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 there’s a market for it it will appear in the media

The market meaning all the SM sites and btl comments. It’s handy business these days for loads of people

What’s it called the engagement economy, fight for eyeballs and all that

It has changed slightly, when you see those old images of Princess Di with the paps linking the streets and hounding her, it’s not that but more SM

I’d find it easier to ignore this tbh, don’t read your own press

Yes @MarshaBradyo I don’t regularly read them but people that do I guess are as much to blame as the press themselves. I guess I want to understand if the royal family could change the nature of their relationship with them.

@Novella4 My phone has a mind of its own and disagrees with my iPad name.

Maybe it's me but I see no end of nonsense aka shit on twitter, got hacked so deleted it. Like so many parts of SM it's an echo chamber with the algorithms targeting their audience. Which is why I don't trust it. Prefer the Facebook pages devoted to specific interest areas and have made several friends via that. News feed is all advertising rubbish

Minutes after brand new posters got a thread pulled yet another is started but this time from an anti-Meghan poster, discussing another article pitting Kate & Meghan against each other. I mean this is what I’m talking about.

I think the press are awful, they take things out of context, exaggerate something said, hunt friends and relatives (and sometimes those who are neither but can claim acquaintance), in order to print quotes or misquote.

I'm not sure social media would help much. If you look on facebook several royals have a page as well as some people claiming to be royals, and the insults are quite horrible. There are people who join facebook purely in order to relentlessly attack somebody in public life.

The more I read, even second hand here, the more I am sickened by it all.

Just leave them all alone.

Thanks OP, I’m a long time lurker on this board and I think this discussion is spot on.

It’s incredibly complicated, isn’t it? I don’t think the royal family is in a position to refute / challenge gossipy and speculative reporting unless there is evidence of illegal activity by the media. Because free press IS critical to a democracy, the royals do have a level of soft power and I don’t think it’s wise for them to try and wield it to their advantage in this way. This is one of the reasons I think their hands were somewhat tied when it came to the abysmal reporting Megan was subjected to. Yes, it was horrendous but I still don’t want the monarch to have power to tell the press to STFU, even when they’d be right to do so.

so ultimately I think it’s down to the regulator to set clearer boundaries on what constitutes public interest but I don’t know how that process could ever be kicked off. But it doesn’t make any sense that for example they are exempt from the FIA but speculation about intimate family relationships is free game.

i would also love to see a civil society campaign focused on putting pressure on the press for more responsible reporting and to help us all increase our awareness of the current media landscape, including algorithms of and consumption of social media. I think this would help many of us to be more responsible ‘consumers’ of news, which in turn would benefit everyone.

For example, the same people who are happy to see Harry and Meghan take on the tabloids (fingers crossed they continue to be successful) are also happy to bash Charle for so called ‘tampon gate’, which was all illegally obtained, salacious and private.

Yes social media is nasty. But do royalists share what they’re doing there? Because that’s the reason the royals put up with the nasty press stories, supposedly to make sure their work gets written about. If fans or public do that anyway, do they need the royal rota?

so ultimately I think it’s down to the regulator to set clearer boundaries on what constitutes public interest but I don’t know how that process could ever be kicked off. But it doesn’t make any sense that for example they are exempt from the FIA but speculation about intimate family relationships is free game.

i would also love to see a civil society campaign focused on putting pressure on the press for more responsible reporting and to help us all increase our awareness of the current media landscape, including algorithms of and consumption of social media. I think this would help many of us to be more responsible ‘consumers’ of news, which in turn would benefit everyone.

I so appreciate what you’ve written @IronCurtain here. An independent regulator is absolutely needed. I love the suggestion of the civil society campaign too!

Certain younger royals were/are trying to use social media to stay relevant to younger people in the UK, however it isn't working.

The gossip by the press keeps the RF profile high. This week there was lots of positive stories about the new Queen.

@IronCurtain if unnamed spokespeople for different members of the RF are putting nasty stories in the press then how can they be regulated? The King is above any regulator.

@Reugny so for some members of the family, it’s absolutely worth it. Tends to be just the monarch that gets protected? But maybe not if it’s Charles.

How about: for stories that are purely personal or not in the public interest, journalists have to name their sources and sources must agree to be named?

How does that work if the source is a spokesperson of the monarch or his wife?

The monarch is the head of the UK constitution and signs off all our laws. The Guardian did a series illustrating how the last monarch and her immediate heir could exempt themselves from legislation, so they would exempt themselves from this as they have nothing to gain.

@Reugny in my view it’s a broader discussion and not only applicable to the royal family. We see this so often when people, for various reasons, become ‘of public interest’ that some journalists and publications use it as an excuse to report (often as speculation vs factual reporting) on intimate details of their lives. They do this under the guise of public interest but in reality it’s because our innate hunger for gossip makes it a profitable endeavour.

so clearer boundaries on what constitutes public interest might stop more of the intrusive, speculative reporting that affects so many people - some of whom have put themselves in the public sphere on purpose but many of whom have ended there involuntarily.

to bring it back to the royals, I can’t see any public interest justification for the speculative reporting on whether Kate and Meghan get on. None. Yet this has been a theme at the heart of so much of the nonsense currently in the media. Why?

They do this under the guise of public interest but in reality it’s because our innate hunger for gossip makes it a profitable endeavour.

Yes exactly, and they continue because people click or buy, even if they disagree

Yet this has been a theme at the heart of so much of the nonsense currently in the media. Why?

Yes this is what we raised on the pulled thread. I think the current trend in reporting is a distraction so not too much negative focus is on Camilla. They need negative stories to fulfil the public appetite, but the monarch and his queen can’t be it.

so clearer boundaries on what constitutes public interest might stop more of the intrusive, speculative reporting that affects so many people - some of whom have put themselves in the public sphere on purpose but many of whom have ended there involuntarily

So much this. I think of Baroness Doreen Lawrence and the current court case with Harry. She was just USED by the press as clickbait over the tragic murder of her son Stephen

OP, I would mostly say it's the current royals on the throne.

This particular generation. Cash in bags/Noncing/Affairs/Racism etc. They constantly live under the shadow of the media exposing them, and have to throw titbits to keep certain things quiet.
They just have too many scandals.

Taking into consideration that both CPB&C don't have much charisma or are that well liked, they fear that the public would not be so forgiving if the rags dredge up everything in the background and constantly put it in front of our faces, the public would be fed up. This is the fear.

Enter the fab four. This link had to be severed by all means.

Already too many people (the public) have been asking for a pass on to W as it is. If not already taught, W has to make sure the same beneficiaries to his father's reign carry on being satisfied in future . But does W have any interest in that? His personality tells me not(though he may buckle under pressure), but he may not have a choice, and being Diana's boy ultimately, may not even have the stomach for it.

William with his relatable typical English looks and public school boy manners the UK loves and likes as representation (hence the movie stars, politicians and anyone who represents us).
Harry charming, 'naughty like us', 'ginger like those mocked', 'flawed like us', 'heart in his sleeve as we wish we could display', turns out dangerously decisive personality too.
KM looks great in fashion and her dimples is what we like as a representation of an English rose.
MM charisma, can do attitude, connecting us to both minority groups and foreigners.

Ah ah, the Fab Four was a lethal combination for the current royals. Imagine them all cozy, with H&M constantly whispering their 'do what's right' virtues in William's ear.

Anyway, back to your OP.

The RF are supposed to have a Comms Dept (preferably with a spokesperson/s) who put out proper statements and (preferably their face/s and name/s) like everyone else. Their stance was accepted because HMQE served for so long. But this would not be acceptable of any organisation, normally. Having a proper spokesperson means in general, no one believes all the other media except that person.

Ergo, I feel the RF just has too many skeletons in the closet, too much secrets for them not to feed the media.

I think of Baroness Doreen Lawrence and the current court case with Harry. She was just USED by the press as clickbait over the tragic murder of her son Stephen
Yes @Roussette her statement was really sad. They’re shameless to do that to her.

@Whaeanui I’m not sure I see the reigning monarch (and spouse) elevated to this untouchable position.

Even in the run up to the Coronation, the BBC for example ran a breaking news story calling out the drop of ‘consort’ from Camilla’s title in the official invitation. How is that a breaking news item? It’s not, but it sells because she’s controversial. So it gets pushed.

I don’t disagree that Charles and Camilla have a lot of contacts in the press, people who might think twice about going ‘too far’ against them. But I only see that applying to the parts of the media landscape favourable to the monarchy as a whole. For the rest of them, C&C seem to be as fair game as any of the others.

They just have too many scandals I guess I can’t argue with you on that @notanotheroneagain I just read about Charles and Peter Ball for the first time in the weekend, that was shocking to say the least.

@IronCurtain oh yes you’re right, it’s interesting when you look into who owns which tabloids, they’re part of two groups really so there’s not a lot of reliable press. BBC & The Guardian seem to be outside of that. Not sure who else, telegraph? Who owns that?

Yes @Roussette , that’s a really good illustration of why we need to set clear boundaries on what constitutes public interest. Because it’s all fun and games when it’s the royals (not that it should be, but you know what I mean) but it could literally be any of us. Fuckers, just thinking about this makes me angry.

@Mumsnut just imagine if they did have to name their sources! As Harry said, it’s not just about people you trust, it’s who they also trust.