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'm not sure exactly what lie you're referring to

I was quoting the same PP you did at 2.17 ( bold failed) and was agreeing with them that lying isn't freedom of the press.

Re specifics I suggest you ask the poster quoted but the paper's own apology admits their journalist lied about the victim.

I apologise. For some reason I thought your comment was aimed at me.

Out of interest, where is the newspaper's apology? I've only seen the article on page 2 of this thread. Maybe I've missed it or it is elsewhere? If you could direct me to it, I'd be very grateful.

I was a bit taken aback by the relative unimportance of most of the stories discussed yesterday. And why mention stories that had already been reported by multiple sources before the Mirror even published them? It doesn't make sense to me - can someone explain what the legal team is thinking?

I think should have focused on the especially personal ones (perhaps the Chelsy period), or incidents where there were clear indications of hacking. It all just feels very vague.

Yes, I agree, @cobicat and I was wondering if Harry's KC would be able to put his case with more rigour. This is about illegal activity and needs to be separated from general negative feelings about his life experience as a royal, or the tabloid press in general, however valid those points may be.
Perhaps the evidence about Chelsy etc is yet to come.

The paper press are predictably going for PH's jugular on their front pages today. Of course they ignore the wider issues and all the other claimants discussed on this thread. Sigh.

Does anyone know what's happening today in the trial? And can someone explain please why the principle of secret / protected sources seems to trump everything else? Recently it seemed that Harry was claiming some private information must have been obtained through hacking - and the tabloids can reply "no, we have our sources" and that's that? No more questions, scrutiny, searching for evidence to establish the truth? Why can't the journalists who wrote those pieces be called to the witness stand to find out what really happened and speak under oath? Hoping someone can explain this. TIA

Anyway OP thank you for this thread. Hopefully it can stay de-derailed.

That's one lie. Isn't that enough?

I think it was possibly a different journalist who claimed that Diane had pulled off Barbara's top leaving her standing in her bra - which was not even argued by Barbara - with the aim of planting the seed that her murderer had been bullied.

The protection of sources is critical to a free press.

https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource/protection-of-sources.html

After following the live feed yesterday I thought that Harry was probably going to lose because his answers seemed so deflective. Then I listened to Newscast and the lawyer Mark Stephens said that the case was like trying to win 33 penalties in a row, the paper needs to save all 33 whilst Harry needs to only score 1 goal to win. Which makes me think that the balance of probabilities argument he is using is going to be more effective than I first thought. It was also pointed out that winning won't necessarily mean a large settlement so I can see why only the rich sue.

I am learning that I know nothing about the law!

Which makes me think that the balance of probabilities argument he is using is going to be more effective than I first thought. It was also pointed out that winning won't necessarily mean a large settlement so I can see why only the rich sue.

I'm struggling to see the point of this case, there's no apparent smoking gun, it all feels very self-indulgent - it reminds me a bit of my teenage dc.

It's all there - he fell out with William because of the media (not because of his behaviour), his first love Chelsy dumped him because of the media (not because he cheated, or other bad behaviour), his old friendships fell away because of the media (not because of Harry's own behaviour) etc etc..

I think he assumes that if he wins, it will prove to everyone that he was right about everything all along.

I'm struggling to see the point of this case, there's no apparent smoking gun, it all feels very self-indulgent - it reminds me a bit of my teenage dc.

There are 100 litigants, not just Harry.

As for Chelsy, he was quite obviously hacked, and I am sure the pressure the media applied to him had a direct effect on his relationship.
I am not sure why you want to reduce it to 'teenage dc' when this case for all of them is far more than that.

yesterdays smoking gun was the lfight details, journalists knew flight details of harry's and that is impossible for security reasons, they never ever disclose it to anyone.

The protection of sources is critical to a free press.

Well, yes, obviously. But does it really trump everything else, to the extent that crimes can go unpunished? In this court case for the press to invoke the protection of sources is a literal get out of jail free card.

Also presumably the secrecy of some sources is more critical than others' - yes protect the dissident revealing corruption in Russia or North Korea's regimes at all costs. But is the KP worker who leaked details about the whereabouts of PH on a given day at the same level? Does the motivation behind the source and the press outlet count at all? Or do the wheels of justice just have to grind to halt in front of the press?

I think motivation can play a part, e.g. public interest, but in general how can anyone know the true motivations of another?

Presumably if a KP employee breaches their contract about confidentiality then they are at risk of action taken against them, but the journalist hasn't broken any laws in receiving the info and the paper hasn't in publishing it.

I kind of think the opposite to a point made earlier in the thread - a pp made the point that the press needs to be curbed in what is currently legal intrusiveness and on occasion that means public interest stories may be suppressed. I think the balance of harm should go the other way, that we should have a press that is as free as possible short of breaking current criminal law and accept that sometimes it will be very intrusive. Restricting the free press is a much greater risk to democracy imo. I feel the same way about superinjunctions.

I appreciate some of the 100 cases are ordinary people who were somehow linked to high profile crimes, but the majority are the wealthy or superwealthy wanting to suppress gossip about their own behaviour.

It IS within the public interest that the (at the time) 3rd in line to the throne and son of the 1st in line to the throne, that could have possibly been signing bills into law, and in whose name crime is now prosecuted, was breaking those very laws - for the same reason it mattered that the government broke the laws they wrote - so sorry Haz. Similarly had something happened to William, then Chelsy Davy, Cressida Bonas, or one of those nice young ladies from Vegas could have been Queen of the United Kingdom and other crown territories. Harry has never asked to be removed from the line of succession which is the “public interest” part, without which there would be much less public interest in which laws Harry Windsor was breaking or who Harry Windsor was dating.

Are you saying then tigger he shouldn't have brought this case because he is in the succession line to the monarchy?
He has thrown light on this, which to me is a good thing. I would love to know what the coverage would be about this should he not be one of the litigants.

To my mind, this isnt just about him, it's about all of them. And this trial is going on seven weeks, more will come out.

I don't understand the position with 100 (or so) people in the case. Is each one judged separately or is it one judgement for them all, so for example if PH wins does everyone win or if his case goes down the pan does he take the other 99 with him?

Obviously no just PH, I don't know the names of everyone involved so just used him as an example. If anyone with legal knowledge could explain I'd be grateful.

I have sympathy for any victims of hacking - I worked on a Murdoch tabloid in the 90s, and can well remember how ruthless some of the staff writers were in their desperation for stories, but hacking was never discussed openly or on my radar at the time.

But I don't think Harry is a very good poster boy for the cause - he really lacks credibility

I don't understand the position with 100 (or so) people in the case. Is each one judged separately or is it one judgement for them all, so for example if PH wins does everyone win or if his case goes down the pan does he take the other 99 with him?

I'm curious about this too. It's such a fundamental point - surprising so many of us are confused about it!

I think the flight with Chelsy is his best one so far.
No other papers published anything about that, and seems no credible legal way they could have known?

I don’t think it was phone hacking, but blagging (IUG?)

Some are non starters, such as the Diana article, where he can’t say for certain whether he even had a phone or not

I think he’ll be happy with just one though, anything.