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

MPs clear way for Anne and Edward to stand in for King - BBC News

It was decided by Parliament back in December that they would be. I hadn't realised that it had not yet been fully enacted.

This is where I satnd on it too especially when it comes to social media.

The States was a wake up call for me - when they stormed the Capitol - most of those people were would up by Socail and lack of acountability. Which in this case the tabloids are trying to dodge - acountability.

I feel it is dangerous now.

I really feel a healthy society has a healthy media.

Agree with this and @AlexandriasWindmill post.

Nikki Sanderson testifies today. Her phone was allegedly hacked repeatedly and it caused her great distress... awful articles were written about her personal life, she was attacked in the street and called a whore and a slag as a result of the articles, and there are records of payments to PIs held by Sherborne on her behalf. And she was so young at the time... just awful.

As I understand it, claims brought by a small number of individuals, maybe four (including Harry) are being used as a 'representative' case which could well determine the outcome of the other cases. Nikki Sanderson is part of this, along with Fiona Wightman (whose medical records were obtained whilst she was undergoing cervical cancer) and Michael Le Vell.

I read this morning that the trial will conclude by the end of June with the written verdict given later in the year.

So a lot of complainant evidence is to come. All hacking is terrible, but I think going into medical records is particularly abusive - genuinely a terrible invasion of privacy. That surely needs to be dealt with in a serious manner.
The trouble with some of Harry's complaints is a degree of vagueness and the supposition that perhaps other sources provided information. Surely he could have used better exemplars?
The worst part was a tracker on Chelsy's car. Did Harry report that to the police? Surely that's a criminal offence? Shocking if true.

Hi all,
Just to say that we'll be keeping a keen eye on this thread today (and not just because MN as ever provides the most ruthlessly efficient way to keep up with the hearing), pleased to see it still continues well. Do report any concerns or worries re guideline-breaking behaviour so that we don't derail the thread with back-and-forths again.
Weird coincidence about the cartoons.
Thanks!

@HopeMumsnet lets see if the cartoonists can be a bit more original today! 😆

’The worst part was a tracker on Chelsy's car. Did Harry report that to the police? Surely that's a criminal offence? Shocking if true.’

yes that would be good solid evidence- and they must have shown it to others at the time, if not reported to police right away

Thank you @HopeMumsnet

I do hope that there is as much interest in the court case, now that Harry has finished testifying. Because the four that do testify will affect the outcome for the rest of the litigants.

They all have an awful story to tell.

Presumably, Harry was only included purely to stir up interest in the case. Because his evidence was troublingly weak.

Did everyone see the testimony from the mirror reporter Jane Kerr? So she paid PI's, one firm she contacted 900 times, for information she says, that is actually free to obtain yourself.. why would they pay so much money for information you can easily look up? no need for a PI?

I think its important to remember too, the mirror has settled hundreds of claims like this by people who had similar level of evidence Harry is bringing.

harry was answering questions, the case is on week 1, his lawyer has weeks to try and prove this case, we do not know what evidence there is just yet and concluding his case is weak at this point is premature

I agree, it suited him on his crusade to hold the press to account, it suits the other people in the case to publicise the case.

Anne and Edward aren't counsellors of state.

That's quite strange.

The bill to add them was 'fast-tracked' at Charles' request and supposed to complete its HoC stages on 1st December last year but hasn't as yet.

Wonder what the delay is.

So she paid PI's, one firm she contacted 900 times, for information she says, that is actually free to obtain yourself.. why would they pay so much money for information you can easily look up?

Probably for the same reason lawyers employ private investigators. Why does anyone pay freelancers to do the donkey work instead of having extra people on staff?

The 900 occasions were over the course of 8 years or so, an average of 2-3 per week. Maybe it was just more cost effective to commission freelancers than have a permanent member of staff whenever a possible story came up. There's nothing illegal about outsourcing. The question is whether they used illegal methods, and if so, should the Jane Kerr have suspected that and asked more questions?

It is reasonable in general, if you commission someone to do some work, to expect that they will do it legally, and not to have to specify that they must keep within the law.

In these cases, was there anything about the info that they provided that should have raised questions about how they obtained it?

It does seem to me likely that there was an attitude of 'don't ask, don't tell', but I don't know if that can be proved in court.

@mixedrecycling Yes, 20 or so years ago it was the Wild West for the tabloids. Plenty of underhand and illegal activities and it would be even the PIs outsourced work to dodgy people.

Press is now better regulated and it's social media that's the Wild West. They don't even need sources, they just make it up.

‘Press is now better regulated and it's social media that's the Wild West. They don't even need sources, they just make it up.’

yes V true

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/prince-harry-court-royals-tabloid-culture

whilst this reporter is clearly sympathetic she also doesn’t seem convinced by the evidence.

(but I do still think he will win)

It's 'regulated' by a regulator paid for by the newspapers themselves.

A quick google suggests it's never ordered a single fine since it's creation. Broadsheets wouldn't sign up to it because it fell short of the level of regulation the Leveson inquiry recommended.

@kirinm It's quite possible then, that the deterrent factor is enough to curb illegal practices? Harry's case revolves around historic hacking and it's been accepted these practices are no longer current? The royal family have reached agreements to reduce uninvited photographs, so things have improved.

Not saying it's perfect! Far from it, but it has improved.

Australian Ex Prime Munster Malcolm Turnbull’s opinions of on Murdoch media

Not about Harry but pertinent to the conversation about the state of the media.

“Whether you like it or not, the fate of the Western world, the democratic world, is linked inescapably to the United States. There is no person, no organisation, that has done more to damage that country than Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.”

and

“In Murdoch’s operation, we’ve got an organisation that is no longer a news organisation in the sense all of us, even the youngest of us, have grown up with. It is basically a political operation – it’s a propaganda operation.

Ex Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull speaking about Murdoch’s Media

If anyone wants to follow what's going on, now Harry has finished his testimony
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-trial-latest-updates-high-court-princess-diana-piers-morgan-mirror-william-12881275

Interestingly, Jane Kerr is back up. And Sherborne (Harry's lawyer) is drilling down. She appears to be saying 'I don't remember' a lot. He is also questioning her on the fact she's saying 'other papers reported it too' when some of her articles are marked as 'exclusives'. And asking her why she changed her witness statements.

Also Charles Spencer is sticking up for Harry it appears.

Oh and... her saying that the ghastly Piers Morgan would 'inject information' into a story after speaking to the Palace
What a surprise. Not.

Seems like the tabloids defend like the cigarette companies - they may cause cancer, it certainly looks like they cause cancer, but can you prove without any doubt whatsoever that they cancer? (All the while knowing they cause cancer).

Chemical companies and subsequent campaign of climate change denial used the same tactic.

Basically create so much doubt (mud) that nothing can be clearly be seen.

On the other hand they seem to try the litigants (at the moment PH - it will be harder with Dame Lawerence for example) like a rape trial. You were drunk - hmm? So you cannot actually remember - hmm? Why were you there in the first place - hmm? You were scruffy - why dress like that - hmm? How many drugs had you taken - hmm?
And so on.

Clearly the tabloids have a massive advantage in terms of public opinion creation - they continue that with their presentation of the case - surly Prine, bet he wished for an Oprah hug and so on. They have framed him as bad and them as good. No mention at all, ever, of the other litigants and their story.

A staggering amount of people think that PH is the only one in this fight, directly due to the coverge and the tabloid narative.

No matter what side you are on re royal family shenanigans this is revealing and a very good time to put back checks and balances that have been removed over time.

This is not about freedom of the press - this is about criminality.

Thank you for not taking the thread down.

The OP who started this thread did a great job trying to keep it on track - she worked hard for the rest of us to have a sane rational discussion.

I don't know what happened but I do not like her banishment and think you should let her back.

She did all the hard work.