The Press & The Royals: a discussion

[Whaeanui]

As we were just having a great discussion on this topic I’m going to try again to continue it on a thread of its own. A previous thread highlighted two particularly prolific ‘royal reporters’, but the same is true for all. They often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch. So do we think it is possible for the royal family to stay relevant and in the publics mind without their unhealthy relationship with the media? Can social media replace this? What do you think they can do to make positive changes that would reflect an understanding of the mental health challenges the media intrusion results in? Also their role in charities that deal with mental health and misogyny, mistreatment of women etc could be impacted by this too. Thoughts?
Please do not derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular members or if they deserve it. I would like a discussion on how the royal family could change the relationship with the press.

if other people take the main tabloid players to court and get them exposed for their methods, maybe they’ll have to change their culture

Just pointing out, yet again, that the courts are not there for people to use them to further personal crusades. That is considered, literally, an abuse of process. The government needs to step in and follow through with Leveson 2, in my opinion, and put in place an independent press regulator with proper teeth. If Harry was lobbying for that, I’d be 100% behind him.

People setting this up as a secret and underhand deal are just exposing their ignorance here.

Please don’t come onto my thread to insult other posters and cause trouble. It’s been doing really well, with everyone being respectful and sticking to the actual topic. You’re bringing your own agenda. There are other threads for that. People having opinions on the way legal issues work and what should be in the public domain are not ‘ignorant’, they just hold a different opinion to you. Your opinions aren’t superior just because you say you’re a lawyer.

this. seeing as for most people the first we heard of it was yesterday.

I’d hazard a guess that papers would rather fight in court than settle.

they can get an awful lot of stories and clicks form a court case - even one involving their own title. The cross-examinations would open rich new seams of copy

a settlement just hits the bottom line. Which is what the owners really care about

and those criticising William for accepting a settlement : this is exactly what Harry was seeking. He brought his claim because he didn’t get one!

I’d hazard a guess that papers would rather fight in court than settle.

They’re literally fighting to stop these cases going to trial!

Exactly, the papers argument is basically: Harry shouldn't have relied or believed our promise of an apology and damages. He should have assumed they were unreliable and sued earlier. Nonsensical.

Is that true? I thought he was going to pursue it anyway. I would like to know what William did with the £1M plus he was awarded.

Harry won substantial damages from a court case in 2021 and donated it all to Invictus Games.

Here's an interesting article.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/25/rupert-murdoch-news-group-prince-william-phone-hacking/

they can get an awful lot of stories and clicks form a court case - even one involving their own title. The cross-examinations would open rich new seams of copy

Good grief! Tell me why then... the DM basically ignored the top of the news story when Harry, Elton John et al publicly arrived in court? The rest of the media not in that news group had it on the front pages. They had a squeaky bum moment and buried it.

They'd hardly be advertising in their own publication their shitty underhand procedures would they?

I would like to know what William did with the £1M plus he was awarded.

Why? It’s not taxpayers money. Why do you want to know what he did with it?

I would've thought that was pretty obvious, wouldn't you? If you don't know why... I really can't help.

(hint... massive wealth, good thing to do, helping a charity, not really personal money etc)

People having opinions on the way legal issues work and what should be in the public domain are not ‘ignorant’, they just hold a different opinion to you.

If their opinions are based on assumptions about something they know nothing about, I am absolutely entitled to point that out. You’d think people would be interested to learn that maybe their first impressions are incorrect, and that there is always something new they can learn. You are essentially saying to me that you don’t want any information that might conflict with your prejudices. Sorry, I’m not playing along with that.

Nosiness then, Roussette?

You are essentially saying to me that you don’t want any information that might conflict with your prejudices. Sorry, I’m not playing along with that.
No @Serenster I’m asking you to engage without insults. You are not the authority on anything. You have an opinion. Please don’t insult other posters. It’s against the guidelines. I do not have prejudices here thank you very much.

On the huge amount of money William was awarded that he squirelled away because he's a bit broke after all? Weird turn of phrase!

Let's drop this particular point of discussion. You think it's OK he kept the substantial damages to prop up his finances. I don't.
End of conversation.

Lots of people here very keen to tell me what I can and can’t post on a thread on a public forum!

Thank you very much for your input, but I will post exactly as I choose.

@BelleHathor yes it is a nonsensical argument to make.
Having faith the press report things accurately and based on information received legally, is something that is important to society. Media have enormous influence and shape our conversations on important issues. We need to know who we can trust. I have a lot of respect for every person who has taken them on over hacking and bugging, every single one, including those who couldn’t afford to take them to trial. However I don’t think settlements behind closed doors is always the best option. Keeping the public ignorant to the behaviour of powerful men isn’t something I fully support.

Thank you very much for your input, but I will post exactly as I choose.

Actually you can’t. You have to keep within guidelines of the forum, including not insulting and making personal attacks on other posters. Since you’re not here in good faith and keep insulting me, I won’t be engaging with you again.

If people refuse to say that William going to Scotland Yard and contributing substantially to having a tabloid like the NOTW shut down and journalists successfully prosecuted because of their unlawful behaviour is a good thing, I think that speaks to their bias.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what William did. He took them to task, and proactively went after them, while Harry was still relying on others to ‘tell him’ what was happening. Should he have not done that? Or does it just go against your narrative that the media are in his pocket?

I mean, apparently it wasn’t enough he was hacked, and had his private life violated, and he didn’t fancy going to court and have it splashed around the media even more, and took a settlement. You’re now saying he should not have been compensated? Or he should not have kept the money, because he already has some?
Or he should have, after doing a settlement, made it all public? How does that make sense?

Yet Harry can sell his book, and that’s fine?
Because, what? Some sort of ‘moral crusader’ reasons?

Just because Harry needs everyone to know every detail of his life ‘on his terms’, doesn’t mean William has to

Oh really?
Why did the caped crusader Willy Windsor not speak out re the media behaviour ?

As far as we know he pocketed his million and kept silent
Why?
And while we are at it - which charity did he give it to? That's the norm isn't it when 'royals' win in court ?

I found it very strange that there hasn’t been (unless I’ve missed it) criticism of Harry revealing personal details about William again. Imo Harry would be the first to criticise if it were the other way around.

Roussette - the DM absolutely did have front page headlines when Harry arrived at Court with Elton et al.

Whaeanui: if they can get away without either a settlement OR a case , I’m sure that’s always goi g to be the number one option. If that was achieved by abuse of process, I look forward to full exposure

Or does it just go against your narrative that the media are in his pocket?

I don't have a narrative. Sorry.

Whaeanui: if they can get away without either a settlement OR a case

Sure, but you actually said they want to go to trial, they don’t and are arguing against it in every instance. So I’m just correcting your assumption.

The purpose of suing someone is to obtain damages to compensate for harm suffered. It’s not a moral crusade! As a by product, hefty settlements and the likelihood of further suits may reduce the press behaviour but that’s not the point of litigation. William took them on and hit them where it hurts. I hope he kept the money and put it away for Charlotte and Louis.