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

Yes the court case is here right now in this moment. That's what interests me.

Right here. Right now!

He still technically is though it would take quite a catastrophe! In my opinion if he wants to do things which create this enormous conflict of interest, he should first request that he’s removed from the line of succession.

That’s interesting actually.

I know when he did the spare run of interviews, he was asked why he doesn’t give up his title, and his response was ‘What difference would it make?’

I suppose this is a big one, without the title, the public interest angle couldn’t be so readily used?

Why should he? I don't agree at all.

Why didn't the disgraced member of the RF ask to be removed from the line of succession before he paid off someone in a legal sex trafficking case?

Before everyone jumps on me because I've brought up you-know-who... tough!

If all members of the RF had to remove themselves from the line of succession before bringing court cases (which admittedly don't involve testifying) there'd be no one left! Except Charles of course. He's immune and above the law.

Thank you. I'm really passionate about how the media can be a force for good and why we need to protect it by ensuring its not manipulated by unscrupulous or illegal forces (whether they be media owners or politicians or governments etc). I'm also very concerned about how standards have slipped and how social media has created (deliberately in lots of cases) an unregulated messy 'citizen' journalism approach that merges fact with fiction; undermines the very notion of 'truth' and enables bullies of every description and at every level to try to dominate all discourse.

So glad it isn't just me, I've got to the age where I think "dementia" if I don't instantly "get" something.

@tigger2022 good point, and succinctly put. Whilst most of us prob agree some sort of reform to protect people is in order, you add weight to the argument that a titled royal elite shouldnt be the one to do it, because of the obvious conflict of interest. And especially when we now know said individual is really focussed on repressing embarrassing stories involving illegal drug taking etc. Hardly anything noble. If I engaged in that behaviour(I very much don’t!) , I’d be struck off. Interesting that due to his privilege he doesn’t face any type of consequence . Not even with his visa status.

It’s also interesting he’s keen to call out the media for abusing their power, but he doesn’t acknowledge how he abused his power and position to bury the allegations about him
bullying staff. Hope that gets its day in court too.

Even if he was now 15th from the throne, he’s still a celebrity with a platform, and it’s naive to think his normalisation of drug use, hitting employees, etc. doesn’t negatively impact society as a whole. https://scottsdalerecovery.com/the-glamorization-of-drug-use-in-the-entertainment-industry/

Thank you for the explanation, that seems a fair way to do it.

those with power and wealth SHOULD dislike the media

Well the media have both power and wealth! Let's not fool ourselves that multimillionaires like Murdoch are in the press sector just for the public interest.

We should have clear ways for EVERYONE to be able to hold the media to account if they break the law or blatantly lie. I don't think that's in conflict with a free press.

I think he will win for what’s it’s worth. And again that just reinforces if you’re powerful and rich, you have better access to justice even.

Harry wining doesn’t make the whole process more egalitarian- in fact - it exposes how unfair and rigged it is.

I don't think it matters that PH uses the media when it suits him (as did his mother). Either he was hacked or he wasn't and regardless of what he did then or does now, hacking isn't justified.
There's a lot of emotional testimony and tbh I don't think it's relevant or particularly helpful but I think PH thinks he may as well take advantage of the platform given by the case and the opportunity to put his views into public record.
It's interesting to me that they have taken the approach they have. As someone who isn't a KC, I'd think it would have been better to focus on articles where there were no previous publications of those facts and no official statements/responses and no external members of the public who could have leaked. It would have limited the number of articles but it may have felt stronger eg the flight details; calling Burrell a two-faced shit on a private voicemail to William (although I do wonder if that counts as hacking Williams' phone and was covered in William's case). But it may be that PH doesn't realise how many 'little people' were involved in organising or booking events/flights, etc.
I think PH's view of public interest is different from the public's view of public interest. Drug use; potential future wife - are public interest when you're 3rd in line. Childhood illnesses - not so imo.

The examples they have gone through so far don't seem to have much evidence of probable hacking from what I have read, in that there have been other ways for the press to have got the info.

‘may be that PH doesn't realise how many 'little people' were involved in organising or booking events/flights, etc.’

well his comments about the chef being too busy to tip the press off certainly adds weight to this

To quote from the wonderful Bernard in 'Yes Minster'

"That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."

😂

I do think it's likely he was hacked. It would be odd if he wasn't considering the hacking cases that have already been settled.
But, in general, I think people don't realise how many members of the public do contact the media with stories and how journalists cultivate sources in lots of places so they can get scoops.

By the way, I was responding to a poster talking about the line of succession. Andrew has been involved in a court case so it is a totally valid point.

Worth noting that both Andrew and Harry remain in place not only as heirs but also as stand-ins.

OK, neither of them are likely to get called on in either capacity but it's interesting that neither have given up the potential.

It would take an Act of Parliament to remove anyone from the line of succession.

They can't just 'give it up'. It doesn't work like that.

I also think… what if he loses? Does everyone say “oh, guess they did nothing wrong then, as you were”? I really doubt a loss would change anyone’s mind either - there are a lot of comments about shining a light which is a pretty vague objective, but why would MGN interpret a win as anything other than a win?

They haven’t asked though? If they wanted to be removed from the line of succession, removing two unpopular members of the RF would be an easy win for the government. It’s just one privilege too big to lose.