The Prince and the Press: Continuing the Discussion on Prince Harry and the UK Media

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

A few weeks ago, there were three really great long running threads about Prince Harry and his battles against the UK "popular press."

I thought I would do one that looks at Harry's current court action.

For those interested in the kind of balanced view you won't get from the tabloids, all of whom face conflicts of interest, here is the Guardian take, which is the springboard for this discussion.

It is not possible to take any of the tabloids seriously when they report on Harry's legal cases. Former editor Alan Rusbridger, now of Prospect, has observed that all tabloids covering this story are acting unethically as they have not declared their conflicts of interest: Harry is suing all of their media houses.

The only papers with no conflict of interest are the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Financial Times.

So I will be following this from the Guardian live page.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/04/diana-meghan-and-the-tabloid-press-harry-finally-gets-his-day-in-court

I don’t think it’s true the Guardian is neutral, but I’m watching the BBC live feed!

I did not once say the Guardian is "neutral".

I said it has no conflicts of interest in Harry's cases.

The Guardian is not neutral obviously because like all media houses that aspire to be driven by ethics, they have a strong interest in ethical journalism. Something the tabloids have strayed very far from.

I was interested to hear BBC news reporting that Harry is one of one hundred claimants.

From Reuters

Harry and more than 100 other people are suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), publisher of the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the Sunday People tabloids, accusing them of widespread unlawful activities between 1991 and 2011
They say the media group's journalists or private investigators commissioned by them carried out phone-hacking on an "industrial scale" and obtained private details by deception.
Senior editors and executives knew and approved of the behaviour, the claimants' lawyers say.

So as much as the media is understandably focussing on the first Royal in a very long time to take the witness box, I think we should bear in mind that there are very many others who have been through absolute hell at the hands of the grubby media and their vile tactics

Indeed.

It's why I have been so uncomfortable with some of the discussion that makes it seem as though not only is Harry being a prima donna, but he is also somehow on trial.

And it begins.

If you're concerned about the focus on Harry wouldn't it make more sense to change the title of your thread and move it out of the RF section? You're just perpetuating the focus on him which skews the point of the case.

Also, stating The Guardian has a strong interest in 'ethical' journalism implies they are arbiters of ethics. They are not. They have an editorial line and policy. They have been subject to numerous claims of staff bullying and suppression of articles. They are not 'neutral'. Their conflict of interest may not be obviously monetary but it's naïve in the extreme to think any media covering this story does not have a vested interest in how the case affects their industry and their competitors. That's not to say you shouldn't use them as a source but you should be aware of the limitations of all media coverage of this case.

The strategy from Green is pretty obvious and has been laid out in the first series of questions.

He is trying to show that not only was Harry not hacked, but even if he was, he is out of time, and even if he is not out of time, the specific press articles that Harry has raised caused him no injury as he did not read them at the time.

Uh oh.

Harry has talked about the press "having blood on its hands."

He is playing to the gallery here.

The BBC is also covering Harry's witness statement.

I was really struck by this:

"It is no secret that I have had, and continue to have, a very difficult relationship with the tabloid press in the UK. In my experience as a member of the Royal Family, each of us gets cast into a specific role by the tabloid press.
You start off as a blank canvas while they work out what kind of person you are and what kind of problems and temptations you might have. They then start to edge you towards playing the role or roles that suit them best and which sells as many newspapers as possible."

This is the saddest aspect of being in the RF. The absence of choice. The idea of your lie as fodder for the tabloids to make a killing over stories they feed to a ravenous public that is certain it knows who the villains and the good people are. No wonder they are still hopping mad that he left!

So agree with that. What I found interesting and hit home for me was his assertion that he was portrayed in a certain way by the media, so he thought he may as well live up to that. Or act it out.

That resonates.

A black sheep of the family that is labelled as such, carries on in such a way because you think 'what is the point of trying to be anything else'.

That paragraph you quoted @MrsMaxDeWinter is chilling in a way. When I watched a chat between three journalists and Louis was called 'the family clown' and 'the naughty one' I just thought... poor little lad. Labelled now forever.

when are we gonna get a republican section

I want one! I want to be able to talk about opacity of finances, the Duchies, the tweaking of laws to suit the Monarchy, equality and diversity figures, the yearly Royal Report (due shortly incidentally), a democratic alternative to the Monarchy, and more.

Yes please to a Republic section!!

Green is clearly going for the absence of injury, and of any phone hacking in the challenged stories.

He has zoomed in on one of the stories from Harry's examples, that of how he felt after his parents' divorce, and pointed out that his mother gave an interview a few weeks before that story was published.

Harry's riposte, about how the press blighted his childhood, is great but does not go to the heart of how that particular story was the result of illegal activity.

That said, Harry seems to be holding up really well.

Thanks MrsMax. The Guardian article also helps clear up any confusion about the different court cases Harry is part of, (along with over a hundred other people as Rousette noted). MGN where Harry is giving evidence today, NGN (Murdoch’s news media) and Associated News. (Because I’m not in the UK I’ve found sorting out who is who in regards to media groups a bit confusing).

@MrsMaxDeWinter is chilling in a way. When I watched a chat between three journalists and Louis was called 'the family clown' and 'the naughty one' I just thought... poor little lad. Labelled now forever.

Yes, I’ve thought the same thing Rousette. Their characters decided by media long before they are formed.

Also brave of you to start this post on tnhs board, when are we gonna get a republican section huh.

Absolutely agree mumsnet could do with a republican section.

Ah nice to see this thread. I've not yet read his witness statement but will do.

I can't follow a live stream unfortunately due to work.

I do wonder if people really assume Harry's legal team won't have established that certain stories were in circulation - as Green is making reference to - before.

Their characters decided by media long before they are formed.

Indeed @Morestrangerthings

You can already see the narrative developing for the Wales kids, one is the responsible one (who happily for the media narrative also happens to be the heir) the other is the bossy, controlling one, and the last is the rambunctious cheeky chappy who will be expected to slot into Harry's shoes.

I am delighted for the York girls that they and their kids escaped their narrative.

And I am so pleased that the Sussex kids are out of it, because we would be reading all about how their "exotic DNA has thickened the Royal blue blood", and how their ancestry is from the wrong side of the tracks etc. Oh wait, that already happened!

This is a really interesting thread, thank you Op.

Great to have you here!

There is an assumption that the cross-examination is out of thin air. I guess people were expecting him to testify first then be cross examined, but his witness statement is already part of the record, so he has "testified' already. .

Was very amused by your comment elsewhere that the expectation seems to be that the defence must agree with everything Harry says, and if not, then he has lost!

But please pop in when you can -- would be so great to hear your expert insights!

You are so kind to say this, Yes, it has been something else, but best not to refer to the posting dynamic, lest we jinx this thread.

But you are absolutely right about the need for a Republican thread.

Then we can talk about all sorts of things that are stomped over as this board seems to attract a rabid type of royalist for whom the only person who does wrong in that family is the mixed-race woman who married into it, and who has infected "their beloved Harry"!

I am desperate to have a real conversation about the perception that all the Commonwealth really is is the late Queen's "pet project". I want to talk about whether it should be assumed that an unelected monarch from one member should lead a body made up largely of elected heads of state, and whether, like any international organisation in which the UK is a member, it should have a leader elected by all its members, not imposed by right of birth.

@MrsMaxDeWinter I'm absolutely not an expert in this type of litigation but I have practised in litigation for many years so understand how the process works (and how giving evidence works)!

It's really very tedious to see 'ouch' and 'cringe' said about each and every point raised by the defences counsel.

🙄

People are already categorising the Wales children - with Charlotte being the sensible one and Louis being the naughty one. People are very resistant when you tell them that the are labelling these children that they have no idea of how they are day to day and that these labels stick.

I agree MrsMax and I do think K&W will be fighting against this labelling of their children as much as they can. But how? They have to allow pics of the kids, the children have to be seen, the RF totally relies on exposure and positive PR to enable it to keep going.
They receive public funds and they need coverage but it is a very complex set of dynamics. How much coverage, how much access should they grant in order to be left alone? Bringing a child up in that environment is undoubtedly horrendous. Preserving the controlled image from decades ago is now defunct, what with SM and this court case is highlighting that.

Good on Harry for highlighting all of this, whatever the outcome.

So glad you are here @Motnight

Yes. Very much so. He was honestly called the 'family clown' in some sofa chat or other. In fact I have just looked. It was Lorraine on her ITV show . Millions watch it. How horrible to be labelled like this because we all know it will stick forever, footage of him being just a normal little boy whilst fidgeting watching some Jubilee or other will never go away.