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

@Roussette thank you for the welcome wagon! And for keeping the thread going.

@Maireas I suspect it's because for good or bad, PS has not endeared himself to some of his colleagues, so it became a vendetta. It really did feel like pitchforks in the firelight. But is it in the public interest for journalists to launch personal vendettas using a platform, as powerful as the press. It was extremely disturbing to watch.

And that @SunnyEgg is precisely the point of my next thread. Just because the "public is interested" in something does not mean it is in the public interest. And that's where issues of privacy come in. You as a member of the reading public may have been curious about Harry as a 15 year old prince, but how is it in the public interest that a newspaper reveals his minor illnesses.
There is no public interest in splashing on the front page that Harry has glandular fever, the intention is simply to create a headline about "kissing disease" and speculate on whether a 15 yr old has been kissing girls.

And whether a teenage boy kissed girls certainly has nothing to do with the public interest, but everything to do with selling papers by feeding public curiosity.

It was relentless. I was mystified and thought, have I missed something? Is this something major? I started to watch the Al Jazeera news to get a break from it.

Yes, I tune in to Al Jazeera when my patience is wearing thin and I want to know what's going on!

SM has changed the media a fair bit. If it’s being talked about, even on such places as mn then it will be bumped up to the top for longer.

I found out all sorts of things about Malaysia and current affairs in South America - most enlightening.
I think celebrity culture has got very toxic and some seek it even though it's harmful.
Pandora's opened the box, though.

Welcome back @MrsMaxDeWinter I missed your input :) your new thread sounds really interesting and I look forward to that discussion.

I like to get my news from a variety of sources, a couple of Uk based ones, but reading different global news sources is important, along with independent smaller media too. Then you don't get saturated with whatever silly story the press here are over-focussing on. I saw the former editor of an Australian women's mag has written a letter apologising for her coverage of Harry and Meghan and spoken out about how they dehumanise people in her industry.

@Iwantcakeeveryday

Jinx!

My thread will lead off with that extraordinary apology. I have been thinking a lot about what it says about the media coverage of Harry and Meghan, and look forward to your thoughts.

Thanks for the warm welcome back!

Welcome back and I look forward to the new thread.

I watched last night's documentary about phone hacking. I thought I was too old to be shocked by press antics but it was appalling.

Welcome back! I look forward to discussing what is exactly public interest - I've been recently fascinated by the reflections and commentary of the grown up children of mummy bloggers/vloggers and influencer parents on social media. Some of their commentary sounds eerily like Harry - their paranoia, anxiety, distrust and lack of overall control over their own stories and the lack of empathy from others they tell their stories to because of perceived fame or wealth.

Yep - she is from New Zealand

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/royals/300905619/an-apology-to-prince-harry-a-former-womens-mag-editor-shares-her-regrets

I don't think it's helpful to disparage either legal team tbh. The 'tactics' the legal teams are using is - presenting evidence and asking questions. There is nothing underhand about either teams' approach and it undermines the final verdict for posters to imply there is something wrong with the behaviour of the legal teams in court.
It hints that the verdict could be incorrect and also that the UK legal team is below par. It isn't. There are issues with our legal system (including institutionalised sexism and racism) but we still have a very robust system. It has to deal in facts, evidence, proof and probabilities. No-one who genuinely cares about the issues raised in this case, should be trying to undermine it.
I must admit I'm a bit disappointed that it's already being spun off into another discussion of H, rather than following the current case. But it just shows that certain posters will always be more interested in H&M than in the wider issues H&M are actually trying to bring attention to.

It hints that the verdict could be incorrect and also that the UK legal team is below par. It isn't. There are issues with our legal system (including institutionalised sexism and racism) but we still have a very robust system. It has to deal in facts, evidence, proof and probabilities. No-one who genuinely cares about the issues raised in this case, should be trying to undermine it.

I worked within the criminal system and always had a strong belief in British justice - despite getting fed up with magistrates shilly shallying over making a,decision and forever bending backwards to accommodate no-shows. (A whole other rant. 😄 )

When Johnny Depp took the case against the Sun and the judge found in favour of the Sun, I reckoned JD was guilty and that was that. I never bothered to read the court transcript.

So when so much was exposed in the Virginia Depp v Heard trial, I was a bit 🤔 So then I read the court trial transcript. Of course there was no disclosure on witnesses in the case so Heard got away with lying. In fact her saying she'd given $7m to charity lead the judge, according to him, to thinking she was honourable and therefore more believable.

We also know that the judge found in favour of the Sun on at least 2 points that were later proved to be untrue. And he used those 2 points to persuade him that other points were true (following a pattern of behaviour). So using wrong assumptions to back up other assumptions.

I'm not saying the judge did anything against court rules. But when you're not used to how a system works, it brings you up sharp when you see that a ruling really depends on if a judge likes you not. (Fragrant Mary Archer.) And not on rigorous evidence. It's just not how most of us thinks a court system works.

I won't ever hear a civil court verdict again and automatically believe the verdict as I would have done in the past. It's sad to have your faith knocked like that and if enough people think like that, it undermines society. Judges obviously know the legal ins and outs better than the public but they have no better judgement than anyone else and are equally flawed as the rest of us.

Thank you for sharing @skullbabe . It deserves it's own thread. She has been honest enough to state that she stopped seeing Harry as a human being something which can be seen here time and time again. Some of the 'descriptive language ' used when writing about H&M has been nasty and vicious. I can only guess at why anyone would use such language about people they don't know. Well done to her and maybe others might reflect too.
Welcome back @MrsMaxDeWinter Your thoughtful and incisive posts were missed by many if not all. Premature jocularity is never good.

Did anyone watch the programme on TV a couple of nights ago about two phone hacking and information gathering by the Press? It was a real eye opener. The way Sienna Miler in particular was treated is just appalling.

I really wanted to but am unable due to my location, however as soon as I can I will be catching up.
I bet it was horrendous what people like Sienna Miller were put through. Hence this case we are covering on this thread

Just dreadful. And the families of murder victims and even those who survived the tube bombing.

It's shameful but as long as people buy the tabloids and there's no political will to change it either, it's not going to stop in a hurry.

Was that the he lady from the tube bombing with the facial mask?
I read all about her case and how disgusting the media were whilst she was going through hell. And they hacked other victims too

Yes. Apparently the Sun was "desperate " to find out what she looked like. She has retained her anonymity to this day. 🙂

I'm about to watch it as I missed it the other night, I did read about it and it sounds so awful.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/20/privacy-trial-judge-asks-why-piers-morgan-has-not-given-evidence

interesting

I think its very awkward that Piers Morgan didn't show. But it would just give David Sherborne opportunity to ask about a whole host of other things, I guess.

It seems like the judge is also questioning Harry's lack of witnesses too.

Should the judge be listening to what people are saying out of court and using that to guide his decision? I don't know. Judges seem a law to themselves. 🙄

Those whose absence the judge has questioned are all witnesses Mirror Group Newspapers could have called.

The judge will make his decision based on the evidence presented in court. As this is not a criminal trial, he will decide on the balance of probabilities. He will not use anything said out of court to guide his decision. However, he is allowed to draw negative inferences from a failure to call relevant witnesses, particularly when these witnesses have a lot to say for themselves out of court.

That Guardian article also says,

Referring to that pair [Piers Morgan and Neil Wallis] in particular, he [the Judge] said they “relatively recently had a lot to say about this matter outside of court”.

He also said questions had been raised about why “three or four associates of the Duke of Sussex” had not given evidence in the case against MGN.

Those whose absence the judge has questioned are all witnesses Mirror Group Newspapers could have called.

Oh, OK. But that's not what The Guardian reports.

He also said questions had been raised about why “three or four associates of the Duke of Sussex” had not given evidence in the case against MGN.

However, he is allowed to draw negative inferences from a failure to call relevant witnesses, particularly when these witnesses have a lot to say for themselves out of court.

How does that work, then? He monitors what everyone is saying out of court? What happens if there is a non-called witness on both sides A and B. And they both make comments. But the judge misses A's comments and so assumes he hasn't said anything. But he catches B's comments and raises an eyebrow. He'd be allowed to infer that B had something to hide by not showing up and A has innocent reasons? 🤔

The more I hear about civil cases, the more shonky they get.

And actually, I'm really quite mad about the unfairness of that.
Let's say I had a witness to something but we didn't get on. And they refused to come to court. I felt I could prove the case without them, maybe through statements the police had made a note of but obviously their testimony in court would be better but they wouldn't attend. The fact that the judge could/would take a negative inference from that is totally wrong. There's all sorts of reasons in life why people don't want to go to court and the judge shouldn't be doing down one side over that. Who knows why Harry's witnesses didn't attend. The judge should just judge on the info before him.

OMG - the more I hear of civil cases...