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

The poster has come in and left a genuine response and apologies, to all of us with this awful experience 💐and hugs, but please lets not use the opportunity to pile on the poster who has apologised.

It's not a pile on.

I'm confused, this comment was made by multiple posters ( in good faith, and not to offend) , how is this now the fault of one poster?
You yourself agreed with it originally, I actually do not know who first made the comparison as im sure others who were equally upset about it as I and others were, how is it a pile on when others are voicing support for another poster?

It isn't the comment that worries me so juch as that I was scared of saying I thought it was inappropriate and some other people have said they were too.

We all say silly things at times and it is good to have pther people bring us down to earth.

You have a point @recsw , I was uncomfortable saying anything, however for reasons I don't wish to revisit, I did find the comment upsetting, there's no comparison for me and I suspect others .

I'm sorry @jeffgoldblum I didn't mean to undermine the experiences of people whowould be very affected by the comparison. It was wrong.

As far as I can see, one poster used the rape comparison, then another couple agreed with them. Then Tigger bravely posted her experiences after which the other posters apologised. I can't see a pile on, just support for Tigger and a slightly shocking admission that some of us are actually nervous about posting stuff on these threads, whether it is because of a fear of a backlash or fear of deletion by MN. I find that quite sad actually, we're all supposed to be adults.

As someone who also experienced this multiple times, what I agreed with was the comparison of tactics. I also support anyone with this experience who felt triggered or upset. This is a sensitive topic and not the point of the thread so once the original poster has apologised, it is time to move on, respectfully.

No need to apologise @recsw !
I knew what you meant and we are all entitled to our own opinions and I didn't feel you were minimising mine 💐

I 100% don't think anyone meant to offend anyone else with the comment. I might be a mug but I don't think anyone intends to be mean to other people on these boards. (Well, actually I can think of two but I haven't seen them for a while!) We all say things that sound a certain way in our head but that in writing can be construed in a different way

It's just that on MN people seem so careful not to speak of rape except in certain situations, so it sounded a bit jarring - but only because it contrasts so much with the general ethos of posters on the website. But as much as I frequently disagree with the opinions of some posters, I don't for one minute believe any of them would deliberately say anything to cause offence or hurt, especially over a topic like rape.

Tnank you 😊 selfishly I was thinking about my own feelings of being scared to comment

Not selfish, we can only really talk about our own feelings, we don't know how others feel! 😉

I understand, thank you for listening 😊 x

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees thank you posting on scared of reprisals on here
Not nice feeling

flowers to all brave posting

He didn't go through the British court system. He was being sued in the US courts. Different kettle of fish.

Not sure what your point is here but if you're looking for a UK convicted royal you can always try Anne.

You can't see the difference of how a close family member to the head of state would be treated differently in the judicial system in their home country to one overseas?
I don't think our investigatory bodies would cover up half as much crap about Hunter Biden as the FBI has attempted to do.

Does anyone here not thing think the wealthy and well connected (including Harry) have to keep to the same rules as the rest ofus? And that is OK?

Sorry, not OK? That some people are exmpt and the rules don't apply? Surely we can agree that the rules should apply the same way to everyone?

You can't see the difference of how a close family member to the head of state would be treated differently in the judicial system in their home country to one overseas?

Andrew settled to legal satisfaction and in the process lost any moral or PR credibility remaining.

I'm still not seeing your point.

🤷‍♀️

How wonderful to see this thread continue.

It is now coming to an end, and I plan to start a new thread on a topic that Prince Harry raised in the case.

What exactly is the public interest. And how does it differ from what the public wants to hear, or is nosy about?

I have been watching events in Westminster with an open mouth. And the whole Phil Schofield debacle. Harry is right, the press and government are at rock bottom. And Keir Starmer echoed this sentiment in the Commons this week when he said the UK standing has been lowered in the world.

And what is astonishing, at least to me, is the popular press as it calls itself devoting many more pages and columns to Phil Schofield and Harry than they are doing to the imploding Tories, than to the actual government.

It's a disordered media situation.

Whatever you think of Harry, something has gone very wrong there. Look forward to discussing it all in the next thread!

@MrsMaxDeWinter Welcome back!

Good to see you.

Your thoughts on a new thread sound interesting. I was gobsmacked with the coverage on Schofield, it was completely out of hand and relentless. It seemed to me that tabloid nonsense found their way into every bit of the british media and it honestly was so unimportant given what was and is happening to this country. It's just tabloid outrage to feed a thirsty public. It's not what I want but someone does I s'pose...

The press fails to scrutinise and hold the Government to account. They're too busy banging on about the likes of Schofield etc. Or Harry & Meghan. (and Harry referred to this, as you say)

Anyway enough of that, don't start me off , great to have you back!

(Disclaimer... before anyone jumps in. This is not defence of PS)

I agree with you about Phillip Schofield. I had no interest, yet it seemed to be in the headlines, pop up in news feeds and dominate the pages. It was extraordinary. I actually found it quite annoying and can't work out why it dominated quite so much and relegated important news stories.

The press doesn’t ignore party politics at all. It is quite capable of helping oust whomever they want to.

One issue with the U.K. press is what is known as a brutal news cycle. They are fast and require a lot of content

That means something sticks if the readers want to hear about it as there’s a lot to create

Just because some were not interested in Schofield many obviously were, and they go by clicks and numbers

Harry is popular content too due to interest, this thread included

I agree. It was about just one sleaze of a man and it was relentless. It was really hard to find actual news without digging deep.