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 quite derailed anything, it was just an odd thing to throw in given he has voiced his support for H&M in the past and had nothing to do with the legal proceedings in question.

As you say though, back to the business of the thread.

Yes, back to business, and I have repeated the main body of the post in question. It was just an aside that popped up.

Odd observation given so much elsewhere that's been posted is nothing to do with the court case.

Nicki Sanderson says she only heard of phone hacking in 2019 when a fellow actor talked about the case he was bringing.

I wonder if Harry will review some of the claims he made in Spare and interviews, claiming that relatives and "the palace" were briefing against him and Meghan and sharing stories. Maybe that didn't happen? Maybe it was hacking?

I don't think the court case is anything to do with what has gone on 'post-Meghan' surely?

@Maireas i think he conceded in one of the court exchanges that it could have been a palace source rather than a Hack?

Nose face and spite sprung to mind when I read that

https://www.thecut.com/2023/05/daily-mirror-claims-prince-harry-leaks-came-from-royals.html

Right, because he's been accusing lots of people, so should really clear that up.

this is a greta listen, Steve Barnett who is a professor of communications at Westminster uni and was present in court for Harrys questioning,
"What I saw was someone who was very cool, very calm. Answered the questions that were put to him…I think he’s done exactly what he set out to do which is to make the case that there was a huge amount of intrusion. Some of it may have been done lawfully, a lot of it…unlawfully”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-08/prince-harry-exposes-huge-amounts-of-intrusion-by/102454656

I assumed the evidence of unlawful information gathering must have been undeniable in those instances hence why they admitted them.

Gosh. I wish every single person on every thread about this court case would listen to that. They won't, but I can wish. It explained the process... yes it is 4 as a 'test case' which will open the doors for the rest if even 1 of them wins.

"If anyone is thinking they might get an accurate representation of what's happening by reading the online versions of the British press, please don't. The kinds of reports that they are putting out is that Harry is ineffective, he was mumbling, and it all went wrong. It didn't"

(And there's far more in the 8 minutes he talks. The process is interesting.

Who needs a judge when you have an expert in communications to declare the evidence is strong enough to say it was gathered unlawfully? 🤷🏻‍♀️

It’s an odd thing to do, you’re not meant to pre judge a case anyway

All evidence needs to be presented

well if you can put forward your opinion, extensively, then why can't he? That's his opinion based on what he knows and heard. He's at least in the courtroom!

@Roussette I think you've shared this already, this part was most interesting:

She was asked about a story reporting that a young Prince Harry had taken drugs at parties, which included reports that Prince Charles had been "hugely relieved" to have been told his son had only used cannabis "spliffs".
Prince Harry's barrister, David Sherborne, put it to her that this was private information which could have been obtained from listening to voicemail messages, asking: "Where did you get the quotes from Ms Kerr?"
She replied: "I can't say for sure where I got them from, I can't remember - it's possible Piers gave them to me, it's possible the Palace. I don't remember."
Mr Sherborne responded: "You're saying the Palace would have given you what Prince Charles said in highly sensitive meetings with his son?"

As if the palace actually passed that on, no fool let alone a judge would believe that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65842950

My opinion, just like yours and everyone else on this thread, is accepted as small unimportant speculation. Not broadcast to a wide audience by an expert in communications whose opinion carries far more weight and is far more influential. Huge difference.

Why can't an academic given an opinion? Have those commenting on it, listened to the whole thing?

On the spliffs... as if the Palace would come out with that. Which leaves hacked voicemails and Piers.

We are all speculating, let's face it. In the end it is what the judge decides that matters.

I think we know nothing, we have to glean what has been going on from as independent a source as we can find. Someone present in the courtroom watching and listening would have a far better opinion on it.

Personally I think listening to a variety of sources is best, as everyone has their own biases and assumptions, including academics and legal commentators.

mixedrecycling · Today 19:01
We are all speculating, let's face it. In the end it is what the judge decides that matters.

very true

My degree was in history, and there was a huge range of different views from reputable academics on any topic - because everyone selects what is relevant and assembles it to make sense of it differently, according to their worldview, experiences and influences.

So I wouldn't take one person's opinion on this subject as the Truth of the Ages. They will have come to the trial with preconceptions, because it is impossible not to as a human being.

He didn't pre judge. He talked about how Harry came across testifying, the British Press, the Leveson enquiry and why Part 2 was shelved, the 4 test cases that will determine what will happen with the others, the two or three ways the articles could have been published lawfully, and the balance of probabilities which may well determine the verdict.

He wasn't pre judging at all.

Who takes it as the Big Truth?!

I don't!

Does anyone else?

To me, it was an interesting take from someone who has been sat in the courtroom. That's it.

Happy to listen to anyone else who was sat there and what their take was too. Could well be different to his.