Excellent article - Harry the Whistleblower

[Bugeyedowl]

A really interesting and thoughtful article on Royals' involvement with the tabloids - why are they so obsessed with their own popularity, to the extent that they even attack their own?

Why ‘Spare’ Is About a Much-Needed Media Reform

Their populariy is important to advertise their causes. There are quite a few posters on here that have met royals as they are patrons of the charities they work for. So getting publicity for the charity is important. Bit then it's clear from that article that the writer, an American ex model, has mo knowledge of how a constitutional monarchy works.

As for attacking their own, we're still waiting for Harry to tell us which stories they are. It seems that, on the contrary, over his lifetime the RF have constantly covered for Harry and tried to keep bad stories out of the paper. So when she talks of a man suffering lies for 40 years, actually he's quite openly said that he had lies printed about himself to make himself sound better. So, for Harry, reform would have been disastrous.

Harry has yet to say which untrue stories they put out there to protect his brother and camilla the best he could do is say that the engagement ring story is untrue which doesn't show him in the best light now the original story that made him sound lovely

She is just another person jumping on the bandwagon to cash in on the crumbs.

What an absolute pile of bollox. Who the hell is she? A media influencer? Never heard of her and she is writing pure shit. Where is the evidence to support her claims? What are her credentials. She's a bloody instagram blogger. Yet another load of nonsense.

I think I'll go and write a blog and someone on Mumsnet may actually be dumb enough to take me seriously [eye roll with knobs on]

We all know the newspapers are sensationalist crap and print some outrageous stories, but there is at least a body intended to protect people. The vast majority of people do not buy newspapers. I'm sure more are influenced by instagram and twitter shite

Totally agree with the article about the tabloids, only have to see the blatant panic buying inducing articles en masse that were constantly in the headlines. Taking a picture from one store having empty shelves to make out there was a shortage of toilet rolls and voila panic buying ensued.

Then came the petrol shortage, headline upon headline petrol is running out. So of course everyone went off to stockpile causing the shortage.

Its just relentless with them.

Unfortunately people clearly still buy ir read their news otherwise they wouldnt have survived as a business 🙄 😒

Their popularity is important for the survival of the monarchy. Harry doesn't care much about the survival of the monarchy as about himself (not judging on that one, he is free to choose what he cares about). Harry is guilty however of playing and manipulating media as much as anyone else.
As for Meghan, she grew up in Hollywood, never lived in this country long enough to understand its culture and the role monarchy plays. She remains an outsider in that respect and Not sure she was ever interested

Who the hell is she? A media influencer? Never heard of her and she is writing pure shit. Where is the evidence to support her claims? What are her credentials. She's a bloody instagram blogger.

Oh wow, just because she's not someone "famous" or just a "blogger" doesn't mean her opinions are not valid or that it isn't a good article. What's wrong with independent thought pieces? You can't accept them because they threaten your rigid world view?

What "credentials" is she supposed to have to write a piece and do her own research then? A stint at the Daily Fail? I suppose that's "credible" journalism to you?
Seems like you only value opinions from mainstream news and tabloids, and it really shows.

I agree that he's attacking the tabloids in order to bring about a change in reporting for the future, absolutely. But it's a shame that in order to do so, he views his own family as collateral damage. I'm not sure that his sights are solely aimed at the press, I think he's got his brother lined up too I'm afraid.

Fwiw I think the government fed the tabloids the running out of fuel thing, so that they would report it, we'd all panic buy, and the government could then quickly and easily pass a bill to re-employ European tanker drivers - that was the problem at the time if you recall.

If the monarchy falls it won't make Harry any more relevant.

And while I am cynical about the media, I think the press will probably outlast the royals. I also think the you-tubers and tik-tockers filming themselves in Lancashire this week are a warning that there are worse things than the UK press. Is that really what Harrry wants?

Well, anyone can write anything - it doesn't mean the piece is worthwhile, valid, credible. This woman's opinions are no more or less important than anyone else's. It appears she thinks Brits are pretty stupid and don't recognise the difference between tabloid journalism and 'serious' journalism. She doesn't seem to think tabloid journalism exists anywhere else, no other country's press influenced politics and the UK press is in thrall to Murdoch unlike any other country's press .

So I'll pass, thanks.

Their popularity is important for the survival of the monarchy. Harry doesn't care much about the survival of the monarchy as about himself (not judging on that one, he is free to choose what he cares about). Harry is guilty however of playing and manipulating media as much as anyone else.

I agree with this.

The linked article seem to think the tabloid media is a new thing - the previous Wales's basically went to war in the press in 90s and while the newspapers still influence the national conversation it's influence is on a slow decline as the sale numbers decrease.

It does read like I'm the only one who can see everyone else is doomed when in reality large swaths of the UK public are deeply cynical about most tabloid stories and increasingly so about the wider media.

LavenderHillMob, so true. The number of people who think that bypassing main stream media and obtaining their 'news' from social media makes them somehow more savvy and their news consumption more 'truthful' is astounding. At least with main stream, whether that be print (and yes, even the tabloids), online or TV, there are certain governances in place.

It's important to read around lots of different sources. Not just mainstream, that's what I try to do.

The "governances" of the MSM are crap - the PCC was useless (hacking scandal) and Ipso is basically run by the newspapers! It's shit, that's why they get away with such lies and disgusting vitriol like Clarkson's article. bylinetimes.com/2023/02/10/the-sun-clarkson-meghan-and-ipso-prepare-for-another-shaming-episode-of-non-regulation/

The governances of the MSM are infinitely better than randoms on sm. Ahhh, yes, Byline, founder Peter Jukes, 'the tin-foil hatted Twitter conspiracy theorist who makes Carole Cadwalladr look sensible' (Guido Fawkes).........

@RoseThornside I agree that he's attacking the tabloids in order to bring about a change in reporting for the future, absolutely. But it's a shame that in order to do so, he views his own family as collateral damage.

Well, he's not going to be able to tackle the press without pointing to his own family's collusion. Look at Camilla cosying up to clarkson and Morgan. You have to bring it all out in the open, otherwise nothing will change.

I think the problem most people have is that they declared they wanted a normal life away from the media (completely understandable and I have sympathy for things that have happened in his life) yet proceeded to sell their lives to the highest bidder. They expected friends to never publicly comment on their lives which they didn’t but then outed them in a book turning their lives upside down with no warning or apology. It’s horrible.

Look at Camilla cosying up to clarkson and Morgan.

How has she cosied with them exactly?

www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a42281531/jeremy-clarkson-queen-camilla-lunch-meghan-markle/

It's been reported everywhere

And has been said numerous times, Camilla didn't host the lunch, Clarkson's diatribe hadn't been published at the time of the lunch, we don't even know if their paths crossed at the lunch (200 guests), is Camilla responsible for what Clarkson writes now? If course she is - she's a woman, must be her fault. How about laying the blame at Clarkson's feet where it belongs. Although Judi Dench and Maggie Smith were there too. Maybe it was their fault.

She did host the lunch, and she invited them.

is Camilla responsible for what Clarkson writes now. If course she is - she's a woman, must be her fault.

yeah, pretty sure she was responsible, she probably paid him to write that shit. Or promised him a knighthood or some such rubbish. And ffs her being a "woman" has nothing to do with anything.

Has nobody anything to say about this:
**
“During the Brexit debate, though, Boris Johnson gave “advice” to Queen Elizabeth that she use one of her residual royal powers to “prorogue” Parliament, which meant sending the M.P.s home for a few weeks, thus cutting off a key debate, and she did so. The U.K.’s Supreme Court later found that the prorogation had been wrong and unlawful. Brexit, as much as Megxit, provided warnings that the U.K. is badly in need of constitutional clarity and reform regarding the role of the monarchy.”

is this true?

Plenty of ‘up in arms’ responses about a ‘nobody ex model blogger,’ (way to put yet another woman down btw), having a negative opinion about the British tabloids, and the British Monarchy, but no one addresses this!

Imagine defending any Murdoch rag. He certainly does seem to have some people very well trained.

Do you live in the UK? If so, do you live under a rock or something?
If you don't, then you're not really in a position to claim that it wasn't addressed.

No. She didn't host the lunch. It was an event hosted by Ewan Venters, former CEO of Fortnum and Mason. She was just a guest alongside a load of other famous people.

So if that's what you're relying on to say she cosies up with Clarkson and Morgan, it proves you're just speaking a load of tosh and can't even research properly.

But Harry and Meghan are far more obsessed with their own popularity and image than any other Royals? How is that “reform”?

First, I asked, “has nobody anything to say about this?” Then, “Is this true?”

No one on this thread addresses this I should have noted, I guess, to avoid misunderstanding. (I wasn’t asking nationally. I’d be really bloody surprised if this had not been addressed nationally - if it happened. )

And no I don’t live in the UK (I’m pretty sure you know that of me, I’ve said so on these threads many times). It’s not your first response to me either. Nor do I live ‘under a rock’ (why go to personal insults?). But your King is my King, and our head of state. Our late Queen did interfere in our politics and the result was The Dismissal in 1975. Hence, why this struck me as also being pretty freaking shocking, if it is true as I asked.

So, how did this all turn out? Somebody prorogued parliament illegally, it would seem?