Prince Harry not attending Philips memorial

[FlyingGeeseAgain]

It has been confirmed that Prince Harry will not be attending P Philips memorial service. What are people’s thoughts about this? Is the whole security issue a smoke screen for the fact he can’t face his family?

@Roussette

Yes I did. That's why I said, "And the like." None of it is serious journalism, let alone a serious and unbiased comparison of media coverage.

Against your bias, yes I agree.

There have been other articles on this subject.

If I see headlines on exactly the same subject very different because of the person, I take note.

@Roussette

Rubbish? You think so.

Have a read of this then...

Here

And look at this

And this

I will read it if you don't put it as a hidden link.

@Roussette

Against your bias, yes I agree.

There have been other articles on this subject.

If I see headlines on exactly the same subject very different because of the person, I take note.

I've read those articles too, but they weren't comparing like with like.

They were comparing Kate 15 years in to the job with Meghan, on the scene for 3 years.

Like with like would be to show their media cover one year in, two years in, three years in.

I suppose we're all biased but it seems to me that Meghan had more positive media coverage initially.

It must have been awful to be built up and then knocked down, and kate had a very slow journey to eventually eventually being respected. But she got there only over a long, long time.

@Roussette

And there have been other articles that say otherwise. Cherry picking an article or opinion that agrees with you or sending a screenshot of a random paragraph isn't evidence.

Everyone has biases. I'm not the one sending screenshot or random opinion pieces as though they're scientific proof that I'm correct.

I mean, MM had the experience of being lauded to being with and then knocked down. That must have been awful. Kate never had that. She was waity katy to being with and it was a very slow road to the media reporting respectfully rather than ''her mother chews gum you know''.

Fripp I only did it like that because it was long links.

Here goes

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royal-press-office?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc

www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

crafty.diply.com/c/107240/news-headlines-that-show-how-british-press-treat-kate-versus-meghan

Cherry picking an article or opinion that agrees with you or sending a screenshot of a random paragraph isn't evidence

I didn't. It's the whole article in each case

random opinion pieces

Call it that if you like. Headlines don't lie. Plenty of pictures of headlines in those articles

Rousette, we've all read all those articles but they're not comparing the media reporting around the two at the same number of years in to the firm.

Kate had done a decade's worth of ''hard yards'' with the media trolling her by the time they left her alone and those articles just don't acknowledge that at all!

I didn't know there had to be a length you'd 'served' in the RF not to get nasty headlines, first I've heard of that!

@Roussette

Cherry picking an article or opinion that agrees with you or sending a screenshot of a random paragraph isn't evidence

I didn't. It's the whole article in each case

Yes you cherry picked articles that agree with you. Not hard to do on the internet. Someone else screenshotted a random article.

My point is that it's not serious journalism let alone a serious and unbiased comparison of media coverage for the two. Buzzfeed produces content to satisfy their customers, therefore choose information that confirms their biases. Are you following?

You have to be joking.
The articles show the two women doing EXACTLY the same things and being reported on differently !

Yes you cherry picked articles that agree with you. Not hard to do on the internet

So? The headlines don't lie. That is it.

And please don't do 'are you following' in that sarcastic way, there's just no need to be like that.

@Roussette

I didn't know there had to be a length you'd 'served' in the RF not to get nasty headlines, first I've heard of that!

It's logical to compare the reporting at comparable periods of service surely, especially as your point seems to be that Meghan had it worse????

She didn't. If you look at reporting of kate, it's clear, it starts of brutal and after a decade or so, when she's done the hard yards with the media it seems to ease off.

Meghan got an initial big welcome which must have made it hard to deal with when the media seemed to turn on her but she hasn't had it worse than Kate.

@Roussette

I didn't know there had to be a length you'd 'served' in the RF not to get nasty headlines, first I've heard of that!

Yes and did they check that on every occasion Kate was criticised and attacked (as she was in the past), that Meghan was too in the same circumstances?

It's very easy to craft a narrative.

Din't know Kate had a big slice of racism added to her criticism .

she had ''coal miner's daughter''.
Doors to manual.

Yes and did they check that on every occasion Kate was criticised and attacked (as she was in the past), that Meghan was too in the same circumstances?

I don't understand. It sounds impossible whatever you mean. Not sure how one being praised for eating avocados and the other is fuelling abuse and drought by eating one can be 'same circumstances'

Can anyone just imagine if Kate had flounced off to another country with William , co operated with a tell all book dissing the RF and then appeared on OW washing their dirty linen? And lied? The backlash would have been far, far worse.

@Roussette

Yes and did they check that on every occasion Kate was criticised and attacked (as she was in the past), that Meghan was too in the same circumstances?

I don't understand. It sounds impossible whatever you mean. Not sure how one being praised for eating avocados and the other is fuelling abuse and drought by eating one can be 'same circumstances'

Essentially that you keep saying, "The Headlines Don't Lie", but a serious attempt to analyse media bias would take more than some cherry picked headlines gleamed from Buzzfeed and similar and a "at the end of the day the headlines don't line" refrain, I'm afraid.

@Roussette

Yes and did they check that on every occasion Kate was criticised and attacked (as she was in the past), that Meghan was too in the same circumstances?

I don't understand. It sounds impossible whatever you mean. Not sure how one being praised for eating avocados and the other is fuelling abuse and drought by eating one can be 'same circumstances'

You do understand Rousette so don't be obtuse.

If you compare the media's treatment of them the same number of years in the media coverage of meghan was worse. It wasn't. I won't bother posting it but I've just read a list of headlines about kate before the media finally stopped trolling her. She had a very thick skin not to let it get to her for ten years.

Roussette

thank you

@Lurking9to5

Actually my worry is that they genuinely can't comprehend this.

[quote Yeahthat]@Lurking9to5

Actually my worry is that they genuinely can't comprehend this.[/quote]
yeh, I don't believe that rousette doesn't get it. I know she's smart, she just doesn't want to get it as it goes against her narrative that Meghan HAD IT WORSE. She didn't!

Obviously the real issue is the press. How dare they scrutinise every move a woman nervously entering the royal family makes? There should be limits to what the press can report. If something actually happens, report it. But her mother chewed gum. Not a headline.