Part 2: The Press & The Royals a discussion

[Whaeanui]

Following on from this thread: Part 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4786923-the-press-the-royals-a-discussion?page=1

As we know, the press often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. They have also hacked private communications, with cases ongoing. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch-although not always.

For discussion: 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, and how can they achieve that? How will previous and current legal proceedings alter the relationship?
Please do not intentionally derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular family members or if they deserve it. I would really like to continue this discussion on how the royal family and the press interact, as above.

I think it clear he had many reasons partly to make money and generate publicity for other future ventures , partly to garner sympathy towards his view of the world and party to put his thoughts out there and yes partly to take occasional pot shots as his family who he clearly has issues with.

There is no insight here though.

He states all of that clearly in the book. there is maximum transparency.

ie -too much has been written about me so now I will write about me.

-I need to make money - I have been raised to be a Prince not to work so I have to get started using what I have.

-all was not as it seemed.

He is upfront about it all.

The whole Goebbels point is going where? That we are paranoid? Or that we know the consequences of Goebbels propaganda? The horror and effeciency of the murder of the Jews, and (at best) complacent citizens in no small part because of the propaganda .

When discussing a tabloid (not media in general) world in which they can do and write what they like, control citizens at the top of our social structure with the threat of public humiliation campaigns, make or break politicians, destroy ordinary people caught up in extradornary events - we are not paranoid.

We are WORRIED! It needs to stop. We thought it had stopped but it has just gotten worse.

Rupert Murdoch is a pox on society. (I am reading a medieval whodunit , my new fav curse😁)

here is no insight here though.

He states all of that clearly in the book. there is maximum transparency.

ie -too much has been written about me so nowIwill write about me.

I wasn't claiming any great insight - I was pointing out that this frequently gets ignored by many posters on here and what he says get taken as truth - even when he himself says he can't remember with any accuracy and what he said clearly or is clearly assuming what other must think.

The whole Goebbels point is going where? That we are paranoid?

I was making the point dismissing all mainstream media that does agree with you view point is dangerous.

You are the one using word paranoid but frankly it is increasingly a thing that anything not gushing unquestioning support on here even if been nuanced support for them is attacked.

One way to make it stop is to stop causing headlines and giving tabloids fodder - which seem to be palace take which is so frequently attacked by certain posters - but I suppose sussex's need to sell their brand to make money just as RF need to sell their worth to keep their current status quo - both need the PR both trying to stop the negative stuff by different means.

I think you and I are discussing two different thnings.

For me the Royal Family, the Cambridges and Sussexes are examples, in a conversation about abuse of power and interference in our democracy by Murdoch and the other guy at the Mail. Fox News in the States and the chaos they caused by promoting the lie that there was electoral interference is also part of that.

All of this seems to me to be incredibly dangerous with way too much power to have in the hands of someone like Murdoch.

So I am talking mainly about the behaviour of the press.

For you - the discussion seems to be more on the lines of the fracture of the family and who is at fault there.

I care about that in a human, 'gosh how sad' way. But not beyond that. There will be fault on all sides, it seems to be intergenerational, and as they are all adults now they get choose how they deal with it. Sell it all? Fine. Go more private ? Also fine.

@diflasu also in relation to this -

I was making the point dismissing all mainstream media that does agree with you view point is dangerous.

I don't dismiss all mainstream media. I do think we have to worry a lot about tabloid media and their defining role in society.

You are the one using word paranoid but frankly it is increasingly a thing that anything not gushing unquestioning support on here even if been nuanced support for them is attacked.

I do not require gushing unquestioning support from anybody, in real life or here.

I do question, can be questioned and engage in a discussion.

One way to make it stop is to stop causing headlines and giving tabloids fodder

What does that mean? Meghan is barely seen at all and tabloids post multiple articles a day- one recently posted 44 negative stories. She wasn’t seen for almost a year and still endless headlines. People have a right to live their lives without being hacked, bugged or followed around. That’s all of them too, not just M & H.

I did not see it as him campaigning for it to be freely available.

Yes exactly. He’s one of many people sharing their experience of it.

Exactly.

Why are people defending tabloids?

I really don't get it.

I am so surprised.

Is it possible that some of us are discussing the tabloids and their influence with the royal family as (the?) most high profile example of this (at the moment).

Others are discussing the rights and wrongs of a breakup?

The Express is so rubbish and desperate to generate clicks and sales it still writes the odd headline on Diana and she definitely hasn’t done anything of note for a while.

In my mind, even if the claimants, whether they be Harry or Hugh Grant or Elton John - even if they don’t win this, I am completely convinced that they were all hacked - I don’t
know if Hugh Grant was burgled but the behaviour of tabloid journalists and photographers is so bad that I think he’s probably right even with no evidence.

Is there anyone reading the coverage who has doubts? who thinks “the Sun is faaaaar too reputable a publication to sink to this level”?

So assuming they DO win, and get apologies and large payouts, do we THEN get Leveson 2? Because I think if they don’t, then tabloid coverage of celebs (royal or otherwise) who don’t do what they’re told) is going to get worse. It’s poking the bear and the bear can probably pay up but unless a paper is shut down like NOTW what next?

And among all this, I do still want a free press.

So assuming they DO win, and get apologies and large payouts, do we THEN get Leveson 2?

Good question. If it’s found that publications other than NOTW hacked people, you would think so. But I am still left wondering how they got away with not having one when they promised it in the first place.

The thing is, if these cases are thrown out on a technicality around being timed out, it doesn’t mean they didn’t hack people.

So why they don’t just do Leveson 2 automatically, I don’t know. Do we know what is claimed to be the most recent example of hacking? Has it stopped?

What does that mean? Meghan is barely seen at all and tabloids post multiple articles a day- one recently posted 44 negative stories

I know bloody ridiculous! We seem so backward as a country with the state of our press.

@DuchessOfPort yes why indeed, Matt Hancock lied to the house as he announced it wasn’t happening… why would the government not want it? It’s a good question.

Which tabloid recently printed 44 negative stories? I'm interested to see what they were.

The press isn't saying much about this chant. https://twitter.com/Juliest101/status/1652732334200827905?s=19

The Daily Express

Yes just glanced the Daily Express today and there's loads with Meghan' s face or her name in the heading. Well over 20 articles!

What do you expect them to say? The are Celtic fans - historically hugely anti-monarchy and pro-IRA. It’s like pointing out that Liverpool fans don’t like The Sun….

@Inkanta

If you go onto the daily express website generating clicks for the paper , you’re only encouraging them

I don’t know the paper but it sounds fairly shit. I would guess they are just recycling stories, adding a few lines to stories, tweaking headlines and posting them as new.

Yes Howsimplywonderful I try not to click - just skim past the headings.

I suppose even opening the express is a click.

@Inkanta

I would think so.

My guess is that Britain hasn’t had a Levenson 2 because the media, who can and break prime ministers and governments, don’t want one.

The press is supposed to help make governments answerable to the people. Instead it is now choosing governments. It probably always was to an extent, but now, no longer reined in by decency and any sense of shame about doing something wrong, it is now open slather on the road to riches for the very few at the top.

The press is supposed to help make governments answerable to the people. Instead it is now choosing governments.

Absolutely! I find it quite concerning.

I do worry that the recent anti-BBC rhetoric plays into this. I worry that when it’s gone or emasculated, we’ll just have Fox News and their ilk.

My guess is that Britain hasn’t had a Levenson 2 because the media, who can and break prime ministers and governments, don’t want one.

I think so too. I think it is quite dangerous.