As Prince Harry continues his battle against the British tabloids, a former NOTW reporter helps to expose them

[queentim]

An 5 part exclusive series from Byline Investigates (some clippings from the most related and interesting parts:

"The only thing that mattered was getting the story, and the means always justified the ends. As has been well documented by now, people’s privacy was no obstacle, money was paid to public officials, thinly disguised blackmail was used at every opportunity, contracts were reneged on at the last minute, promises made and broken."

"The News of the World was as much part of popular culture as pop music, football and soap operas in the UK – and it set the story agenda.
After the paper came out on a Sunday, daily tabloids scrambled to follow-up on our stories, to hoover up any crumbs they could.

On a more sinister side, the paper had an extraordinary stranglehold over government and politics – mainly because it exercised a form of storytelling known as ‘blackmail model’ journalism.

The then New Labour administration was often very careful not to cross Murdoch’s interests, and MPs of all denominations feared speaking their mind in case their vices were spread across the pages of his papers.

If you’ve been following the long running ‘phone hacking’ cases at the High Court – including Prince Harry’s specific claim – you will note that my time there is slap bang in the middle of what’s known in legal terms as the ‘relevant period,’ which runs from 1995 to 2011.

This timespan, Prince Harry claims, was when the News of the World was most active in unlawful information gathering.
But more of that later.

As a reporter, I was under constant and extreme pressure from the newsdesk to both generate stories and stand them up.

Or, failing that, to pretty much make them up.

It was relentless and you were only as good as your last story. Bring in a splash on Sunday? Great. But what have you got on Monday?"

"In Part 2 of my series, I reveal how I worked on a dodgy front page story about Prince Harry, in a long-running and desperate attempt to link the teenage Royal to cocaine."

Confessions of a News of the World Reporter : Whistleblowing for Prince Harry

I think just like when News of the World was shut down, they're blaming one paper for something all the others are also doing and have completely got away with. By only having evidence from NOTW, they risk this being dismissed by people as being only applicable to News of the World, when in reality what they need is other journalists to come forward and stand up for truth and honesty (what happened to that anyway?) and stop going along with this sort of crap in order to stay in work, and actually listen to their consciences.

The same people just slosh around writing the same toss and jumping ship to other media outlets when the jig is up, going higher and higher as they do. When one gravy train ends, another is always departing.

And if MPs could just keep it in their fucking pants, didn't spend taxpayers' money on bollocks like two houses or hotel porn, and generally acted like decent human beings and did their jobs properly, they wouldn't be able to be blackmailed. What the tabloids do is abhorrent, but I've no sympathy for them either.

However the power these media outlets have is so absolute that Harry is on a hiding to nothing with trying to take it on. They can sway elections and referendums, or destroy a beloved celebrity in an instant. One man or even a small group just don't stand a chance, and he'll squander all his money trying to win this.

@SisterMichaelsHabit , you're right of course but I really admire him for trying!

Honestly - I really admire him for trying too.

I really think that people do not realise how much these papers set the tone of public discourse, nor how much they actually influence the entiree running of the country.

This is why I hate the pasting PH gets here - all of us gain if achieves something. I now find that I go on threads in order to defend him - would never have done that prior.

But I fear the tone is set by the very papers he is suing...

I feel the same @EnoughIsay

The propaganda is so overt now I wonder sometimes if the tabloids are trolling royalists .

And the links between Dan Whooten and Kensington palace …. Good god

Exactly, but people don't realise how many of their opinions are set or influenced by these papers. The Daily Mail online is the world's most popular English language website, and it has a daily drip feed of appallingly biased stories about the Sussexes. They even linked PH to that recent animal cruelty case because he'd once met the offender's wife years ago. And no-one seems to understand that reading poison like that will impact their opinions and, more to the point, that the Daily Mail is actively trying to influence public opinion against PH to weaken his chances of success in his various actions against those very same papers. After all, judges are people too.

@Menstrualcycledisplayteam I agree. It's very insidious.

I think what astonishes me most is that many know but don't seem to care. I mean people boldly claiming the DM as the Kingmaker should be cause for alarm.

Having PMs and MPs and Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate, etc., cowering and making deals with the tabloids should raise a riot. But zilch. It's a pathetic state of affairs

So I support Harry, Hugh Grant, Mrs. Lawrence, and others on this. At least they are trying

Yes, since Wootton has been off the air GB has taken up that front. But have you noticed that it's been astonishingly calmer and quieter on that front lately? Says it all to me

Made all the worse by the fact the Lord Rothemere owns it and is a good friend of Charles and Camilla.

That really blows my mind - how his father can stand by and back like that.

@EnoughIsay , wow, now I didn't know that. Yes, that is truly appalling.

It casts a new light on the whole sorry tale.

However the power these media outlets have is so absolute that Harry is on a hiding to nothing with trying to take it on. They can sway elections and referendums, or destroy a beloved celebrity in an instant. One man or even a small group just don't stand a chance, and he'll squander all his money trying to win this.
I agree with you
For all I think his and Meghan's conduct has been poor at times since they left the firm, I respect what he's trying to do here. I suspect he's could sink most of his money into this and have limited impact though.

I also think NOTW were probably the fall guy for a series of awful journalistic behaviour that was rife in many other tabloids and gossip publications.

Camilla's son also has a mail on Sunday column and their chief of comms is a former daily mail editor.

All of which paints a different gloss on the established narrative.

I think the King must be either quite a nasty man or so inssecure that he can sacrafice his son on the alter of faourable coverage.

Harry may well have some valid points. The press have behaved abominably and although they're not quite as bad as they used to be, the majority are not serious journalists reporting on matters of importance, but are instead gossip monger's looking to exploit anything or anyone they can for profit.

The reason why Harry gets little sympathy though is not because of what's written about him in the press, it's because of the things he has said himself on camera over the last few years. These are interviews he has had control over, no one has misrepresented him in these interviews. His whining about money, his entitlement and expectations are astounding to most people. No one owes him a living, no one owes him anything. If he wants a more private life he could achieve that easily by being less controversial. For all his complaints about the press he still hasn't figured out that he is feeding the interest in the personal aspects of his life by talking about his private relationships. Of course the press will exploit that, as wrong as it is, here we all are talking about him. It's a shame because he was once so popular, had so much good will from the public and sadly that's pretty much all gone. Bitterness isn't a good look on anyone, particularly when the story he tells changes all the time.

I started to dislike him when he betrayed his family on TV while his grandfather was dying. The accusation of racism (which he later backtracked on) didn't help either. He can't seem to understand that others have feelings too and that he has hurt his family at the worst possible times. It's all very sad.

When the people you purport to love are sick and dying you put your differences aside to support each other, you don't go telling tails to the press however valid your complaints are.

The reason why Harry gets little sympathy from me - this is what you mean here I think. Because he gets a lot of sympathy from me and a lot of people I know.

I started to dislike him when he betrayed his family on TV while his grandfather was dying. I started to dislike his family when they did nothing to help him out. The press was going hell for leather for his new wife. His dad is good friends with the owner of the Daily Mail, his dads step son works there too, an ex editor of the DM is on his dads commms team. So easy enough to have a word no?
I would find that very hard to accept from my dad if DH was in the fire line.

I did watch him on TV. I did not see "betrayal". I saw a man talking about his life, setting his record straight.

He can't seem to understand that others have feelings too - crazy statement.

and that he has hurt his family at the worst possible times. See - in my point of view his family have shown themselves to be nasty, grasping, vindictive and petty.

A massive failure for King Charles. What is the point of him? He cannot even show enough leadership to get one of his two sons back in the family fold.

Please don't tell me what I mean. He may get a lot of sympathy from some but the majority don't have any for him at all.

I agree with everything you posted @FishBowlSwimmer.

@FishBowlSwimmer, how do you know what the majority think? And, frankly (and admittedly slightly off topic), the majority voted for Brexit and Boris Johnson - doesn't always follow that the majority view is a rational or sensible one. Funny too that both of those other majority views were also "encouraged" by the tabloids we are talking about. But, yes, you're right, you're a totally free thinker who has come to your views totally on your own with no influence from the daily dripfeed of poison.

I agree with you @EnoughIsay, his family is a tabloid pandering disgrace.

And Harry certainly had the measure of Simon Case, if the latest revelations about him are anything to go by.

Personally, I take a dim view of any celeb who complains about the media while routinely using it to raise their profile/ promote their projects/ make lots of money. How many copies of Spare would Harry have sold without the media coverage? It's a transactional relationship.

Of course, victims of crime or other private individuals who have never sought press attention have every right to privacy.

Personally, I take a dim view of any celeb who complains about the media while routinely using it to raise their profile/ promote their projects/ make lots of money. How many copies of Spare would Harry have sold without the media coverage? It's a transactional relationship.
I also take a dim view of his post royal split back and forth give us privacy... Wait look at me and listen to me whine behaviour, but on the issues he's currently raising I think he has a point.

Oh see I think its absolutely fine for any individual to decide which parts of their life they keep private and which part of their life they share. Sharing your work with the world should not mean you have to also share everything else. I think it's really strange when people expect celebrities to have to give up their right to privacy. Privacy does not mean you're in hiding either, it just means you get to choose.

Yes, in an ideal world perhaps, but realistically celebrities know what the media is like. There have been scurrilous rags printing nasty gossip about high-profile people in this country since the late 1700s at least. If celebs want to use the media to make money etc they really have to accept that unwelcome scrutiny comes with the territory. Harry, for example, could have chosen a lower profile path after leaving the RF but he's actively pursued activities that depend on widespread media coverage (eg Spare, Netflix, Oprah).

On a human level, I do sympathize because it must be incredibly infuriating to see unkind or even false reporting in the media, but ignoring it, rising above it, and living by example is probably more effective in the long run.

So what if everyone knows what they're like? I don't think anyone should accept mistreatment, stalking, harassment or injustice. Again, and you seem to agree, people should be able to choose what they share with the world. You also say at the same time that you take a dim view of celebrities who complain abut media mistreatment. I am confused by your position/s. If you share photos on social media, should I be able to follow you around and take photos of you when you don't want me to?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure where the confusion lies? I mentioned celebrities who specifically use the media for PR purposes to promote themselves or to make money. I just feel it's a bit of Faustian pact, because once they've signed up for this sort of attention, it won't always be positive. This is the unpleasant price we pay for a 'free' press.

Unfortunately, the media and the way it operates isn't an unknown quality. It's a bit like going to see a boxing match and then complaining about the violence.

I mentioned celebrities who specifically use the media for PR purposes to promote themselves or to make money. I just feel it's a bit of Faustian pact, because once they've signed up for this sort of attention, it won't always be positive. This is the unpleasant price we pay for a 'free' press.

All celebrities use media to promote their work. The media don't have to report on it if they don't want to. You seemed to say that if they have media cover their work, they can't then complain if that same media harass them when they're not working. You said you take a dim view of it. I think anyone can complain about how they are treated, including by the media. I don't think the medias job is to follow people around going about their normal private life, thats not the society I want and I think it's weird to expect people to put up with stalking ,harassment and invasions of privacy. Thats not the meaning of 'free press', stalking and harassing people in private and writing stories about their private life that don't affect any of us. Imagine being a young female actress having disgusting men follow you around shouting obscenities at you. It's a disgrace.