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.

You haven't misunderstood the royal rota at all. It's been wildly mischaracterized by lots of people on social media - instigated - in my opinion - by statements made by Harry and Meghan on their exit website and interview comments.

The royal rota is simply a system of press passes for big or significant royal events and engagements to 'manage' the numbers of the press.

It's to prevent one organisation sending 20 people and another not getting the chance to send one photographer. It includes local media as well and helps local radio station reporters, or local newspaper staff being swamped with national press taking all the good spots (I was one of those local reporters - I still have my press badges from those events.)

And it's a sharing system for times when the event needs to be severely restricted to just one or two members of the press. In those situations the person chosen to 'be in the room' is not being given an exclusive but is required to release their photos, video, radio, and copy to be used by the whole pool.

For example the Queen's last official photo with Liz Truss.

The existence of the royal rota does not prevent members of the royal family giving exclusive interviews when they want to, to whichever media organisation or reporter they prefer. An example of this is when William chose to highlight the Big Issue and did the interview exclusively with the Big Issue.

The Sussexes were being disingenuous (or maybe they didn't understand the system themselves) when they implied that they were going to do a different kind of relationship with the press and only talk to grass roots reporters.

They were never in a position where they couldn't already do that.

It's only really significant state occasions that the royal rota is needed to make sure that coverage is fairly distributed across all the different media outlets. Everyone thinks of the main national tabloids but it's a system that includes multiple radio, TV and online journalists too, and local and regional press, and at times foreign press.

The rest of the time it's finding a way to contain and corral the huge media packs that turn up to the bigger engagements to keep everyone safe - royals, public, the press themselves. Some of those photographers have very sharp elbows when trying to get their perfect shots.

Great explanation of the "Royal Rota" system @wordler but I think you are a little unfair on Harry and Meghan when you say this:

The Sussexes were being disingenuous (or maybe they didn't understand the system themselves) when they implied that they were going to do a different kind of relationship with the press and only talk to grass roots reporters.

They were no longer prepared to work within the Royal Rota system, and they mentioned in particular that they would no longer work with the Express, Daily Mail, Sun etc.

You are right about how the RR works, but their experience was that there were many inaccurate reports about them that they could not push back on directly, and so they wanted to carve out a different way of doing things that did NOT rely mainly on the RR.

Imagine for instance the case of Emily Andrews, who wrote an untrue story about "The Meg Commandments", or Camilla Tominey of "Meghan Made Kate Cry" fame -- Imagine the frustration of going to an event and finding that either of the two is the assigned RR journo covering your event under the RR system. It would be enough to make anyone uncomfortable, to have the very people lying about you being also the only persons assigned to cover a particular event.

The Guardian covered it well here.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/08/prince-harry-and-meghan-to-restrict-media-access-in-snub-to-tabloids

I understand your point and agree that it would have been very uncomfortable to have reporters who you feel are lying about you in close proximity for event coverage.

But my point was that they didn't have to engage with the royal rota reporters for their personal projects. Harry would have been able to pick and choose which reporters came to cover the inside scoop on Invitus for example. Or Meghan going to the dog rescue place.

But you can't stop press turning up to events in public such as walkabouts etc - the rota i designed to stop that turning into a scrum.

And it would be unreasonable to expect a government-requested state engagement - for example, a foreign tour - and not to give equal access to the main news organisations.

The 'royal rota' has been vilified on social media by Harry and Meghan fans as some evil cabal - the tabloid royal reporters do a lot of gossipy, invasive stuff which is awful. But that's usually the filler in between royal rota events.

Making out that the 'royal rota' is the problem and that it's only the tabloid people throws all the other media outlets under the bus too. Particularly damaging for local reporting.

I definitely accept your points on foreign tours, and walkabouts etc, but I think what they were trying to avoid is the "exclusive" nature of giving access to only certain RR members. Particularly in those instances where, as you explained so well, only a limited number are admitted on a sharing basis.

I think that what they wanted, what any of us would want really, is a measure of control over how they were presented. The same kind of control that Camilla and Charles have through emplyoying ex Daily Mail staffers etc.

One criticism I agree on esp when it comes to Harry is that he is incredibly brittle when it comes to the Press. Honestly? He may have been better served if he had actively wooed one person from each of the papers he loathes, but I guess even that was too much for him.

You can tell which of the RRs are in which camp, pretty much, even within the same paper. While I deprecate the necessity of it, as I am sure all the Royal family do, I wish they had learned to cultivate more relationships beyond Omid, Jack Royston, and Tom Bradbury. That's one skill he definitely could have learned from both his mother and father, and even his stepmother.

But perhaps the headwinds against them were just too strong, if we believe that the other two palaces were briefing against them.

@MrsMaxDeWinter @Whaeanui

I am appreciating the civility on this thread compared to some of the others! We've managed to stay on topic as well

I'm afraid the original poster of the thread, doesn't get to police it or say who can or cannot post on it, I'm afraid. Just saying 😏

Thank you @wordler and apologies you’ve both written some great comments today I haven’t had a chance to respond to.
Yes I understand the way the royal rota works and you’ve both explained how and why, where they ( M & H ) may have gone wrong with media approaches. I think this stems from Harry’s resentment over his mother, but from listening and reading I also think the main issue is including tabloids in that system he would then need to be pleasant to after they’ve written racist headlines, potentially hacking and other awful things, as you mentioned @MrsMaxDeWinter . I guess that is something they have to do as part of how it all works, but that he couldn’t reconcile. I understand that to be honest and I don’t think I would be able to do it either. One opinion of course is that William also has to do this, and does, and I recall him saying a few years ago that the photos of their mother laying dying ended up on the desks of newspaper editors in this country- they’d paid for them but not printed them. How awful to have to engage with and give interviews to people associated with that. You’ll either have the opinion William is committed to serving us and fulfilling an important role by setting those feelings aside and getting on with it, or you’ll think that’s unhealthy and letting really atrocious behaviour go by and prefer Harry’s stand. I then also consider as we’ve said before, that Harry and Meghan had racism to contend with, which added to the resentment over his mothers treatment, is a heavy heavy load to ignore or compartmentalise. This is where I fall on Harry’s side over media, I think it’s too much to expect of anyone. If they had some control over who they had to engage with perhaps things would be different. But perhaps that’s just not possible within that system and that’s where he was unrealistic. There’s got to be a line with media though and an independent watchdog is a part of reigning them back in.

Then you don’t get to repeat on every thread that you don’t want us engaging with you, as you tag us, even when we are not addressing you directly. I’ll continue to do my best to ignore you, despite the fact you just can’t seem to keep away from me.

Of course not.

But you have been on record as saying you don't want to engage with me or @Whaeanui

So why follow us around? Why come on to the threads we start just to tell us you don't want to engage with us?

You are free to engage in good faith. What you cannot do is to stalk us on these boards just to tell us you do not want to engage with us.

Thank you.

So sorry for that back and forth. There is a long history to it, but will try to rise above it.

Will definitely stay on topic, as it's such a good one, and would love to hear more of your insights as you are the only one of us who came close to the RR.

Do they actually like any of the RF? Or is it a state of mutual dislike, but the job has to be done?

Any royal stories I did was when I was in local radio and the nationals who came mostly kept to themselves. I was always in such a rush trying to file my pieces that I didn't have time to chat with them.

The press liaisons from the palace were really really bossy! Particularly strict with the local crews because I assume they thought we didn't know the protocol. Felt like being herded like cattle sometimes

On other stories where the nationals came - a big murder on my patch once - they were a mixed bunch, the reporters in general were really nice to us (because they wanted our inside knowledge) but the photographers were vile. They were always climbing into people's private gardens and trying to get shots of the victim's family through windows - it was really horrible.

It's interesting to observe how some multicoloured Dalmatians who claim they won't engage with certain posters and yet will still take the time to comment, tag, and engage with them. I mostly lurk but it has been fascinating and truly entertaining to watch the spotted crew across multiple threads engage in this pattern.

@wordler interesting insights there, thanks for sharing. Yes I’ve always thought it was photographers that were the most ruthless. But I guess someone is willing to buy the photos too.

I think the problem is a lot of photographers work on a freelance basis so can get big money for an exclusive shot with a bidding war.

Reporters seem to get more controversial when they are trying to make more money a different way than their regular daily stuff - so flogging a book (Jobson) or trying to raise their profile for TV work (Piers Morgan)

@wordler yes you’re right about that for sure.

Interesting thread, thank you

It takes me back to my time (decades ago) working for BBC and independent.... before the royal explosion

@Whaeanui interesting points about William and Harry’s relationships with the press and the inherent difficulty in having to stay professional when working with people you may abhor.

I actually don’t think William can afford to ‘stand up’ to reporters when it is deemed to be self-serving. Because when self-interest is at play no matter how worthy the cause may be it can cause valid questions of abuse of power. And sometimes causes that seem worthy to contemporary observers will be judged very differently from a historical perspective.

I don’t think anyone who is in the line to hold such an important constitutional role in the country can go on a personal crusade against perceived criticism from the press, despite the validity of their feelings.

Interesting post @IronCurtain Thank you

@IronCurtain yes, it’s a different decision for William, absolutely. Harry acknowledged that. This is one of the reasons I don’t like the monarchy, they are quite trapped in many ways, even though they are so obviously privileged as well.

Many people, including Patrick Jephson, have written and testified how a heavyweight PR firm were used to rehabilitate Camilla's image and this was said to have been done at the cost to Diana and other members of the RF because this is how they work. Build up one individual by knocking down or discrediting another. A whisper in a journalist's ear here and a story planted there. Jephson was quoted as saying in a Radio Times article:

"He said that he believed Camilla's popularity owed much to a “sustained, campaign involving the finest PR people that money can buy”.

Now Jephson is interesting because he was awarded money as a result of the Martin Bashir debacle, which he gave to charity, he is generally thought to have integrity, so he is in the unique position of having worked alongside the BP machine, isn't prepared to kow tow to it, and has no reason to cause controversy, except a sense of loyalty to his old boss.

I think if BP were using those tactics previously, then it's very likely they have used them again and are still doing so. It's a much more ruthless and complex media world out there now and as has been mentioned previously on these threads, Camilla has some interesting friends.

She's known Giles Brandreth since she was a teenager and he was still blurting out how Diana was "an hysteric" in a Good Morning appearance relatively recently in a slot that had very little to do with Diana. Camilla is known to have a long friendship with Jeremy Clarkson who wrote that vilest of vile articles about Meghan. And Piers Morgan (who we know is a frothing one man ball of vitriol against Meghan) has one of Camilla's paintings hanging on his office wall. He has consistently said what a great King and Queen C& C will make, and consistently writes articles like this here and abroad https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/piers-morgan-camilla-is-a-class-act-unlike-the-pathetically-selfserving-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/news-story/c8ec80a98761c2a20539d63d15a63c31

The Sussexes’ series, Harry and Meghan, claimed that Buckingham Palace would “feed stories [to the press] on [Meghan], whether they were true or not, to avoid other less favourable stories being printed”. I believe this is true.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson are just entertaining nobodies without influence. They were named by Rebekah Brooks in an article in the Evening Standard in 2014 as two friends who "had her back" during the phone hacking court trial. This is Rebekah Brooks, who is CEO of News Corp the publisher of The Times, The Sunday Times and the Sun.

I believe Harry.

Wow @Wingedinsectsunite what a great post, and @IronCurtain too.
I definitely believe that BP was feeding stories about Harry and Meghan to the press.

I find it really strange that the log game plan to rehabilitate Camilla is being denied when there is so much contemporaneous evidence, from Jephson, Bolland and others that it was underway.

It's the kind of rewriting of history that Diana has been a victim of. The Bashir interview instance. Yes, we now know she was tricked into the interview with Bashir. What she was not tricked into was revealing how she felt about her own marriage. But the whole thing is now being brushed aside as poor Diana was tricked into talking, as though what she said matters less.

There is a strange story today about a letter written by Meghan to Charles. It reads like a leak from BP, but of course Meghan will get blamed for it. If this came from BP, I hope Harry just throws up his hands and skips the whole thing, because I am so exhausted reading it, I can only imagine what it is like to live it.

At the end of the day it's what the public demands

It's the kind of rewriting of history that Diana has been a victim of. The Bashir interview instance. Yes, we now know she was tricked into the interview with Bashir. What she was not tricked into was revealing how she felt about her own marriage.

Yes this bothered me at the time, especially as I recall William used the word paranoid. As Harry said, she may have been tricked, but she still honestly gave her views and feelings on it all.

@MrsMaxDeWinter oh that letter article just posted is absolutely BP

@Wingedinsectsunite

Your post is spot on. Thank you for setting it out so clearly.

This is worth a read. An australian article from last month. Dissecting 'Operation PB'... Camilla's rehabilitation. Be warned, it's rather long!

(don't worry about the link, it is behind a paywall, so I archived it to allow access)
https://archive.ph/Q2J49