Once again this thread is throwing up some extraordinary double standards and confirmation bias.
Let’s start with Tom Bower. He has never been a “tabloid hack” as people on this thread are so quick to label him. He is a seasoned investigative reporter (25 years at e BBC, mostly on Panorama) who has been writing biographies of controversial and powerful preople since the 1980s. The subjects of those biographies, well used to strictly controlling their public image, by and large did not like his books (sound familiar?).
Several have sued him for defamation – including Richard Branson, Richard Desmond, Conrad Black. None have succeeded with their actions. Just a reminder – you win a claim of defamation by proving that the things you wrote are true. So the lawsuits you refer to actually show he can prove everything he wrote, not that he’s a liar (quite the reverse!).
There is one error that he has corrected in his entire writing career – he made false allegation that the group Palestinian Return Centre was known to blame the Jews for the holocaust in his book on Jeremy Corbyn (note – he didn’t make this up – he was repeating an allegation that had been made in the House of Lords). He apologised for this and removed the statement from his book. The PRC sued the Mail, who had serialised the novel – doubtless because they had deeper pockets.
So, one proven error in a 40 year career writing biographies of the rich and powerful, many of whom have challenged him in court. That’s not exactly a spotty record. But apparently, he’s given up all his principles now and everything he has written in this book is a lie. How likely is that?
Even if Tom Bower did write for the tabloids, that’s also not a reason to immediately decide everything he has discovered is a lie. Those who constantly bring up Prince Andrew on this thread - how on earth do you think we know about his relationship with Epstein, the photo with Virginia Giuffre, the money lent to Fergie? It’s because of the investigative reporters at the tabloids, that’s why. How can you explain why everything they write against Prince Andrew is clearly true, but everything they write against the Sussexes is clearly a lie? Why any criticism of Virginia Giuffre was beyond the pale, as her account was clearly completely true, but those who spoke to the Times about being bullied by the Duchess of Sussex were incompetent/liars/jealous/lazy/racist?
This doublethink is even more incredible to me because it relies on taking everything said and done by the Duchess – who for literally years has been relying on a Hollywood PR firm to “craft” her image 👀 – as gospel truth even when it is provably not the case. So the Hollywood PR firm and their adherents is are pumping out puff and misinformation, and some of the most respected investigative journalists around are scum and liars.
Why? Because they are trying to make money of her? Who’s also making money out of their position? Why, that would be the Sussexes. Propaganda over investigative journalism – that’s the choice some of you are going for (but only when it come to the Sussexes. Lord knows you’d never fall for the PR put out by anyone else, you regularly tell us that).