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?

Norman Baker is a Lib Dem MP and was a member of the Privy Council. He says he was fairly supportive of the Monarchy until he served in the Privy Council and learned about the reality. He has written a very well-researched book.
I am sure the Royal Family hate him as he exposed so many negative facts about them that very few people knew, including myself.

And I believe him about his Editor.

And look at MN. Start a negative thread about Meghan it will stay up even if people say terrible things. Do the same for Kate and it will be deleted. Same for Harry or William.

Hear hear.a complete unabashed witch-hunt.

Op, what this journalist said is of no surprise. The British tabloid press have shown us who they are time and time again. I don’t think they have much use for ethics!

Interesting! I hadn’t noticed that, I just might have to start a K&W thread and put it to the test 😂

When he prints the name of said editor and risks being sued for defamation, then I'll believe it.

This crossed my mind too.

He wouldn’t say this without evidence. That would be stupid. And he doesn’t seem stupid.

This.

The editor gets to decide what articles he will publish, because he knows what will appeal to his readership, and sell more newspapers.

So if the paper's readership is generally Royalist, then an instruction to 'lay off W&K' would be completely rational.

We have a free press, they can choose whatever angle they wish, as long as it isn't libellous.

So in a roundabout way you’re saying the editor wouldn’t have put this in writing because they knew it had potential to bite them on the bum one day?

I am interested to know what evidence he has to backup his claim. Because I doubt he would be saying this openly and publicly if it was wholly untrue. What editor would hire him again? Certainly not the one who he claims gave him the brief.

Yes an editor can say and control what goes into a newspaper, you are being naive! 😘 take everything with a pinch of salt, including what is said on daytime tv, any media outlet/person going on the media has their own motive

I think the coverage of M&h has been bizarre but not sure witch hunt is quite the word - more constant non news stories

1. We had blousy 'Harry's found love' pieces

2, thinly veiled racist new couple articles

1. Just racist new couple articles
2. About the Engagement articles
3. About the Wedding articles
4. Lots of her fathers family articles (to be fair caused and sustained by them) which I think were initially supportive of Meghan
5. Random anything articles from 'blast of fresh air' to 'breaks royal rules' usually crap like her nail polish
6. Tours articles (both positive and negative)
7. Pregnancy articles inc baby shower puff pieces - all 'sources say they drank the tears of monks'

10. Birth stories, photo shoot stories

Then
11. South Africa interview
12. Megxit/ Oprah
13. Since then speculation, regurgitation and nit picking on what they do or say

I'd say up to South Africa there was racism in the media that was pulled up (so has continued on social media) and then as much puff vs vacuous negativity pieces. After SA it's gone more negative but from then I think it's fair that they have helped feed the media machine with the decisions they have made. It's not to say what the media have reported is accurate etc but if after Archie was born they just stood back and didn't do a thing more interesting then turn up for a royal event now and again, at invictus events, the odd Wimbledon etc - I'm sure there would have been an attempt to write something about them but like there has been? I don't think so

They can do what they like but it's naive to now not know it's going to be scrutinised and probably negatively by some U.K. press especially (though global press is pretty anti them as well from my admittedly small pool of research and given I live outside the U.K.)

I really hope after today and the book in jan - from then it's all forward looking but depressingly I think it's not over and we'll likely see more interviews and a hallmark movie made etc

Then if he has got the evidence, why not just say the paper and editor?

i can’t imagine how you would have totally unbiased reporting. But there are degrees of it, some bias inherent (or possibly, more likely, previously inculcated) in the journalist, and sometimes reporting that is wilfully biased.

Please note: I meant to write ‘you aren’t going to get unbiased and balanced reporting.’

I agree coxpurplepippin that you are more likely to get balanced reporting from the bbc, or in Australia the ABC (which I watch), but sometimes even then balance is not always achieved - not a perfect system, but its what we’ve got.

There are also some journos who write for the guardian that maintain their integrity. Mostly I read the Australian section of The guardian and read some British and Us news from their sections too. You get to know the journos that try to achieve fairness. For eg, in Australia, Kathleen Murphy is a reliable political journo. I’m left leaning (although I’d like to think I’m centrist, my voting history indicates a left lean) so her articles can make me challenge my preferences and bias enough to take me away from the siloing effect - one sidegood, the other bad.

I also Followed a mostly Liberal (right) journo, Nikki Savva, who was a bit like that too. she wrote for The Australian, a strongly conservative right wing paper. She challenged from a right perspective but didn’t support everything on the right.

I think that’s why we should read across a broad spectrum of newspapers etc. unfortunately cost of subscriptions make that difficult. But as articles are often sold to other news outlets, I find it is sometimes possible that an article published behind a paywall can be found on another news site for free, sometimes a little later.

Daily Mail editor is working for the King.....

There has never been fair and balanced press at any time in any country.

Same as the right wing press then.

doesn’t the apparent instructions to leave W&K alone and just go after H&M breach press ethics/ regulations?

What regulation would cover this? Even if you required papers to be balanced, this wouldn't cover William and Harry. They aren't opponents. The balance to a political story is to give the views of politicians/party supporting and opposing the politician/policy. The balance to a story about a company is to give them a right of reply if it's a negative story, or give some version of "other brands are available" if it's a positive story. The balance to a negative story about Harry isn't a negative a story about William.

I'm not a royalist btw, I'd abolish the RF, but of course a paper isn't required to publish a negative story about William if they don't want to. Or a positive story about Harry. Or any story at all - they can write about what they like.

lots of reasons…

Because the paper and editor will never employ him again. It’s different to be a paper and editor speculated about rather than one that is named and shamed.

Will be interesting if all the papers and editors come out the woodwork to say “wasn’t us”.

And the King is working for the crown and God.

@Liorae ”There has never been fair and balanced press at any time in any country.”

True. Which is exactly why people on all sides need to remember that the press are not (thank God!) the judiciary. The press are, at best, a kangaroo court played out in public.

The press are in the business of selling stories for profit; the press are not agents for justice and fairness.

But it is interesting that people can easily be manipulated into feeling and believing that the press are paragons of virtue, fairness and justice.

Just imagine how different the stories in the press might be if the editors were bound by an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?!

😂
That says it all !!

'Because the paper and editor will never employ him again.'

So craven self interest then. If he wants to work for the paper and editor again then he obviously has no interest in unbiased reporting.

@MarshaMelrose
Before you spread any more misinformation, intentionally or otherwise
Norman baker :
He was Mp
He was privy counsellor
He wrote this well received and meticulously researched book revealing all the machinations of the royals . I'd be careful about calling him a liar if I were you

www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/21276222.anti-monarchist-arrested-shouting-oxford-proclamation/

I'd advise you to read it and educate yourself

Sorry wrong link

This is his book - many royal critics here have read it ( i hope you read about Symon Hill too )

www.amazon.co.uk/What-Do-You-Royal-Family/dp/1785904914/ref=nodl_?dplnkId=addf57a8-c78e-4bb4-ac7f-015f3c2cc933