The trials and tribulations of Harry - thread 2

[TrashyPanda]

Continuation of

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4812092-ph-lost-bid-to-challenge-for-right-to-pay-home-office-for-his-security?page=10&reply=126688485

I believe he is also claiming against one of them for illegal information gathering against Megan too though? honestly the comment about his mum is a little mean. I am sure some of this is for her, and so? I do not blame him for being angry at them at all and I absolutely applaud him for trying to get the bastards that made his mother so miserable, one of the editors said the other day he used to 'chase her around the world', yeah I would go after people that did that to my dead mum too. apparently its all ok because Charles withstood worse so they should all put up with it ( according to the same former NOTW ediotor) ! I think that makes Charles look terrible tbh, why would any person put up with it knowing your kids were still to come? he's such a bad father that man. never liked him.

Harry says he took the case against Mirror Group Newspapers to stop "hate" towards his wife Meghan

Yes because a well known way to resolve a conflict is by publicly slagging off the person you are in a dispute with. It's utter madness. He is so delusional it is painful.

I think a big problem is that people who don't and have never worked at or for a newspaper just don't understand how they work. Most of the time, newspapers are writing for their respective audience so write what that audience wants to hear. It's not the other way round where the paper drivers the agenda. I know that does happen sometimes but it isn't common.

To give a simplistic example, the Guardian isn't going to write lots of positive pieces pro-Boris Johnson/the Conservative party because that is not what it's readership wants to hear.

I think Harry needs to realise that - despite his blinkered belief that his wife is a perfect goddess - that a lot of people just don't like her not for racist reasons but because there is a perception that he went from being a fairly happy chap who got on well with his brother and his sister-in-law who had a lot of positive things going on in his life (Invictus, prior army service,,etc) to being sulky, depressed, estranged from his brother, moving country, slagging off his own family, revealing private things about them to make money - and that all of this was provoked by Meghan who appears to have a way of pushing his buttons to aggravate his insecurities and paranoia - particularly around the death of his mother. The way she was immitating Diana's dress and the '2 hour car chase' that wasn't - examples on point. Don't forget prior to all this Harry had very high popularity ratings.

There is therefore (Rightly or wrongly) a view that Meghan has either directly caused or lit a fire that started a rift between two brothers who otherwise seemed close that people who hold that view really don't like. Newspapers (again rightly or wrongly) will inevitably write stuff that panders to that group of readers because it is what some people think.

He just doesn't seem to live in the real world - that evidence about playing up to the media's image of him - ie. because I was written about as a party prince, I will take drugs and more of them - is ridiculous & embarrassing. It reminds me of being at school & the teachers saying 'well would you jump out of the window because Jane told you to?'.

You can't stop people who don't like you criticising you. You can't stop the media writing critical opinion (as opposed to defamatory allegations of fact that are false). You just can't. Even if you wanted as a PR exercise to limit it, the best way to go about that is not to sue and then file a witness statement attacking every aspect of the media.

Harry has two other lawsuits against British tabloids related to illicit information-gathering: One is against the publisher of The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and involves other plaintiffs, including the singer Elton John and the actresses Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley. The other lawsuit is against the publisher of The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Both publishers deny the allegations and have asked to have the cases dismissed. A judgment is expected in the coming months.

^www.nytimes.com/article/prince-harry-uk-privacy-lawsuits.html#:~:text=Harry%2C%20the%20Duke%20of%20Sussex,three%20ongoing%20lawsuits%20against%20newspapers.^

Then there one against home office around security arrangements.

He also has at least one libel claim going

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harrys-libel-case-back-in-court-as-mail-on-sundays-publisher-to-set-out-defence-12835840

I think a big problem is that people who don't and have never worked at or for a newspaper just don't understand how they work. Most of the time, newspapers are writing for their respective audience so write what that audience wants to hear. It's not the other way round where the paper drivers the agenda. I know that does happen sometimes but it isn't common.

do you actually believe this? I really, really do not agree whatsoever and struggle to understand how anyone can think this about today's media- the majority of the country do not trust them because they are agenda driven

He just doesn't seem to live in the real world - that evidence about playing up to the media's image of him - ie. because I was written about as a party prince, I will take drugs and more of them - is ridiculous & embarrassing. It reminds me of being at school & the teachers saying 'well would you jump out of the window because Jane told you to?'.

Oh I disagree here too.... it happens in every family actually, its common, but this is amplified because of who they are and the fact everyone talks about them. People lean into the roles that have been set out for them because it is easier to be who people expect you to be.

WigsNGowns -thanks* wow -* I'd missed the libel one entirely.

The financial costs and the mental pressure must be huge.

And that agenda is selling papers and getting online clicks, so they produce what their demographic wants to read in the form that demographic wants to read it. Compare and contrast an article on the same subject in the Mail and the Guardian and see how differently its written.

Definitely. In his mind Meghan is his lost mum and he's trying to save her. It's massively sad and he needs real psychotherapy not the gobbledygook we saw on the pay per view crap. Unfortunately California is rife with psychobabble peddlers happy to let him continue with his drug usage. So he won't get help anytime soon.

I believe this.
As a journalist I think that you agree to write in the style of the newspaper. The style of the newspaper is dictated by the readership and possibly shareholders. I bet most journalists would write articles in the opposite point of view if the price was right.
Print media circulation is crashing fast and they want what readership they have to remain loyal so they push the agenda that their readership likes imo. It's easier than ever to work out what interests readers thanks to clicks and comment sections.

I really, really do not agree whatsoever and struggle to understand how anyone can think this about today's media- the majority of the country do not trust them because they are agenda driven

The agenda panders to the readership. Like I said, not 100% of the time, but mostly.

This is exactly what I mean - it is a common belief but it is simply incorrect. If you've never worked for a newspaper or been present when a paper is being put together - from a morning news conference to the night editorship - you have zero idea of what goes into a newspaper and how it gets there. There just isn't a little cabal of people sitting round setting a hostile agenda.

Stop and think about it for a second. The editor wants to keep their job. They keep their job by creating a paper that sells. What sells? Not random private agenda stuff they come up with but What The Demographic Readership OF THAT PAPER WANT TO READ.

I agree that sometimes it does happen -for example when a paper takes up a campaign like Sarah's Law - but mostly not in the way Harry believes. It just isn't the case a conspiracy group will decide 'this week we hate [Meghan] so let's write bad things about her'.

The style of the newspaper is dictated by the readership and possibly shareholders

Possibly shareholders????? hmmm

That evidence about playing up to the media's image of him - ie. because I was written about as a party prince, I will take drugs and more of them - is ridiculous & embarrassing

Somehow I'd missed that detail - how very infantile, but perhaps predictable coming from someone for whom everything is always deemed to be everyone else's fault

I respectfully completely and utterly disagree. But maybe I am naive about just how horrible people in my country are? if people really want so much misogynistic shit about royal women in their paper that's depressing

Print media circulation is crashing fast and they want what readership they have to remain loyal so they push the agenda that their readership likes imo. It's easier than ever to work out what interests readers thanks to clicks and comment sections.

@WheelsUp exactly!

‘Unfortunately California is rife with psychobabble peddlers happy to let him continue with his drug usage’

yup very sad - and shocking that so many people around him aren’t concerned about the impact. These substances are illegal for a reason.

And yes I thought everyone knew media outlets mostly try to capture and retain their readerships attention by mostly focusing on content that resonates.

@Iwantcakeeveryday. If Harry thinks a crusade against the tabloids will change the past or bring his mum back he clearly is delusional. This is damaging his mental health and changes nothing

@WigsNGowns is correct. If the readership didn't want this reporting it would change. I don't read newspapers.

California is rife with psychobabble peddlers ...

Tell me about it

Best just hope he's accessing support from someone reputable rather than the flakes

@Puzzledandpissedoff

The stuff about him playing up to the image of him - which is obvious embarrassing nonsense and a lack of self-responsiblity is in his witness statement. Summary here:

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-witness-statement-duke-blames-tabloids-for-inciting-hatred-and-casting-him-as-a-thicko-and-a-playboy-12897312

Members of the Royal Family get "cast into a specific role by the tabloid press", he said. As "spare" to the "heir" - Prince William - "you're then either the 'playboy prince', the 'failure', the 'drop out' or, in my case, the 'thicko', the 'cheat', the 'underage drinker', 'irresponsible drug taker', the list goes on.
"As a teenager and in my early twenties, I ended up feeling as though I was playing up to a lot of the headlines and stereotypes that they wanted to pin on me mainly because I thought that, if they are printing this rubbish about me and people were believing it, I may as well 'do the crime', so to speak.

That's quite an excuse for his drinking and drug taking 😮

Thanks once again for the link, @WigsNGowns - absolutely pitiful

It's actually stupid of me to have missed it, especially as I thought I'd read the original witness statement in full, but I guess that's what you get for trying to do something else at the same time

Kind of seems like something a sketchy therapist might have told him to be honest… just a total lack of accountability. It’s not a good sign if he can’t even admit he made a mistake 20 years ago.

@Iwantcakeeveryday I
I respectfully completely and utterly disagree. But maybe I am naive about just how horrible people in my country are?

Thank you for your polite disagreement (I really love the way this thread is unfolding and so in the spirit of debate!)

I think your naivety isn't about people but it's a lack of knowledge about what actually happens day to day in a newspaper. Like I said, most people think what you think (that newspapers are full of hostile agenda they create and run versus writing what their readers want to hear) because why would you know? It's only seeing the way newspapers work that gives you this insight really.

If you want to consider this further from an intellectual point of view - pick a story with an angle you disagree on on a news media website that has comments - and read the readers comments.

Then read the same topic on a different paper and compare the way it is written with the reader comments.

The Mail Online v The Times (although that' £paywall) is a good reader comment comparison. For article content you could compare any of the tabloids with Telegraph/Times/Independent/Guardian.

A simple example I can think of is that any person who is photographed all the time will have unflattering pictures taken - it's just the law of averages. How often have you ever seen unflattering photographs published of the Queen, Prince William, even Meghan? They just aren't really because people don't want to see that for their "celebs". Conversely, it's frequently done for politicians.

You assume I have no knowledge of how a newspaper works. If you do then I think its possibly your bias showing through. I am absolutely certain that media has a powerful influence on the way people think and that much of it is based on the beliefs, politics and agendas of their owners. I think Malcom X said it best: "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent.”
I do not believe that is driven by the general public or readership. But I don't think many of us would want to admit to being brainwashed by media, even if we are

Surely, surely the best revenge is living well? Where is Meghan, poss helping on sidelines, she’s trained for this. I really hope he’s not being hung out to dry?