Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

972 replies

MrsMaxDeWinter · 06/06/2023 10:12

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

Diana, Meghan and the tabloid press: Harry finally gets his day in court

The Duke of Sussex has made it his life’s work to change the British media landscape. He’ll get his chance this week in the phone hacking case against the Mirror Group

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
26
polkadotdalmation · 08/06/2023 13:31

I really would not reopen the discussion on the OP with MNHQ or on this thread. They clearly had information not available to other posters, and they used their judgement accordingly.

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 13:32

DogOutInTheDark · 07/06/2023 16:21

This is what grates me most about Harry.

I don't doubt that media intrusion from a young age was not fun. I don't doubt he hated it and wanted to get away from it. I don't doubt he was annoyed about the papers printing personal info on him.

But in the last 3 years Harry has himself told his deepest secrets, revealed all about relationships and private parts, given you intimate details about private conversations with his brother and father, and thrown a great many former friends and family members under the bus - using the media as a means to do it.

Yes, I imagine Chelsea is feeling pretty crap right now (so probably.is Megahn as it's clear Harry deeply loved Chelsea and can't be nice for megahn to hear all about them). The government are also probably a bit pissed off at Harry's recent blabbings, Paul B is furious, Charles and William furious etc...

Harry has NO care in the world about destroying and trampling on the privacy of others in pursuit of his own mission. That is what drives me potty about this man

Show quote history

I am going to presume that he talked it through with her - there is not reason not to assume that.

I am also going to presume that two adults can accept that each has loved deeply in the past.

I met my dh in my late 30s. If he had not loved deeply in the past I would have run a mile!

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 13:34

Roussette · 07/06/2023 16:26

How do you know he hasn't spoken to his ex-girlfriend who he remains on very good terms with, and asked her permission to go ahead with referring to her and what happened?

How do you know 'he has thrown her under the bus'? How do you know she isn't cheering him on from the sidelines?

Exactly.

It seems rational to think that he is only "going" there with people he pre cleared it with in terms of friends and ex girlfriends.

Howsimplywonderful · 08/06/2023 13:36

Well that’s not the approach he seems to have taken with his book so I don’t know if it’s rational to assume anything.

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 13:37

Howsimplywonderful · 07/06/2023 17:29

I can understand he wanted to protect his wife but he has attached himself to this case, has provided no evidence and we are supposed to believe his allegations without any proof - because he’s ‘honest’ , because he’s a prince of the realm.

No-one else would be up there getting an east ride from the QC and having side chats with the judge.

Surely he has to provide something. The idea that his girlfriends car was bugged and he didn’t tell his security protection defies belief really.

Does not really matter what we think.

It matters what the judge thinks.

He is the expert in law.

If I bleed inside and I think it might be the stomach - fine. It is what I think. What matters is what the doctor thinks.

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 13:49

Maireas · 07/06/2023 18:10

"to stop the hate against Meghan" - I agree, @SirChenjins - I don't see how phone hacking is connected to that.
He can't control social media.

He can't control social media.

This is true - but there something interesting in an article recently spectulating about their next phase of money earning.

(Just in terms of social media hate or love)

If MM wears a dress by Stella McCarthy it is worth 3 million pounds to the company. If Michelle Obama wears a dress it is worth about 300,00.
MM was photographed (paped or deliberately photogarphed depending on your view). The jacket she wore in the picture sold out. In the States. That is a lot of sales.

And my point here is that social media feeds -coming into your phone/ipad/laptop etc are so sophisticated in understanding you, that almost everything you click on, "find", has been placed there for you. So you her as very unpopular ion Social. And she is. But she also isn't (as the sales would imply).

This is really significant and very important for all of us to pay attention to.

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 13:53

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 10:16

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.

It is also a very convenient work around ethical issues on new gathering I would think?

Get the PI on it - you removed your publication from the bad stuff...

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 13:54

Well exactly - 'don't ask, don't tell'

AlexandriasWindmill · 08/06/2023 13:58

The questioning of the journalist concerning PH seemed a waste of time. There's no way she would remember how she got a quote on one article twenty years ago or how she researched an article.

Unless the reporting today was incredibly patchy, that entire section seemed to add nothing to the case (except to give the impression that the KC doesn't understand how journalists work - and I'm sure he does - so just a frustrating section for no reason).

It's not really the writing or research that's important anyway. It's whether there was a fact-checking process or not. Was a sub or a features' editor or the news' editor or the main editor supposed to be scribbling 'how do we know this?' in the margins if an article stated something of dubious origin? That was definitely the process in most places.

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 14:00

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 14:06

polkadotdalmation · 08/06/2023 10:50

@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.

it's social media that's the Wild West. They don't even need sources, they just make it up.

Very true and we urgently need legislation.

But this - Press is now better regulated -I don't agree with.

The case is before a judge because it has not changed.

All this stuff with PH is older but the other are more recent.

polkadotdalmation · 08/06/2023 14:11

@4plusthehound I thought these other people were bringing their cases as a direct result of the shelving of Levinson 2? As in they didn't get their cases heard by the enquiry and are therefore having to bring these cases?

4plusthehound · 08/06/2023 14:12

Howsimplywonderful · 08/06/2023 13:36

Well that’s not the approach he seems to have taken with his book so I don’t know if it’s rational to assume anything.

We don't know that with any confidence though.

I have not seen any statements from people featured in it.

The women he lost his virginity with and the army trainer who was misquoted entirely and took to Facebook to distance himslef from the positioning the tabloids had given him.

None from any of the others.

In the absence of that we are invited into speculating, imagining, wondering, feeling but no facts.

MayQueeen · 08/06/2023 14:15

@polkadotdalmation

I also thought these were historic instances, so not necc a reflection of the state of affairs currently ( i may be incorrect though)

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 14:41

AlexandriasWindmill · 08/06/2023 13:58

The questioning of the journalist concerning PH seemed a waste of time. There's no way she would remember how she got a quote on one article twenty years ago or how she researched an article.

Unless the reporting today was incredibly patchy, that entire section seemed to add nothing to the case (except to give the impression that the KC doesn't understand how journalists work - and I'm sure he does - so just a frustrating section for no reason).

It's not really the writing or research that's important anyway. It's whether there was a fact-checking process or not. Was a sub or a features' editor or the news' editor or the main editor supposed to be scribbling 'how do we know this?' in the margins if an article stated something of dubious origin? That was definitely the process in most places.

Was it to try to make her look as if she was hiding something behind not remembering, do you think?

mixedrecycling · 08/06/2023 14:59

After all, the defence lawyer took Harry into his speculation and feelings, and lack of facts.

Roussette · 08/06/2023 15:31

Interesting that MGN has admitted to one instance of unlawful information gathering, has made a non-admission' on two but has denied the rest (re Nicki Sanderson)
I wonder... if they admit to something, they think that will help them in the long run. Give a bit to escape the rest....
Sanderson was targetted and it has affected her to this day.

From John Cleese... Grin
"I have friends observing Prince Harry's case against the Mirror

They all tell me he did very well under cross-examination yesterday. Very calm, no embarrassing moments...

The British Press mostly report something quite different, as one would expect

They are lying as usual..."

SirChenjins · 08/06/2023 15:43

John Cleese is not exactly neutral

kirinm · 08/06/2023 15:50

SirChenjins · 08/06/2023 15:43

John Cleese is not exactly neutral

What makes him bias? (Genuine not sarcastic question)!

Roussette · 08/06/2023 15:54

SirChenjins · 08/06/2023 15:43

John Cleese is not exactly neutral

Maybe he isn't, but he expressed an opinion, much like us on here do!

polkadotdalmation · 08/06/2023 16:02

No one has said Harry's demeanour was an issue it was his evidence unfortunately

Roussette · 08/06/2023 16:10

I'm following what is happening with Nicki Sanderson, because of the passage of time, I don't think Harry's case is much weaker than hers. And it will be on the balance of probabilities I imagine.

Caroline Flack's mother is full of praise for and calling him 'very brave' for facing up to the 'horrendous press'

SirChenjins · 08/06/2023 16:21

Roussette · 08/06/2023 15:54

Maybe he isn't, but he expressed an opinion, much like us on here do!

Show quote history

I thought this thread giving a balanced view of the legal proceedings - those comments from John Cleese don’t do that.

Roussette · 08/06/2023 16:24

SirChenjins · 08/06/2023 16:21

I thought this thread giving a balanced view of the legal proceedings - those comments from John Cleese don’t do that.

Show quote history

It was a lighthearted aside. Not meant to derail as has been the case with other posts on here.

Back to business with my post after it, I don't think John Cleese has affected the thread toooo much 😂

Roussette · 08/06/2023 16:25

Just to repeat the main part of the post again... it might have been missed.

Interesting that MGN has admitted to one instance of unlawful information gathering, has made a non-admission' on two but has denied the rest (re Nicki Sanderson)
I wonder... if they admit to something, they think that will help them in the long run. Give a bit to escape the rest....
Sanderson was targetted and it has affected her to this day.

Swipe left for the next trending thread