say otherwise.

I think the "ignorance" is a two-way street. I lived for a few years in a north American community. Sometimes (as a benign tease) they'd try to sound English (I was "LaMa from Wales in England" it seemed) and say things like:

two nations divided by a common language don't you know?

We didn't use PG Wodehouse phrases like "don't you know?" stuck at the end of a sentence then and we don't now.
Although it's nice to see the "two nations divided" quote - it's so familiar it's quite the old friend.

And if:

The american media in general (like real newspapers - Boston Globe/New York Times/Washington Post etc) don't care much at all about british royals - they'll run a few stories a bit down the page - like at the weddings etc but not in any real news sense.

and if Americans have only really heard about the Queen (which I absolutely believe, btw, and am not at all surprised by) how come it's been reported that H&M will have equal pulling power to eg the Obamas or the Clooneys?

Yes, I have read that.
No, I can't be bothered to find links.

What ho! (Or other non- upper class 1920s greeting if you prefer).

Thank you for linking that Forbes article. The writing style is beautifully considered. There's also a level of detachment (I think it refers to other royal families) that you would not get in British writing ( or if you did it would be very cold and hence feel harsh iyswim).

Just read it again....it's the use British as a pre fix to Royal that gives the impression of one of many and ( of course) stood out to me as I usually only read of The royal family.

That style is very creative and adjective heavy...does that indicate anything about the piece and where it fits into in the US readership market ( a question to those with US knowledge as I have none.)

Also 'Royal bauble?' , flipping heck, feels harsh even to type that.... apologies now if I've misremembered, and if not...ouch

Isn’t aristocracy viewed as a bauble in the US anyway?
Like a trophy you’d buy after getting rich, like marry off your heiress daughter to a poor aristo for the title in exchange for bailing them out.

Well maybe (I've never heard it but I don't read much American press or literature) but Harry HRH was not a random poor aristo (btw, that's a phrase that is steeped in British Class values isn't it?)..his 'position' as a royal was of huge value...( thinking of people I know who have met him as a result of something tragic happening in their life and how they have spoken about that and it's meaning to them but also other meanings too)...and to have that reduced to 'ex-royal bauble', even as a possibility shows a difference in culture that I hadn't really considered.

Maths anxiety, what is with the lecturing?

It strikes me that the UK somehow missed the whole point of the EU, which is a pity.

At the very least there is an argument that might sat that since Britain is a democracy, if the British have missed the point of the EU, a leave vote is pretty logical.

I looked up Dominic Raab last night since I knew nothing about him bar he is an arch Brexiteer. His CV is interesting, impressive even. He may be right or wrong on Brexit, but his background alone entitles him to an opinion. In the same way as having a vote entitles British voters to having an opinion. I don't get the idea that some people, often self identified, are automatically correct and as such have the right to replace debate with insults.

As for the point of the EU, perhaps a brief look at the cultural conflicts experienced by Warsaw Pact might suggest some of the issues that might hinder future convergence within the EU. That is my fear. I guess the question is when does sovereignty become racism. And would that also apply to America, who seem in no rush to give up their sovereignty in favour of greater global integration.

In the meantime H&M provide a useful, ultimately pointless, diversion.

Off topic, I looked up DRs cv last night too because I realized that I couldn't even recognize him.

Back on topic ( and away from the seriously scary stuff) who needs Instagram when you can just ring up the Telegraph ( presumably before the early edition deadline and before the other news broke).

Archewell? Archewell??? WTF does that even MEAN???

OK I've read what it means not envy...

It's in one of the articles, but I can't remember. Has anyone heard it pronounced? Is it Arch-well or Arch-e- well? ( Or is it proper posh and something completely different like Arch-ull or Art-we).