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

we've read a lot of commentary that harry did badly, no evidence etc so it should be absolutely fine to share a different opinion from someone there and who is an expert in communications is pretty interesting to me. nobody said he is the ultimate source of truth

@Roussette you posted I wish every single person on every thread about this court case would listen to that.

I got the impression that this was because you thought his commentary was more significant than any other. My apologies if I got that wrong.

I suppose, by ‘the palace’, JK may not have meant an official spokesman but someone who was in a position to know/hear and happy to share , whether for money or malice or just a few drinks, who knows ?

Or total invention. Unless the King is asked to give a statement about his recollection of whether he ever said that, we cannot rule out that they just made it up. Relying on the well established Palace position of never commenting, which must have left an open door for all sorts of invented bollocks

So does anyone know when Piers is going to be called up for interrogation? Or does it depend on the outcome of this test case?

I should imagine there is quite a lot that the tabloids can get away in terms of invention because it simply isn't worth the Palace's time and energy to respond - a response would get further 'pushing', headlines such as 'Palace DENIES XXX!' and similar.

The reality is a lot can be done by innuendo, which is then difficult to challenge because a lot was implied but never actually stated.

Someone present in the courtroom watching and listening would have a far better opinion on it.

'Opinion' being the operative word

There were other people with opinions on it who watched in court

They had different views on Harry

Along the lines of:
mixedrecycling DENIED being an alcoholic after significant amounts of alcohol containers were removed in the (mixed) recycling. The beleaguered Mumsnet poster, in the centre of a media controversy over whether they will be checking into rehab, claimed to have 'held a party' over the weekend, resulting in a stack of empties

Reality - I actually did have a party, and I didn't drink excessively 😁

He wasn't pre judging at all.

Funny, when someone states
"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”

I would say that was pre judging (operative word being 'unlawfully'

This 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”

does not become this

to declare the evidence is strong enough to say it was gathered unlawfully? 🤷🏻‍♀️

without a hell of a lot of magical thinking.

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

He didn't.

I like that position @polkadotdalmation .

But in fairness - we should quote him properly.

Otherwise it could come across as an agenda.

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

Accepted by most people, myself included.

Some of it may have been done lawfully,

Also accepted

a lot of it [gathering intrusive evidence] [was done]…unlawfully”

A pretty clear statement of what he was saying. My English comprehension hasn't been tested since uni, but I think that statement is very clear @4plusthehound

It doesn’t really matter it’s just one person’s opinion, I haven’t watched the link in the pp

It all needs to be presented as evidence and then judge will decide

@4plusthehound I am quoting what the poster put upthread about what his words were. If its misquoted, then take it up with that poster as we have been misled?

and a good understanding of the english language is not magical thinking. Though I bet DS wishes it were.

its weird that there's been so much chat on the board about harry having not done well based on what else but media reporting? articles have been shared here. But one person in the courtroom who is an expert in communications sharing his opinion with non-british media is somehow a problem? very weird.

It may be stating the bleeding obvious, but the only important person in the room is the judge.

I have received my information from the tv coverage, just in case you are suggesting I get it from the daily mail? Not bought a newspaper for over 10 years after I realised what sewer rats most of them were.

Nice try @polkadotdalmation

We agree on this:

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

Accepted by most people, myself included.

Some of it may have been done lawfully,

Also accepted

But not on this:

a lot of it [gathering intrusive evidence] [was done]…unlawfully”.

because you changed his words from may have to definately did.

You are misquoting him. You have changed the content of his discusion.

As such - you have started a converstion about the ability of this professional based on your misquote.

It is so bloody ironic given the context of the thread.

I hate this - you make some interesting points through the thread but at times you are so horribly unfair to perople.

Nope

just reading MGN has lost every case against it for unlawful information gathering since 2015.

Newsflash - his opinion is as valid, but no more, than any other. No need for everyone posting to listen to him rather than any other. But if you are interested, do listen.

oh for goodness sake! @Roussette everyr word is picked over... she just meant she thinks it's very good and everyone should have a listen! its not an order, its an opinion! for balance, because so many are saying he did poorly on the stand, have a listen to someone who did not think that :) or not... whatever!

@4plusthehound What can you not understand about the simple phrase 'a lot of it unlawfully'? I was adding the other words simply to clarify the sentence.

A lot of it unlawfully is unequivocal. It is a statement of fact. He is not opining or speculating. The judge is the only one who can judge that Harry's words are fact.