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

The merit of any other reasonable criticism.

I feel like she’s being robbed of her personhood a bit here. She’s capable of good and bad decisions like anybody else.

If we give her a free pass because she was the victim of a notoriously bigoted rag being bigoted, then what? She is immune from all further criticism but her husband isn’t?

Everything they are doing seems joint to me.

Still wondering what this merited criticism of her might be.

...a notoriously bigoted rag being bigoted...

Are you implying that she should have expected this and just got on with the job?

(It's racism, not bigotry).

Well three silly things they have done are get into a PR briefing war against The Queen over the use of “Sussex Royal”, yesterday’s Archewell statement and that awful Tom Bradby documentary.

Obviously these are PR missteps not serial killings, but very surprising mistakes for people like H&M to make, considering the advice they have access to.

Similarly, expecting royal police protection abroad might be considered unreasonable, or even greedy, and its hardly racist to say so.

Mathanxiety - I don't dispute Meghan's considerable accomplishments but if you want to live in a society where there is a 'free' press (and, clearly, there are issues around this that can be discussed elsewhere), one that is not controlled by the State or some other body or agency, then a feature of that is pluralism, whether of viewpoint or otherwise. Expecting only a positive press is akin to living in Soviet Russia or suchlike.

Are you implying that she should have expected this and just got on with the job?

Most people in the public eye do. Why let the DM win? H&M had more protection, more leverage more resources to withstand the DM than most of its victims do.

(It's racism, not bigotry).

DM does ALL the bigotries. Racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny....Any bigotry you can think of, the DM does it.

I think that's nonsense, BarleylemonPenguin

A press that diligently reports the truth and holds politicians to account is all anyone wants.

A so-called 'press' that does what HennyPenny4's link shows at Wed 08-Apr-20 06:44:48 - that is to say, embarrasses itself but keeps on churning out verbal and pictorial vomit anyway, and selling 1m+ issues daily - isn't an asset in a free society, and speaks volumes about that society.

The DM in particular has been blamed and rightly so for its contribution to the genre known as fake news. It has made a huge contribution to the demise of democracy.

Mathanxiety

The 'free world' is called that for a reason - free markets, free press, 'free' laws (generally, you can do what you like until you break the law, contrasted with living in a society where you have to behave in accordance with the laws from the outset). Diversity and plurality (the "free" part) are tolerated rather than controlled or funnelled into a singular or unitary Party line. This can be quite a shocking thing for people to come to terms with - that some people may not be very kind or may say nasty things, with seemingly no end to the nastiness or brutality. The alternative is to control this - make everyone only say and do 'nice' (as defined by the Party, the State, the religion). Some people prefer the former system, some the latter.

Oh my word. Why is the DM being the only source quoted. Anyone would think it is the only news outlet. With only one journalist.

A press that diligently reports the truth and holds politicians to account is all anyone wants.

You’re saying that as a reader.

There are a very great number of businesses, celebrities, and assorted other people who expressly DON’T want to deal with the media in a straightforward, factual, press-conference way.

They want to brief, spin, leak, trade and manipulate.

There are many, many non-politicians who want (think they “need”) a certain type of coverage, at certain times, in certain ways.

There is an enormous industry of publicity agents, reputation management companies, crisis PR outfits who make huge money handling and manipulating the media,

There are celebrities who phone trusted journalists and brief them “off the record” (in the royal sphere it has been established that both Diana and Camilla did this for many years).

It’s a much more two way industry than you want it to be @mathanxiety

Although I think we do both agree that the DM disappearing tomorrow would be a gain for civilisation,

ArriettyJones
You're right that the DM is a one stop purveyor of all the bile. In the case of MM, it was racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Plus a nice dollop of crassness, ignorance and insularity to appeal to its core readership.

It's not at all unreasonable to expect the grandson of the Queen, his wife, and their child, the great grandson of the Queen, to enjoy police protection while abroad. The Queen lost a very close relative to terrorist violence and the world has not become a safer place since then.

What exactly is your beef with the Archewell statement?

It takes two to have a briefing war. Maybe there are people who are disappointed in the conduct of HMQ over the Sussex Royal thing? Would it really, truly have hurt the Monarchy to let them use that name? We got a glimpse of dirty linen airing that was most unseemly. The Palace could have let it drop. They didn't have to go all Mafia on H&M.

Not sure what you are objecting to about the Tom Bradby bit either.

ArriettyJones

There are many, many non-politicians who want (think they “need”) a certain type of coverage, at certain times, in certain ways.

Or, indeed, "deserve" etc

"Are you implying that she should have expected this and just got on with the job?"

Most people in the public eye do. Why let the DM win? H&M had more protection, more leverage more resources to withstand the DM than most of its victims do
ArriettyJones

What about the argument that even one racist barb is one too many?

Or the argument that if you let them get away with racism against you then they are going to keep on doing it to you and also to people who are not as well able to call them out on it?

How is challenging the DM = 'letting them win'?

Are you saying that H&M are cushioned somehow, by wealth, by status, by mystique, or whatever, and racism couldn't therefore hurt them in a personal way? Are you taking their humanity from them here?

Are you saying that racism isn't worth anyone's energy or attention?

Are you saying that the DM is never going to stop, so why bother?

That's how evil flourishes.

Great post, @ArriettyJones.

Come now Mathsanxiety, as someone who sets themselves up as an expert the Theresa May jibe is gratuitous. You had not the reference so insult rather than ask. Here is a clue.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/anywheres-vs-somewheres-split-made-brexit-inevitable

The framework works for other social debates. Somewhere, rooted within their communities, can be expected to be more socially conservative. (Not necessarily a bad thing. People in the town where my mother lived were astonishingly kind, and indeed tolerant of her dementia, when compared with London.)

As for
And why would Brussels be populated by 'anywheres'? They are from individual EU countries, including the UK until recently.

That is incredibly naive. I assume there is a parallel with "inside the beltway" people. Brussels jobs are well paid and extremely difficult to achieve. There are a lot of barriers and it helps to speak the right languages and have done the right internships. It helps to be an insider, whose parents know the ropes. Britain became so underrepresented, in part because our higher education system did not line up well, that they set up a two year training scheme 'The European Fast Track' to prepare promising candidates to sit the exams.

And yes, I had heard of Dominic Raab. Again the gratuitous insult when none was needed. But he had only been in the cabinet a year and, frankly, does not stand out. I used him as an example of someone who has had significant European and international exposure, yet believes in Brexit. His opinion, his right, and the same is true for all of us. In the same way as New York City has to accept Trump as President, the 48% have to accept Brexit. It's called democracy.

I think I get it. You identify with Markle. The grandiousity. British taxpayers no longer buy the idea that we should pay for her role of saving the world, so we have to be racist. Go on...pull the other one.

What exactly is your beef with the Archewell statement?

I think it was ill-advised, badly timed and did them no favours. Not their worst PR clanger by a long way but not great. I think it’s pretty clear by now that they make their own PR decisions and don’t listen to advice.

What about the argument that even one racist barb is one too many?

Of course but the question is what you do about it. I can’t remember off the top of my head if the DM apologised for the “Compton” or “exotic” stories (and maybe one other?) or not. Or whether a complaint was made to the PCC.

But PCC every time they pull that shit is the best recourse available IMO.

Or the argument that if you let them get away with racism against you then they are going to keep on doing it to you and also to people who are not as well able to call them out on it?

Like I say, PCC. Every single time they pull something outrageous. It’s cheaper than suing, it is often successful, and it makes hassle for them. Not enough people do it.

Not sure what you are objecting to about the Tom Bradby bit either.

I don’t know where to start. Complete car crash. Made them look awful. Both of them sounded whiny and spoilt against a backdrop of genuinely deprived and struggling people whose difficulties and resilience they were supposed to be highlighting. HIV sufferers and rape survivors and goodness knows what other groups in South Africa FGS. So the two multi millionaires have a little dance with these underprivileged women and visit a project or two then start telling us how hard THEY have it.

They could have done a sit down with him on another occasion back in London and planned it properly, and avoided that juxtaposition of their problems and serious (poverty, illness, sexual violence) problems.

I am assuming Tom B talked them into it, their press people said “Don’t” and they did it anyway,

Thanks @Myimaginarypenguinhasfleas

A so-called 'press' that does what HennyPenny4's link shows at Wed 08-Apr-20 06:44:48 - that is to say, embarrasses itself but keeps on churning out verbal and pictorial vomit anyway, and selling 1m+ issues daily - isn't an asset in a free society

It’s the definition of a free society. There are only three solutions to the issue of views or behaviors that are different to one another (diverse): 1) rely naturally on people having the ‘correct’ view or behavior 2) control it (view or behavior) 3) let it run free (view or behavior). Each position has costs and benefits to society.

No skills?! He was in the army and had an brilliant education! What a strange headline.

He went to brilliant schools. That doesn’t mean he had a brilliant education.

He has poor qualifications, army training and experience of being a royal. I didn’t see the headline but I’m guessing they’re talking about how he monetises military skills in LA? He can’t do a Paul Burrell and sell snippets on royal life.

He does still have his Sentable (sp?) charity. I don’t know why he doesn’t concentrate on that while she restarts her website lifestyle blog thing and chases acting work.

The charitable foundation business or whatever it is sounds too broad and woolly to be meaningful.

Oh and he has Invictus still. So that’s two charitable endeavours for him, and she could be the breadwinner.

It's not at all unreasonable to expect the grandson of the Queen, his wife, and their child, the great grandson of the Queen, to enjoy police protection while abroad

It kind of is, when they are no longer representing the Queen and have moved on from the Commonwealth. They need to finance it privately, though would rather the British taxpayer fund them than this American taxpayer.

Do the British taxpayer even fund Anne’s children or the York girls?

To answer the question re security ...its a benefit funded by the UK public because of need. These all come with limits to ensure that you qualify and if you do they are the state's to give not yours to take.

So, you can have an operation but you can't go into a private hospital unless you pay. You can have a student loan for ££UK course fees but you can't then get a place at Harvard and send the ££££££ bill.

There are very many documented cases where the application of need based public funding rules causes individuals to have financial difficulties, to lose sight of a goal that was precious to them or have to find another way to fund their plans. I there's spare public funds for exceptional cases additional security in Malibu or LA to develop a preferred lifestyle wouldn't be very high on my list.

There is also precedent for huge UK public outcry when people with power play the system for their own benefit. MP duck houses being the example that comes to mind.

Anyway, my understanding is that the security issue has been solved by Prince Charles. A sort of super-high princes trust grant for a start up focussing on A list style entrepreneurshp.

Anyway, my understanding is that the security issue has been solved by Prince Charles. A sort of super-high princes trust grant for a start up focussing on A list style entrepreneurshp.

I hope that means inner city youths are being hired as apprentice security.