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

Amen @mixedrecycling !

Some things you just have to rise above and ignore, mixed. It happens on both sides but people,soon stop when the,rest don't rise to the bait.
Anyway, I think we're all saying the same thing really. We all, across the spectrum of opinions, want to enjoy being on the boards. I love the company of you both. x

Hear hear!

I am following both threads, and think they both have separate value.

And it's nice to follow two separate modes of discussion without the sniping, so I hope this thread remains on track.

They both have a different vibe, don't they @thecatsthecats ? Which is surprising when they're about the same thing. I think it's nice for there to be comfortable places for everyone, no matter their view, to post.

Yy the Fourth Estate has a very important function to fulfil and there are always wealthy corporations and politicians (and to a lesser degree, celebs) who would love to be able to silence any investigative journalism or negative media. The current case proves there is a working system of recourse. Plus there are defamation laws. There are intrusion and harassment laws. There is IPSO, Ofcom, ASA.
It's not an ideal situation by any means and it could be improved but wealthy people/companies/politicians pushing to stifle the media isn't, overall, in the interests of democracy, transparency or the general public.

Agreed

😂😂😂 You're incorrigible, mixed.

This is a very important element.

They do stifle already - with the use of super injunctions, expensive PR teams that drive narrative, or indeed, if they own a paper, with the direction of coverage.

Not so much your average person/family caught up in terrible circumstances.

wealthy people/companies/politicians pushing to stifle the media isn't, overall, in the interests of democracy, transparency or the general public.

such an excellent valid point! And this is why I have my reservations about an Uber wealthy elite, with his own axe to grind and agenda, and his ‘noble’ mission to muzzle the press. Alarm bells ringing. Whilst there shoudl be oversight, and maybe some new reform is needed, but Harry isn’t the one to do it.

wealthy people/companies/politicians pushing to stifle the media isn't, overall, in the interests of democracy, transparency or the general public.

Absolutely agree with this.

But not this -

The current case proves there is a working system of recourse. Plus there are defamation laws. There are intrusion and harassment laws. There is IPSO, Ofcom, ASA.

This shows very clearly that without money - you have ZERO chance of recourse.

Every page of the Wilsons, or Dame Laurence or any of the other mere mortals show clearly that they have no value at all. And yet, by doding what they do - tabloid media especially will have made a lot of money out opf rpecisely those people.

This is what I mean about the reporting - they are swining it to be about wealth and privillage.

It is not.

Yy the Fourth Estate has a very important function to fulfil and there are always wealthy corporations and politicians (and to a lesser degree, celebs) who would love to be able to silence any investigative journalism or negative media

That is a bygone era.

The Fourth Estate is mainly OWNED by corporations and wealthy individuals. .

The whole area of ownership and consolidation needs to be revisited.

It would not be the first time in history that has happened.

The probelm is that you need to be Uber wealthy elite, with his own axe to grind and agenda to get this to court in the first place.

Dame Lawerence - she has an axe to grind. Most would agree that it is a valid axe - not that much traction without being elite with money

The Wilsons - they have an axe to grind. Most would agree that it is a valid axe - not that much traction without being elite with money

Every one of this hundred will have a devastating story to tell of being abused by a national newspaper and having no recourse what so ever.

There are thousands more.

Mrs Wilson, grieving TWO of her children, had to stand outside the newspapers office with a fucking home made poster and they still ignored her.

Can you imagine her pain?

This is the moral and ethical heart of this case.

PH does not matter. His profile, wealth and willingness for a fight do. Put any rich and famous name in there but you NEED them in order to get change in this sector for the good of the rest of us.

Actually the media, in the timescale since the phone hacking happened, have helped to break and/or publicise numerous important stories eg the Jimmy Saville story; the Magdalen laundries; the Covid/Conservative parties scandals; the Covid/Conservatives/PPE scandals; the Panama Papers; Cambridge Analytica; Corruption in Russia; MPs' expenses scandals, etc. It suits certain sectors to pretend that journalists don't break or publicise stories because it means the public will be keener to have them muzzled.

The current system isn't perfect. That was my point.

I've been on both sides of this. I've worked in the media. And my family have been door-stopped/harassed by the media. I would start by breaking up the large media conglomerates. Increase regulation of social media so sites are treated like publishers. Extend ASA guidelines to paid social media posters (regardless if there is no link to a product and they're only 'selling an idea'). And use the current laws to police the illegal and dangerous behaviour - intrusion, harassment, stalking - that has been allowed to slide under some kind of media privilege.

@AlexandriasWindmill ‘Actually the media, in the timescale since the phone hacking happened, have helped to break and/or publicise numerous important stories eg the Jimmy Saville story; the Magdalen laundries; the Covid/Conservative parties scandals; the Covid/Conservatives/PPE scandals; the Panama Papers; Cambridge Analytica; Corruption in Russia; MPs' expenses scandals, etc. It suits certain sectors to pretend that journalists don't break or publicise stories because it means the public will be keener to have them muzzled.’

Your posts are consistently pertinent, insightful and balanced. And totally agree, the media is multi faceted. Its impact is complex and nuanced. Harry’s characterisations depend on whether he’s demonising or using it to profiteer from. His all or nothing, black and white type thinking isn’t helpful. He’s blinkered because he has an axe to grind and his own agenda. Instrument of truth and justice, he is not.

Good point. Harry uses the media when it suits him, and complains when it doesn't.

Mrs Wilson, grieving TWO of her children, had to stand outside the newspapers office with a fucking home made poster and they stillignored her.

Do you mean the Watson family? It's tragic having one child murdered and the other commit suicide. I can only imagine the pain.

But, actually, I find their case interesting and an illustration of why it's so difficult to come up with adequate laws that are appropriate fir all occasions

In a nutshell, 16yo Diane Watson was murdered at school. The perpetrator, another schoolgirl was given a indefinite sentence. A journalist wrote an article about the story and we assume Diane's brother killed himself over that article. Absolutely awful and tragic.

The journalist did change the names but I guess in a country as small as Scotland it was easy to identify who he was writing about. His article was about children being put away for a time without limit and it gave reasons, explanations, excuses, whatever you call it for why the perpetrator did what she did.

Diane's mother, Margaret, didn't agree with what was written and said it blackened her daughters name and it drove her already depressed son to suicide and things like that should be taken into consideration before journalists publish.

I don't think anyone could feel anything other than sympathy for the Watsons and their tragedy. But where does the line get drawn between what journalists can and cannot campaign for justice over for people, either wrongly imprisoned or with overlong sentences, etc? If we think of women who have murdered abusive partners and sentenced to life, would they have been subsequently freed if those fighting for them had to get permission from the murdered mans family before writing?

I'm not saying in the Watson case that the journalist handled it correctly or not, indeed he seems to have told several lies when his article was investigated, but putting restrictions on what journalists can write, could easily turn into a back door to censorship. Every law that's made runs the risk of being twisted to be abused, and I'd think this would be no different.

I would start by breaking up the large media conglomerates

This^

Increase regulation of social media so sites are treated like publishers.
And this^

Extend ASA guidelines to paid social media posters (regardless if there is no link to a product and they're only 'selling an idea').
And this^

And use the current laws to police the illegal and dangerous behaviour - intrusion, harassment, stalking - that has been allowed to slide under some kind of media privilege.

And this^

I nominate @AlexandriasWindmill to start up Levison mark 2 !

But the journalist lied. Relied on defence evidence even though it wasn't accepted by the court. There's no justification for just lying because it suits your narrative.

So sorry - yes the Watson family.

putting restrictions on what journalists can write, could easily turn into a back door to censorship. Every law that's made runs the risk of being twisted to be abused, and I'd think this would be no different.

I think that we should and can seperate broadsheats from tabloid.

I agree that restrictions can easily turn into back door censorship. But - tht should not stop us for trying.

In the Watson case he not only told several lies in his story he also used their status in the social heirarchy against them. Let's face it - he sneered.

I am all for freedom of the press. But the kind of "news gathering" that this case is focused on is not that.

*In the Watson case he not only told several lies in his story he also used their status in the social heirarchy against them. Let's face it - he sneered.

I amall for freedom of the press. But the kind of "news gathering" that this case is focused on is not that.*

Yes. Lying is not "freedom of the press". Stopping lies is not "censorship".

@4plusthehound
I agree that restrictions can easily turn into back door censorship. But - tht should not stop us for trying.

I agree. I was just saying that the complexity in achieving that is so difficult. Because you can't both protect everyone whilst at the,same time challenging or investigating a variety of situations. And so politicians err on the side of people getting hurt to minimise the chance of cover ups or errors going unexposed.

In the Watson case he not only told several lies in his story he also used their status in the social heirarchy against them. Let's face it - he sneered.

I know the strange class language he used was offensive to Mrs Watson but in all fairness her alleging that her daughter would not behave in a certain manner because her husband had been unemployed is also not conclusive. Having said that, because these are real people and not a hypothetical, I want to be clear that there's no reason to think that Diana Watson did anything wrong or unkind at all. What happened to her was a callous and needles murder. It's just that sneering and language that is distasteful to the victim's family is no reason to ban an article. It may be unkind but it shouldn't be made illegal.

I'm not sure exactly what lie you're referring to? Glover wetting herself in the dock?