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

It's really reaching to make the case for tabloids being influential in the US by linking to the publication cited in the OP. Especially these days.

@SenecaFallsRedux, OP never claimed tabloids are influential in the US.

Good job they’re not influential.

At least they’re safely tucked away from the mean old British press.

British tabloids don't have influence, not in the way they used to. When a publication like the DM or the Sun print an inflammatory article, all they are doing is tapping into existing prejudices.

People now get their "news" and gossip online and from a wide range of sources. Those sources are equally available to US citizens, and don't we know it from the comments they post in response to articles.

OP never claimed tabloids are influential in the US.

No, but other posters did.

So ?

So

I was referring to the media outlet mentioned in the Original Post, not to the poster.

Please point to those posts, @SenecaFallsRedux. I’ve just read this entire thread, and can find no such assertions from anyone but you.

Winter she probably means me. I've lost the will to care, there is no point.

I disagree, I think it is really important for Seneca to clarify where this comment was made, so we can discuss it in detail.

I am all for discussing valid points. However, if someone comes into a thread, stating that posters say things that just aren’t there and then complain about it, it could almost be construed to be malicious.

I think, given how controversial this topic is, it is very important that all facts are correct. Then we are all free to form opinions and views based on these facts and also state this views as long as we comply with talk guidelines.

However, the factual basis should be correct. I would hope that people agree with this?

It's really reaching to make the case for tabloids being influential in the US by linking to the publication cited in the OP. Especially these days.

Can you explain why @SenecaFallsRedux? This kind of discussion is what the thread is about / for and I'm genuinely interested.

I know that the anti-Meghan coterie on MN does try to push the notion that there is a tabloid culture in the US with influence similar to that in the UK, but push as they might, it is still not true.

This is really quite rude, Seneca.

My main point is that there is not a tabloid culture in the US to the extent that there is in the UK. Meghan made a similar statement. Posters on this thread have presented other views, which is fine; it's a discussion.

Much of the difference in the US has to do with how large the US is and the importance of regional news outlets.

Nevertheless your assertion was inaccurate. Furthermore, there’s no proof that the tabloid press in the UK has any more influence than does tabloid media in the US.

But you seemed to be saying that this argument was based on the supposed influence of the National Enquirer - which no one had actually said, but never mind - and that that was 'reaching'. My question is, why is it?

Were there no tabloid culture in the US, I would have no idea who the Kardashians are, and I don’t even read tabloids.

Seneca - that is a valid point. I would be very interested in seeing the reader/sales figures (both actual and %) on that if they are available (I might research that myself later). I also suspect that there is a different overlap in the UK where you have the Sun, the Daily Mail etc which both provide a certain proportion of the population with news - and push tabloid content. Would that be correct?

I am just very aware how these threads have been portrayed and I do not want any unfounded criticism remain unchallenged. These threads are my main diversion in a quite challenging time (as they are for may others) and I think we need to be careful and clearly separate facts from opinions- in addition to challenge misinterpretations. Blanket assumptions on posters (or indeed the Royal Family) are not helpful in these times.

I think some of you are confusing "celebrity culture," which there definitely is in the US, with tabloid culture.

Seneca It's all trash at the end of the day with the scum of the earth making money out of it.

Winter, I think that is some papers are mixed news and tabloid, that may lend a different gravitas to whatever they are publishing. However, the pure gutter press (if we classify that as an absence of any news, however biased those views are), is probably as bad in the US and in the UK.

I would actually be quite interested in those breakdowns. I might have a look later.

But celebrities are not covered routinely by the NYT or WaPo. They’re not appearing, routinely, on 60 Minutes, Rachel Maddow, or Sean Hannity.

Does anyone on this and other RF threads get their information solely from British tabloids? The links and references posted suggest not.

I'm not sure what 'tabloid culture' even means.