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 do think its a shame our culture in Britain is so anti-therapy and shames people who do it or promote it.

I hope you’re not referring to me. I have a very good therapist, thank you 😂

Utter rubbish to say Harry played up to the medias perception of him. It's yet another attempt to evade taking responsibility for his actions. Reminds me of a kid saying 'the big boys made me do it'. Utterly ridiculous.

I didn't realise being a paralegal in suits qualified as being trained! Sorry couldn't resist that. I agree why isn't she with him in court. Or at least jetting in privately for support.

his logic escapes me.

is it similar to “his truth” and thus bears no relation to reality?

many people hold opinions about them because of their words and actions, their interviews and their books. And court testimonies, including one where Meghan managed to forget vital information.

nothing to do with newspaper hacking.

I don't think tis rubbish at all, its normal human behaviour and he's talking about when he was younger mostly. you can't really judge someone too harshly living a life that none of us would ever remotely experience or many would choose. a character was created oft him and people preferred he lived up tp that character, clearly because they're pretty mad when he stopped.

@Iwantcakeeveryday May I respectfully disagree with your assertion we are all brainwashed (because that's what you are saying) by the media. We are all influenced and informed by it but we have free will. We can form our own opinions. By your own argument you are admitting your views are dictated by your reading material? Yes/no?

Unless it's a case of we are all controlled, with a few free thinkers like yourself able to discern reality?

many people hold opinions about them because of their words and actions, their interviews and their books. many people say they do and probably think tis just about that but nobody lives in a tiny bubble of one unaffected by anything else and the media is a powerful tool that absolutely affects our perceptions of events, and of people. its more likely peoples views and opinions are affected by both how media portray him as well as his behaviour, along with other biases and preconceptions thatvare inevitable.

Chelsy isn’t a claimant (though she could make an identical claim to Harry that information about her was obtained by unlawful means), isn’t appearing as a witness, ended a relationship because she didn’t like the media attention, has largely stayed out of the spotlight, hasn’t supported it publicly, and isn’t the person Harry claimed he was doing all this for… so all the facts considered, I don’t think it’s realistic to believe she’s endorsing this, just based on what we know.

Of course we can come to conclusions ('judge') about his behaviour and statements. It's not his younger behaviour we're discussing, it is his attitude as a 40 (?) year old taking no responsibility for his past actions and decisions.

Oh and purely the fact she was at his wedding… I mean quite a lot has happened since then! It doesn’t mean an endorsement of all his future actions. He’s fallen out with loads of people who were at his wedding. William was his best man!

Yep.

I think you should more carefully read my words, no assertion we are 'all brainwashed'. we are all affected and manipulated and sadly too many are brainwashed by what they read. My views are of course impacted too, I am aware of the power of media so I am careful what I expose myself to for that reason and mindful of the importance of engaging critical thinking and sometimes checking multiple sources. Not everyone is like that, many are thankfully though.

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.

The media influencing people is a different point and I agree with you. Of course if you loved (eg) Prince Harry or Meghan and then you read a lot of negative press, it is perfectly possible your view would change due to media influence.

That's not what we were discussing though. We were discussing whether in principle what goes into a newspaper is editor/media driven agenda or not.

In other words, does (to take an example) negative press about Meghan or Prince Harry arise because "the media" (or a particular paper or editor or group of journalists) sit down and decide 'we hate Harry' or 'we aren't liking Meghan this week' lets write lots of negative things'.

Or does it arise because a lot of the readership have negative views and don't want to read wall-to-wall paeans and applause about them - that this would be a turn off to the readership so the criticisms reflect general public thinking of the readership.

I am saying that a lot of people believe (not talking about Harry particularly here but more widely) that newspapers operate in the former way and this is an urban myth. The reality is that mostly (I accept there are some exceptions as I have said) news agendas for particular papers (as they appear) arise because it is driven by what they think their readers already think or want to hear.

and that much of it is based on the beliefs, politics and agendas of their owners.

Again a different point. It is broadly true that someone right wing is unlikely to own a left wing newspaper. I also agree that an editor will typically want to avoid antagonising or upsetting their ultimate boss/owner. But these are more broad brush than actual day-to-day agenda setting issues.

Besides, most newspapers are corporations who have duties to their share holders and generally operate at arms length from the editor.

This is because freedom of expression is regarded as an important part of the business.

More practically, post- Leveson (because of the potential for criminal charges) owners are generally advised to have a completely hands-off approach to editorship. To be fair I think this was mostly done anyway. If there is a risk that criminal activity was endemic in a paper you owned and you are seen to be interferring in the paper content, then you are at risk.

I am very much enjoying your posts WigsNCrowns

I

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

yes I thought that. I mean, he then invites people to say but you must have taken the drugs in the first instance hence they reported on it. So then how does that argument work, that he only took them because they expected him to - the articles werent completely made up - they were based on his actual actions. Which took place before the articles were published.

SORRY! WigsNGOWNS!I was just about to correct what I typed when I inadvertently sent it. Mainly due to having 7 stones of lap dog coming for a cuddle.

Apologies. Still doesn’t change the sentiment though!

Also when he blames the article for making him think he may get expelled for his drug taking. Urm maybe it’s his own actions that were responsible for putting him in that position. Rather than someone outing it. Mind boggling lack of awareness

He doesn't take any responsibility for his behaviour at all...and yes, out in California there will be lots of expensive therapists who will happily take his money for years and years. At the moment he doesn't come across as someone who wants to come to terms with the past, and move forward but rather someone who wants others to 'pay' in some way for his past hurt feelings and sense of injustice. So he's punishing his family, and attacking the press. The tabloids (both here and in the US) are awful, but these legal cases aren't going to do him any good either. Exhausting, emotional, and negative.

Wigs n crowns ! I now imagine a drag Queen with some dreadful dental work! But, yes, they’re posts are very illuminating

The thing is, if someone thinks that Harry is quite justified, nasty old press etc etc, then they must extend the same courtesy to public figures they don’t care for - so no footage of Matt Hancock snogging (bluerrgh!) or Prince Andrew fraternising with Jeffrey Epstein.

Adding to others’ voices that Harry is quite potty thinking he can muzzle social media, and have a - as mentioned here - Old Hollywood very managed style of celebrity - - oh, wait a minute, wasn’t that what Buckingham Palace organised for him….

their posts

holding the press to account for their role in his life and their illegality does not mean he doesn't take responsibility for his behaviour.

I think being part of the media, working in newspapers, makes you less likely to have an impartial view of this tbh so I think I'll agree to disagree and ignore the patronising comments about how I would have no idea because you assume I have never worked in media.

LadyMuckingabout

great points - and how come they don’t also get enraged about Charles and tampon gate? Which was def illegal unethical hacking and an abuse of power

and so horrible exposing a private conversation like that

Funnily enough the double standard principle seems to apply to quite a few areas 😂

if Charles was able to take them to court for that disgusting invasion of his privacy I would applaud and support him, too long ago so he cannot but despite intensely disliking him I would support it 100% .