Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Royals and American media coverage

999 replies

ButteryPuffin · 04/04/2020 23:50

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
mathanxiety · 08/04/2020 23:30

7Penguins Wed 08-Apr-20 22:05:32
mathanxiety porn on TV is what you immediately think of when you hear freedom?

Yes, a reductio ad absurdum. What I posted was Barleylemon's half baked thought after its full 40 minutes in the oven.

Who gets to play God? you ask, Winterlife
In a free society, the making of these types of decisions shifts to the individual. People have a choice whether to consume or not. In a controlled society, this choice is made for you. Barleylemon joins in.

In real life, in the real world that is nothing like the theoretical universe inhabited by Barleylemon, decisions on consumption are made by the individual among items whose availability to you is decided by others. The choice of what to consume is limited by a great many interested parties long before you ever get to the point of considering what to spend your money on.

We live in a world of brands, and to a large extent image dictates the content of what you see and hear and consume by way of media.
In the case of broadcast TV, there are committees who decide what's fit to air and when.
In the case of commercial TV, commercial interests have a place at the table (see branding comment too).
There are film classification boards in the case of films, video games are classified, and social media polices itself, with each platform developing its own rules of engagement.
All sorts of individual public speech is censored in the interest of public order and the upholding of the law and individual rights.
Who gets to decide what can be read?
What you read in any newspaper is what the editor, sensitive to concerns about sources, the branding of the publication, the need for revenue, and prioritising of items available on any given day, decides what to print. If you think you have access to all the news that's out there, think again. If you think that individual papers are not feeding you their own slant, think again.

As an aside, I would like to see how the DM would sell if it confined itself to the written word.

mathanxiety · 08/04/2020 23:32

rockingchaircandle Wed 08-Apr-20 22:04:11

I couldn't believe that it would still be the same old opinions being flung around by the same clique. Can't you find any more productive outlets in the middle of a lethal pandemic? No, you're still hounding this woman and her family so publicly.

This ^^

Winterlife · 08/04/2020 23:34

So what? A trademark is merely registration of a name, and the various activities it may. undertake.

SenecaFallsRedux · 08/04/2020 23:42

A trademark is merely registration of a name, and the various activities it may. undertake.

A trademark application includes these things, but that is not all. There would be no advantage to them to leak an application before it is approved.

mathanxiety · 08/04/2020 23:42

Barleylemon
The 'free world' is called that for a reason

Well 'someone' has clearly drunk the Kool-Aid here...

Winterlife · 08/04/2020 23:43

@mathanxiety, you don't have a very high opinion of those who consume news.

I ran across attitudes similar to yours a great deal in the USSR, usually among CPSU and Komsomol members who wished to ensure the "right attitude" was enforced. It was assumed that people were too stupid, or too "unenlightened" to understand what was really going on. Plus ça change. . .

Winterlife · 08/04/2020 23:45

Well 'someone' has clearly drunk the Kool-Aid here...

Try living in a totalitarian state, even during so called "glasnost'" before posting such drivel.

mathanxiety · 08/04/2020 23:53

Needmoresleep
As for racism, Mathsanxiety may not understand how divisive the Brexit was. “Racist” was the standard insult levelled at leavers, no matter what reasons or experience some might have. My own view is that there is now a pretty large scale rejection of American identity politics especially around race and gender, largely because most of us want to progress with our lives and get on with our neighbours, colleagues and school mates

You might genuinely wish this were the truth, but wishing doesn't alter reality.

I am Irish, living in the US.
I have many friends and relatives in the UK who would wonder what country you are talking about.

Let me just comment that it's very possible that your perceptions of life, racism, and loving thy neighbour in the UK are born of privilege that you are either not aware of or have decided isn't relevant.

I can post that 'Breaking Point' poster again if you like, and ask if anyone would care to explain its appeal.

Winterlife · 08/04/2020 23:56

@SenecaFallsRedux

Nope. I register trademarks. These are required:

applicant’s name, address and entity type (usually this is the law firm)
the applicant’s signature or verification (also usually the law firm)
identification of the relevant goods or services
filing basis
drawing of the trademark, if applicable
a description of the trademark
payment of the filing fee

If the trademark is already being used in commerce, the date of first use must also be disclosed.

The purpose of registering trademarks is to create and protect a corporate image. It doesn't give insight into the inner workings of the trademarked entity.

So really, there wasn't much that The Telegraph could have disclosed.

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 00:14

lizzie1970a Mon 06-Apr-20 11:21:47

The fact that the UK isn't as important to the US as it thinks it is is a hugely important trend that has gone right over the heads of policy makers in the UK since the end of WW2, and apparently over the heads of large swathes of the British public too. Dean Acheson, US Secretary of State, pointed out the reality of the 'special relationship' as long ago as 1962.

When this fact of life is illustrated in concrete form and the truth is pointed out, it seems your response is to accuse the messenger of "an immature turn of phrase."

It's not about the UK thinking it's important to the US; it's about providing news that is happening in the world. Is it any wonder people have the perception of Americans being insular?
This shooting of the messenger is accompanied by a remark that misses the point, which is that the US perception of what's important that is happening in the world doesn't include the UK leaving the EU.

Also the very condescending - Is it any wonder people have the perception of Americans being insular? mixed with ignorance of the wide range of news outlets available in the US, some of which devote a huge amount of attention to serious reporting and analysis of events abroad - Syria, the EU, China's developing relationships with countries in South Asia, the Australian fires, developments in Israeli politics, etc. The UK leaving the EU won't necessarily get top billing here either, if the topic is discussed.

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 00:19

winterlife
Try living in a totalitarian state, even during so called "glasnost'" before posting such drivel

It's all black and white then.

The 'free world' is a thing?

This thread is proving to be quite the eye opener.

SenecaFallsRedux · 09/04/2020 00:21

Winterlife Not sure that what you are arguing about. I think your list proves my point.

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 00:22

winterlife
H&M have claimed the timing was due to The Telegraph. Personally, I don't believe that. I think it's rather a strange coincidence that the timing came immediately after HM's speech.

A "strange coincidence"?
Would you care to elaborate?

Winterlife · 09/04/2020 00:22

I repeat. You have zero knowledge of life in a totalitarian state, or in life where media is state controlled. Therefore, your post was drivel.

Winterlife · 09/04/2020 00:25

@SenecaFallsRedux On the contrary. Nothing The Telegraph would have disclosed would have affected the foundation H&M are establishing. In fact, without a statement from H&M, there is no proof that archewell belonged to them, as a search of the trademark name doesn't list them at all.

SenecaFallsRedux · 09/04/2020 00:41

Winterlife It makes no sense that they would have leaked it at a time when it would be swallowed up in the overwhelming news of the pandemic. I assume they would want some kind of launch, where they could appear in person.

I'm still not sure what your point is. It appears that someone at the Telegraph did some sleuthing and had suspicion that Archewell was theirs. When approached by the Telegraph, should they have denied it or refused to comment? That does not seem to me to be a good choice, because it would come out eventually, and they would have been accused of being coy or untruthful or both.

Winterlife · 09/04/2020 00:44

Yes, they should have refused comment. What was The Telegraph going to report? That they believe H&M were going to launch a foundation named archewell?

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 00:56

winterlife, yes, black and white. It must be one or the other.

images.app.goo.gl/79P9X6AZFJ8PZ6QVA
A photo taken recently in the free world.

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 00:57

The Telegraph had far more than the name of the foundation.

Winterlife · 09/04/2020 01:03

What else did it have? If it had anything else, it either came from H&M or from someone working for them. It could not have come from the law firm, as such a disclosure would result in disbarment and a huge damage award.

BTW, your link doesn't work. But I stand by what I posted. You don't understand what it is like to live in a society where media is state controlled. The state should have no role in monitoring what people read.

lizzie1970a · 09/04/2020 01:04

Math - I was referring to you writing "Shock, horror" as the immature turn of phrase, which it is - it's like something a teenager would say. Talk about missing the point.

There's lots of articles to be found on America being insular. Do your research.

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 01:05

As you are no doubt aware, H&M had not yet bought the domain name Archewellfoundation dot com, and anyone who typed that into a search bar was until recently directed to a YouTube video of the song 'Gold digger' by Kanye West.

Don't you think they would have held off on picking up the phone in breathless excitement and revealing the name to the Telegraph until they had at least secured a domain name?

Or maybe you will proffer this as evidence of stupidity?

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 01:07

lizzie1970a

But you seemed so shocked, so horrified.

Your comment wasn't about insularity in general. It was about nobody in the editor's office of a specific local news station in Chicago giving a rat's ass about the UK.

mathanxiety · 09/04/2020 01:16

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/08/migrant-children-detention-center-texas-attorney-health-crisis
Here's my link.
Your facile comments on freedom are gobsmacking.
The state isn't the only threat to freedom, not by a long shot.

Political activities in United Kingdom

In Britain, in the 1980s, Murdoch formed a close alliance with Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and The Sun credited itself with helping her successor John Major to win an unexpected election victory in the 1992 general election, which had been expected to end in a hung parliament or a narrow win for Labour, then led by Neil Kinnock.[56] In the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005, Murdoch's papers were either neutral or supported Labour under Tony Blair.[citation needed]

The Labour Party, from when Tony Blair became leader in 1994, had moved from the Left to a more centrist position on many economic issues prior to 1997. Murdoch identifies himself as a libertarian, saying "What does libertarian mean? As much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, as few rules as possible. But I'm not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit."[57]

In 1998, Murdoch made an attempt to buy the football club Manchester United F.C.,[58] with an offer of £625 million, but this failed. It was the largest amount ever offered for a sports club. It was blocked by the United Kingdom's Competition Commission, which stated that the acquisition would have "hurt competition in the broadcast industry and the quality of British football".

In a speech he delivered in New York in 2005, Murdoch claimed that Blair described the BBC coverage of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, which was critical of the Bush administration's response, as full of hatred of America.[59]

On 28 June 2006, the BBC reported that Murdoch and News Corporation were considering backing new Conservative leader David Cameron at the next General Election – still up to four years away.[60] In a later interview in July 2006, when he was asked what he thought of the Conservative leader, Murdoch replied "Not much".[61] In a 2009 blog, it was suggested that in the aftermath of the News of the World phone hacking scandal which might yet have Transatlantic implications[62] Murdoch and News Corporation might have decided to back Cameron.[63] Despite this, there had already been a convergence of interests between the two men over the muting of Britain's communications regulator Ofcom.[64]

In August 2008, British Conservative leader and future Prime Minister David Cameron accepted free flights to hold private talks and attend private parties with Murdoch on his yacht, the Rosehearty.[65] Cameron declared in the Commons register of interests he accepted a private plane provided by Murdoch's son-in-law, public relations guru Matthew Freud; Cameron did not reveal his talks with Murdoch. The gift of travel in Freud's Gulfstream IV private jet was valued at around £30,000. Other guests attending the "social events" included the then EU trade commissioner Lord Mandelson, the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and co-chairman of NBC Universal Ben Silverman. The Conservatives did not disclose what was discussed.[66]

In July 2011, it emerged that Cameron had met key executives of Murdoch's News Corporation a total of 26 times during the 14 months that Cameron had served as Prime Minister up to that point.[67] It was also reported that Murdoch had given Cameron a personal guarantee that there would be no risk attached to hiring Andy Coulson, the former editor of News of the World, as the Conservative Party's communication director in 2007.[68] This was in spite of Coulson having resigned as editor over phone hacking by a reporter. Cameron chose to take Murdoch's advice, despite warnings from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Lord Ashdown and The Guardian.[69] Coulson resigned his post in 2011 and was later arrested and questioned on allegations of further criminal activity at the News of the World, specifically the News International phone hacking scandal. As a result of the subsequent trial, Coulson was sentenced to 18 months in jail.[70]

In June 2016, The Sun supported Vote Leave in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Murdoch called the Brexit result "wonderful", comparing the decision to withdraw from the EU to "a prison break….we're out"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

Winterlife · 09/04/2020 01:36

Don't you think they would have held off on picking up the phone in breathless excitement and revealing the name to the Telegraph until they had at least secured a domain name?

They spoke to The Telegraph before that domain name was registered. As domain name registrations are almost instantaneous, there was time to register the name before The Telegraph piece.

archewell.com was registered on February 24, 2020, out of Arizona. The application for archewell as a trademark was submitted on March 3, 2020, out of Los Angeles. In any event, registration of domain names is something that law firms should be suggesting to clients at the time anything is incorporated or trademarked.

Swipe left for the next trending thread