I think the DM goes into issues in depth, which is a good thing. Other newspapers report events with little background detail. The facts are there, what you heard already on the TV news, but not an interesting read.
I think the cookies decide who views what and the more you read of royal stories, the more you see.
I don't have an issue with the phrasing 'crunch summit'. It was a single meeting with great significance because Meghan and Harry had issued a sudden and unexpected public statement announcing a move and 'a progressive role' within the Royal Family. There was no possibility to phase discussions of this via a series of interspaced meetings. That one assertion had to be corrected.
Constitutionally, and therefore in law, royalty can only behave in a proscribed and limited way. It would not be possible, according to the rules, to act as an official royal, yet also decide for yourselves how you are going to use your influence. Courtiers, who would be legal advisors, would have to approve every visit and public speech. A simple way of describing this is : 'You are either in or out'. 'Crunch' is a simple and graphic way of describing one meeting which must decide something quickly before the royals are accused of being in breach of their constitutional role. A constitutional role is equivalent to a legal role, so if Meghan and Harry had represented the monarchy by holding a speaking event which was not approved and which overstepped what they are allowed to say, they might have put the British Royal Family in breach of the law.
Harry and Meghan had also spoken in their public statements about continuing to be serving the Queen, so anything they had said in 'their new progressive role' might have been interpreted as spoken with the approval of the Monarchy and all of its legal advisors. End of monarchy could have rapidly ensued, if for instance they had critisized a government policy or aligned themselves with a political movement.
Policemen, judges, paramedics also have to use their power and their authority ONLY when they are on duty. This is not an alien concept. They can't say 'I'm a policeman and I'm ordering you to show me your proof of identity' when they are off duty. You are either on duty, following the legal team - the courtiers' advice - or off duty, e.g. no longer working royals.
A lot of DM reporting does expose money-making by other individual members of the royals and does hold the country's most influential to account. In this sense the fourth estate is doing what we expect it to do.
Of course, if you think the British Royal Family is like the Kardashian clan - that there is no conditional angle - and the press are being mean by dissing certain members' social media feed, then discount all of the above.