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, and all the McCartney kids went to state schools and were never ferried everywhere.
Princess Anne's husband is very private and low key and can be seen walking around and taking the tube as well. Same with Lady Sarah Chatto.

Today's events
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-trial-latest-updates-high-court-princess-diana-piers-morgan-mirror-william-12881275

It's quite detailed. A lot to read

Mr Sherborne is trying to argue that the claimants in this case have valid claims, because they reasonably might not have been aware of allegations about phone hacking at Mirror Group until recent years. MGN's lawyers argue the claimants have left it too late to submit their cases and should have already been aware of the allegations because of press coverage over the years.

Reporters are being questioned and are being accused of illegal information gathering or using PIs to illegally gather information. They are denying.

Now up is Fiona Wightman. MGN has already admitted in court documents using private investigators to illegally obtain her medical records while she had ovarian cancer.

I remember Adam Woodyatt talking about Eastenders when it was at its height and its stars were in the paper with photos of them falling out of pubs drunk and doing drugs. Shocking then, almost de rigueur these days. They used to get suspended or sacked.
Woodyatt was asked abut it and he said it was because they chose to go to those places where there was a good chance photographer's would see. But there are loads of places you can go where no-one sees, no one cares and everything you do is just ignored.
There are lots of famous people who never make it into the press because they live off the usual pap radar.
I think its unfortunate, but inevitable, if you constantly publicise yourself so people are interested in what you say for charitable reasons, or might be more likely to employ you, then you are intentionally making people think they know you and they want to know more about you. Therefore the demand for more info about your private life will increase. To me that's just almost a given. And most people think they'll be able to control it. But they can't. So they call for laws so that they can have attention when they want it, and no attention when they don't. That's just not human nature, though. You can't switch on and off people's interest when it's suitable for you. Confucius said, its easy to ride on the back of a tiger but it's not so easy to get off.

There are a lot of famous people who don't get papped though. They seem to be the ones who see the cause of their fame (acting, singing, etc) as a job, rather than a means to being a celebrity. So they'll promote their work, but not themselves IYSWIM, and their personal antics (on the whole) don't get much attention because that's not wjat they are selling.

But even for those selling their character/ personality, any press atterntion needs to be within the law.

So if you give an interview to a magazine about the role you played in a film, and a year later get divorced, that is no-one's business (but also, the chances are no-one is interested)

If you give an interview to a magazine about your lifestyle, including pictures of your spouse and children, then you have encouraged interest in your privtae life, and I don't think can then expect to switch off the interest. I don't think that means you have to answer questions, or that the press can hack your phone or use other illegal means. But that the more you publicise your private life the less of your life you can go on to redefine as 'private' when it suits you.

I agree, @recsw , and I think that's why some celebrities don't get papped or harassed.
I feel very sorry for Fiona Wightman because she sought none of this and seems to have suffered a dreadful invasion of privacy.

I agree @Maireas that was appalling.

If you write a tell-all book

I am getting on a bit so I was thinking of the traditional Hello magazine spread, beautifully photographed in your lovely home with your lovely family!

I felt conned about this but often it's not even their own home!!

Is it usually their own family?!

@recsw. 😂😂😂😂

Although wait! You never see them with ugly, fat spouses (well the husband may be) or children. So who knows?

😂😂 That's really made me laugh. Thanks.

It is good to have a bit of lightness in these threads, they seem to get a bit heavy going 😀

Indeed. 😂

I reckon they're stunt families for hire.

Attractive stunt hires, for sure.

Yes. Very much so

because she sought none of this

None of them sought it.

I think agreeing to do interviews about your life is not consent for press to invade your life at times you have not consented to. Its about consent for me. We each get to decide what we share. Lots of ordinary people share their families online a lot more than celebrities do, and none of those people would think its then fair for their neighbours to go through their bins, call their family and ask for dirt, follow them around or harass them in any way.

You can’t consent on behalf of other people though

I think there is a difference between putting information about your family on-line to share with friends and family (tho I think a lot of people put an unwise amount on-line and do not consider privacy settings enough) and selling it to the media.

If you make money from making your private life public, you are relying on creating an interest in your private life from strangers. You are the one moving the boundary between public and private.

People like Fiona Wightman did not move the boundary, the subject of the Hello magazine spread did.

Yep.

no-one should be the target of UIG. But if you promote yourself endlessly, you are creating demand , and the press will seek to satisfy that demand.

But they should do so legally.

I also think it fair that no-one should have total control of their image and information about it.

if someone is actively promoting themself as a family person, wrapped in an idyllic relationship, putting spouse and children at the centre of their world, then the press should be able to out them as a drug-using, swinging, serial adulterer if that is actually the case. But not by phone-hacking and the like

Like the US evangelist Ted Haggard? Campaigning against same-sex marriage while secretly having homosexual relationships.

So agree with this

Those concerned broken into, bugs planted, blagging by pretending to be someone to obtain medical records and obviously hacking...all bloody awful

Take Katie price for instance, she puts literally everything about her life out there. far more than Harry!. She doesn't deserve any of the above practices