Should this be allowed

[Footballfans]

Norman baker said this (today?)
“And actually when I was working—I shouldn't give the name of the paper—but I was doing a piece for one of the nationals, writing a piece, and because I'm quite critical of the monarchy in many ways I was told I could say what I want about Harry and Meghan but I had to lay off William and Kate.

"That was the instruction from the editor. So I think there was an element of truth in what he says."

how can newspapers give such instructions? Doesn’t this violate fair press norms or ethics?
And which paper is this, does anyone know?

They probably allowed the press to destroy megan because the rumours of her bullying staff were true and it was the staff's way of revenge! All women marrying into the royal family are given a rough ride in the press but no other woman has been treated so badly by the press and then the staff! There is a reason no one seems to have many nice things to say about her and it's nothing to do with her race!

It seems that there should be some regulation, but apparently only the BBC is required to be un-biased according to a previous poster.

There is press regulation, in terms of the law (to protect privacy, prevent court cases being compromised, stop libellous claims) but there is no law to prevent a paper giving an editorialised opinion of an event. THAT is the freedom of the press; to give an opinion, without fear to reprisal. It’s not perfect, but the alternative is terrible. Countries where the government control what the media say are not places that I would like to live.

so assuming what he is saying is true, then doesn’t the apparent instructions to leave W&K alone and just go after H&M breach press ethics/ regulations?

surely it should!

^ This

As usual anything said by anyone that is lending itself to show that H&M are telling the truth about something... and the source is rubbished.

So what if Norman Baker is not a royalist. He was a Member of the Privy Council, he was an MP and a parliamentary Secretary of State/

And he has written a book, yes. Everyone should read it. Maybe it would open some people's eyes.

So are you equally upset the editor of the Guardian for instance word tell it's staff to lay of any Labour issues and focus on the conservatives? 🤔

People are saying anything these days to jump on wagon ffs did you see that older lady on piers Morgan saying she had an affair with Prince Harry when he was 21 she looked 60-65 🤔

@NancyJoan i agree with that the editorial comment pieces are the position of the paper.

but other articles should be supposedly unbiased in public interest.

Or the Sun and the Express to print a string of lies, innuendo, racist dog whistles and crap to appeal to its right wing readership who lap up this sort of thing.

What has your question to do with the OP

Because they are questioning editorial bias , if you cannot understand that then my reply is lost on you 🙄

I don't know any paper that is unbiased. The iIndependent set up as that but look how that turned out.

He is not a minister or an mp. He has not been in parliament since 2015.

He's a bit of a drama- maker but gets his teeth into things and gets a sense of something going on and investigates it. Sometimes he's right and sometimes he isn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if what he says an editor said to him is true. On the whole right wing press will protect the monarch/heir- it's not a system they want to change. However, they know the RF sells newspapers so will go after other members. H and M were prime targets for speculation, exaggeration by the tabloids. I'd bet 80% of what they write is just made up. The DM is vile. Full of 'a Royal source told us' comments which usually means 'the journo sitting at the next desk thought up this lie'. They often run the same story two days running with a completely different content eg 'Harry Will Not His Military Uniform to HM The Queen's Lying in State at Westminster Hall'.
Reasons
Day 1 - because The King has told him he can't.
Day 2 - because 'a senior member of The King's Staff told him he can't.
Day 3 - because he is no longer entitled to wear it as he resigned his military positions.
Day 4- a source close to Harry and Meghan told us 'Harry has chosen not to wear his uniform. His respect for HM The Queen does not depend on him wearing a military uniform.'
Day 5 - Harry wore his military uniform to HM The Queen's Lying in State at Westminster Hall.
Utter rubbish,all just made-up crap by seedy journos at DM.

My naivety in this regard, died in the 90s when I spent half a semester studying the influence of owners over editors over journalists, in a political science class.

When a good friend of a monarch is also an owner of a major newspaper you just aren’t going to get unbiased, unbalanced reporting. They might throw a few slightly critical articles of the monarch into the mix for ‘ balance’ but overall articles will be pro monarch, and anti whoever is questioning or complaining about monarch.

same with politicians, same with big business connections etc.

He needs to name names and let who ever gave him those instructions the right to confirm or deny. Typical unsubstantiated accusations in this whole drama.

“When a good friend of a monarch is also an owner of a major newspaper you just aren’t going to get unbiased, unbalanced reporting”

gosh, it’s all so depressing, isn’t it?

Who or what would need to own it in order to get an unbiased perspective?

Yep !

If he gave the names would there be grounds for an investigation? (And by whom?) It seems from what other posters are saying it isn’t a breach of press ethics!

Or, you could just look at a different newspaper, perhaps one that supports your confirmation bias.

People love to hate the BBC but they're as unbiased as you're going to get in the media.
Maybe have a look at how Mishal Husain responded to Meghan's claim that her and Harry's engagement interview was an 'orchestrated reality show'.

I asked my partner who is a (former) journalist and he said this stinks but apparently there is nothing to stop it from happening.

it still doesn’t sit right with me...

and to those talking about political parties, this is not the same thing as Labour vs Conservative. It is like Guardian tearing down Angela to make Starmer look better (and on the behest of Labour) . Sleazy as fuck. Why would anyone stay on to take that kind of abuse?

Absolutely. The Sun backed Gordon Brown until one day Rupert Murdoch told him his time was up, and they switched to completely negative stories about him. Do you really imagine The Guardian doesn’t have a strict editorial line that its journalists have to follow?

As for the Royal Family, they get exactly the same “Build them up, tear them down” cycle. Workshy Will and Waity Katey had become the favoured couple while Meghan and Harry were the targets, but now they are the Prince and Princess of Wales you can bet your bottom dollar there’ll be more criticism again.

'I asked my partner who is a (former) journalist and he said this stinks but apparently there is nothing to stop it from happening.'

Have to say if your partner was a journalist I'm surprised you're surprised at journalistic bias. Which branch of journalism were they involved in and how did bias work for them?

Can anything that's filtered through a human ever be unbiased? ("Discuss" 😀). Even the BBC...

I think you’re reading more into it than is there, which I am sure will delight him

he was likely told to lay off as readers at that time were more interested in Meghan and harry. Or he was acting all obsessed. I think it’s a bit gullible to believe it’s as he indicates.

Give it a rest. At least three threads a day, all saying how dreadful the Prince and Princess of Wales are , especially compared to …guess who?

Can’t your agency get you another client?

He is a politician, who writes for redtops not a credible source

Alternatively Harry and meghan at the time sold newspapers so why wouldn't the editor tell him to focus on them?