Social media leaking news of POW hysterectomy

[CupOfCoffeeandaPineappleChunk]

It goes without saying its only her business, however I found it odd that whilst 'doomscrolling' from sleeplessness I came across a couple of posts from US news sites claiming they had news obtained from 'Palace sources' posted onto SM.

We all know that KP is somewhat leaky but over something like this? (I suppose Maybe if the price was right?)
Or is it just speculation passed off as the truth?
Or, are US news sources avowed to publish info that uk ones aren't?

I'm not particularly interested in what she's had done, surgery is unpleasant, full stop, But I'm just wondering if there's a reason the story is in US but not uk news-if it even real ( which seems slightly unlikely I would think, but then you never know about anyone personal life).
Just found out odd and curious as to the whys

Absolutely! It’s insane how much we judge other women’s bodies and speculate on them. It’s hideous.

The number of sheep that give a shit about this family astounds me.

It's a bit like all those posts saying that William's alleged affair is 'all over the foreign press'. When pushed, the most these people can come up with is some gossip magazines recycling the same unsubstantiated rumours that are freely discussed here, including on this very forum. The 'foreign press' has no information not available to British readers. And in an Internet age when just about any source in any country is available at a click, stories can't be hidden quite so easily.

Oh don’t be ridiculous - your colleague is not a world famous person. Like comparing apples and birds.

It also seems to be accepted that EVERYONE gets fatter as they age. Lots of women get slimmer and their faces angle out. They lose the chubby cheeks they had in their early 20s.

Lots of women lose weight after university/their early 20s as well because they adopt healthier life styles (and drink less).

Kate has an athletic figure with very well toned muscles. You simply cannot build and maintain toned muscles without eating plenty of calories. (Plenty of current athletes also mention how much body-shaming they get for being thin, even when they are national record holders/European champions - Eilish McColgan has spoken about this).

@Serenster it is possible to have well defined muscles & be in grip of an ED.

The vast majority of women/men gain some weight in middle age. 18-20 inch waists for teen girls not uncommon.

I agree with this post. I can think of so many examples personally.

First, the speculation about KM is gross and should stop.

However, yes, the US press has enormous freedom, particularly compared to the UK press. This is largely a good thing, though it sometimes results in trash; you can't have a perfect situation, so I tend to err on the side of freedoms-that-allow-trash rather than restrictions-that-prevent-important-truth.

Some key points:

• The government can't prevent something from being printed. They can sue or prosecute after printing, but they can't do it beforehand (more or less).

• There are even remarkable latitudes in cases of national security issues: significantly more than in the UK (NYTimes v United States)

• In many cases, you can't be sued for a mistake unless it's clear that actual malice was involved. So, if you know it's false and you print it recklessly, you can be sued. But a press outlet can't be sued merely because it's said or printed something false.

• This is true both for public officials (the original Supreme Court case) and for "public figures." The original lawsuit that defined this was about an American football coach. It was decided that for cases involving public figures, you also had to prove actual malice (i.e. that you couldn't be sued for getting it wrong, but only for printing something that you know is false). This is not true for most private individuals.

• If it's parody or satire, you can generally say it, even if it's demonstrably false (there are of course limits to this, but it's pretty broadly applied!). John Oliver did a great, very vulgar, musical skit about this when he won a lawsuit against a coal baron who sued him for slander: s (I cut it to the song, but you can watch the whole thing if you're interested.)

• Libel laws are really different here. It's not nearly this simple, and don't rely on this!, but basically the burden of proof is the inverse of the UK. In the UK, the burden of proof is on the defendant (to prove that you didn't defame); in the US, the burden of proof is usually on the plaintiff (to prove that they were defamed), and in many cases, you have to show actual damages. Rich people can crush poorer people in this (see the SLAPP suit clip above), but if you have resources, or if the other side doesn't, it's much much harder to prove.

Responsible newspapers, like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, LA Times, or really almost any proper print paper will be responsible. They're some of the best news outlets in the world, partly because of this free press. But, sure, some American gossip rags are shitty.

She is much thinner than she was. Suggesting it isn't genes.
A poster who had an eating disorder said when she was a similar size she was only eating 800 calories and exercising three times a day.

Anyone else only open the thread because you though POW stood for prisoners of war?

Maybe they aren't telling the public what is really wrong because it's none of our business, why give in to nosiness.

StaunchMomma

Anyone else only open the thread because you though POW stood for prisoners of war?

No. I just caught sight of "POW" and thought it was about the early series of Batman - I was expecting to a few "ZAP"s and "KERBLAM"s for good measure.
Quite disappointed.

She's probably home by now, feet up and waiting for The Masked Singer to come on

Exactly!

Some things are private - leave them private.

@Nancydrawn thank you. That is a really helpful explanation. This is interesting nformation I didn't know, I'm sure some others didn't either.

I was referring to news broadcast clips from TV news shows not printed press. ( I suppose once one has aspirated via the algorithm several do). I honestly have no idea what the news programs are

Aha. In terms of news, there are sort of four main categories:

• National news broadcasts (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS). These are nightly news shows akin to BBC, ITV, Channel 4, etc. Mainstream outlets, generally news focused specifically, usually on for 30-60 minutes a night max. They also have Sunday morning shows like Meet the Press which are all-politics and use to attract even more attention than they do now.

• National cable news (CNN, MSNBC, Fox). These are 24-hour news channels. They tend to have a news wing and an editorial wing. The news wing tends to air during the day; the editorial wing at night. CNN is centrist, leaning left but not very far; MSNBC is leftish; Fox is right-wing. Typically, CNN had less editorial news than the other two, though that changed under Trump. Fox is by far the most like an arm of a political machine, though certainly pre-Trump it had people known for harder news (many of whom left). MSNBC, of course, has a strong political-editorial bias, but the president isn't calling up their most popular anchor every night (as Trump did with Sean Hannity).

• Local news. This depends on media market. They're often affiliates of the national news stations, but they have a lot of independence. States will have multiple affiliated stations: for instance, Illinois has 6 local ABC affiliates; California has 10; etc. These tend to focus on local news, but they might broadcast some national news too. Very useful for things like local weather and traffic. Some of these stations are owned by conglomerates who run lots and lots of these affiliates. For instance, Sinclair Media, a right-wing media empire, owns nearly 300, and for a brief while tried to insist that all the local stations play their right-wing editorials. It was a bit of a scandal! Not illegal, but people tend to think of these stations as the least political of all, and it was surprising.

• Fringe TV outlets. These have proliferated over the past decade--things like OANN (One America News Network) and Newsmax. Almost all very right wing, relatively small but very passionate base. OANN got kind of wiped out over some controversies to do election denial lawsuits, but Newsmax is going apace.

This isn't to count, for instance, online news outlets, like people's shows on YouTube or various websites creating their own videos.

Freedom of the press generally extends equally to print and broadcast, so everything I said above still stands.

--Your friendly neighourhood expat now living in a US media landscape.

I don't know why it's double-spacing my bullet points: apologies!

@Nancydrawn thanks so much for the info. It answers the question I was actually asking. 😊
I don't even have a tv so the idea of all those news shows alone is mind boggling!

she is slimmer? So what. She looks like a healthy weight.

This isn't to count, for instance, online news outlets, like people's shows on YouTube or various websites creating their own videos.

I think the source of some of the more outlandish "news" items in the US is made up of these DIY channels. And the captions for the thumbnails are often very misleading as to the actual content. So, for example, one that shows a picture of the Princess of Wales with the caption "Kate Pregnant" might have very benign content about her past pregnancies or speculation about whether she wants another child.

Well I hope whatever it is she is fine in the end for her children.

I think that's Christian Jones was spotted in the convoy behind Wills car. Why?? That's so odd

Also with paps camped outside why no pictures of her family visiting (parents, siblings)?

I'm going to agree with other speculation that it's something tightly controlled with little acxessto visitation (really bad), or she's not even there anymore and is at home with her children

What's the Christian Jones thing?

Also with paps camped outside why no pictures of her family visiting (parents, siblings)?

Perhaps there's a side door where they could enter unobserved? Maybe William was more conspicuous because of his security convoy?

I think the British media have agreed not to say anything meantime .

I became thinner than I was. I had no eating disorder, no medical issues, nothing. It was genetics, I have a thin family. Even my dad was body shamed at one point (and we all have different appetites too, before anyone attempts to pick this apart.)

Stop speculating. It’s not okay. Imagine someone was discussing your body in such a way. It’s not okay, it causes mental damage. It caused me damage when I had no control over my body, it just was, yet people thought it was acceptable to say I had an ED and comment on my size, sometimes with disgust. Peoples bodies differ, how they react to life differs. One person can eat x amount and gain weight, another can eat the same amount and gain nothing.

Eating disorder speculation is never acceptable. Judging someone’s body is never acceptable. Do better.