Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family
Thread gallery
43
moonfacer · 13/03/2024 11:52

EasternStandard · 13/03/2024 11:45

No but the point was the term spin and ‘spin doctor’ became more publicly known and discussed during Blair

Yes propaganda or influence is not new but as a concept people were more aware

And I think they used it particularly well which is a factor. They were successful at it

Since then we’ve seen other influential ways to do it

Another comms person who has become the news Dominic Cummings - someone who can help win campaigns with a successful method but became known to the public

Edited

You said spin became popular under Labour.

The term spin doctor has been around since the 1950s, and all political parties use it.

Quizine · 13/03/2024 11:52

I am beginning to think that they hold us all in contempt and really believe that we are lesser mortals.

Janiie · 13/03/2024 11:53

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 11:47

Nope, I have no idea what's happening with Kate and I have no theories.

But people don't make such photo shopping amends to an image unless they're making significant changes to the image, which begs the question what are they trying to hide and why are they manipulating the public. Are you of the head buried in the sand variety?

If Harry done done this you would be singing a very different tune.

Edited

If folk had hysterically gone on at length about Harold's photoshops (he looks much thicker of hair in some private pics) I would say the same. So. What.

Informal family photos are just that, informal. They should not come under this crazed scrutiny about cardigans and fingers. Some people really need to get some perspective and get a grip fast.

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 11:53

Serenster · 13/03/2024 11:50

If Harry done done this you would be singing a very different tune.

Harry and Meghan do do this a lot, including in official images released to the press. It hasn’t created even a tiny fraction of the current noise surrounding Kate, though. So for once “just imagine it was Harry!” counterfactual is probably false.

Can you give some examples of images rejected by the media agencies as being fake?

ColleenDonaghy · 13/03/2024 11:53

Janiie · 13/03/2024 11:43

Again. So what.

A misaligned jumper I mean honestly wtf has happened to people to even say these things.

Are you of the 'she's in a coma with a moon face and a colostomy signing divorce papers as we speak' variety?

Hey, I will indeed shoe horn poor me Harry in as it as perfect example of how they are all in the same boat mad theories wise, he's been dining out on stories it's only poor him for years.

So what:

The image was edited around the points where her hands were around the children's waists and where her head was on top of her body.

It was edited to such an extent that the agencies don't feel they can say with certainty that that group of people sat together in that spot, in that pose.

Added to her being out of sight for so long (rightfully given she's ill), they can't host a picture purporting to show the future queen looking happy and well if they have zero evidence that's the case.

It was probably done for reasons of vanity and insecurity (and again, understandable) but the photo is edited to the extent that they can't be certain about that and they're not going to put their own reputations on the line.

I think it's news that the big agencies are taking a stance like that when we're talking about the future king and queen.

EasternStandard · 13/03/2024 11:54

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 11:52

You said spin became popular under Labour.

The term spin doctor has been around since the 1950s, and all political parties use it.

Edited

I put the term in quote marks because I meant the concept became more wildly known to the public, which is the case

And yes I do think they were particularly good at it, as Cummings is at campaigns

Mirabai · 13/03/2024 11:55

Janiie · 13/03/2024 11:53

If folk had hysterically gone on at length about Harold's photoshops (he looks much thicker of hair in some private pics) I would say the same. So. What.

Informal family photos are just that, informal. They should not come under this crazed scrutiny about cardigans and fingers. Some people really need to get some perspective and get a grip fast.

It doesn’t sound like you really get the issues at all. Or perhaps it’s intentional denial.

Franker · 13/03/2024 11:58

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 11:53

Can you give some examples of images rejected by the media agencies as being fake?

Quite. There was a obviously good reason to pull this one.

The press agencies did it. They weren't baiting Kate and William. They were doing their job.

BemusedAmerican · 13/03/2024 12:00

Trump looked much better in photos when he was president. He looks really bad now. If he gets reelected I suspect he will improve. W & K are deliberately being cut down to generate a reaction. However it's starting to backfire on the media because it is showing as bullying.

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 12:00

Janiie · 13/03/2024 11:53

If folk had hysterically gone on at length about Harold's photoshops (he looks much thicker of hair in some private pics) I would say the same. So. What.

Informal family photos are just that, informal. They should not come under this crazed scrutiny about cardigans and fingers. Some people really need to get some perspective and get a grip fast.

It's not an informal family shot.

It was the first image released by Kensington Palace since Kate's recovery and marking Mother's Day.

Kensington Palace knew full well the image would be used around the world.

The PA said the image was a handout image provided to them by KP.

Getty said the image was provided to them by KP.

The AFP said they were issued a handout image by KP.

KP knowingly sent an image that is a lie to media agencies to disseminate.

You need to get an understanding of media agency principles work, and fast.

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 12:02

Mirabai · 13/03/2024 11:55

It doesn’t sound like you really get the issues at all. Or perhaps it’s intentional denial.

Agreed.

Janiie · 13/03/2024 12:02

Mirabai · 13/03/2024 11:55

It doesn’t sound like you really get the issues at all. Or perhaps it’s intentional denial.

You're right I do not get the issue. It was an informal, personal picture.

If this was an official snap by an official photographer with Putin in the background I'd be all for the outrage.

It is a mass online bullying and I'm glad the rf aren't playing into it with poor us interviews and comments.

The news agencies have made fools of themselves and need to perhaps inspect every celeb pic this closely in future for consistency. No photoshopping on informal pics from now on everyone! Gettys said so 🙄

GuinnessBird · 13/03/2024 12:03

If Harry and Meghan regularly release manipulated photos then why haven't any been rejected by the press agencies...?

Janiie · 13/03/2024 12:04

'It's not an informal family shot'

Informal as in not at an official event. At home as in wearing everyday clothes.

It was indeed an informal picture Confused.

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 12:05

Janiie · 13/03/2024 12:02

You're right I do not get the issue. It was an informal, personal picture.

If this was an official snap by an official photographer with Putin in the background I'd be all for the outrage.

It is a mass online bullying and I'm glad the rf aren't playing into it with poor us interviews and comments.

The news agencies have made fools of themselves and need to perhaps inspect every celeb pic this closely in future for consistency. No photoshopping on informal pics from now on everyone! Gettys said so 🙄

Since when do personal pictures get issued to worldwide agencies for dissemination?

You're being disingenuous.

The RF have made massive fools of themselves. All future pics will be regarded with suspicion. It's a massive own goal.

CurlewKate · 13/03/2024 12:05

It wasn't "an informal family shot". It was an official statement. And it was an undated composite.
.

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 12:06

Janiie · 13/03/2024 12:04

'It's not an informal family shot'

Informal as in not at an official event. At home as in wearing everyday clothes.

It was indeed an informal picture Confused.

Your selective quoting is laughable.

You clearly take a leaf from the RF's spin doctors Grin

BemusedAmerican · 13/03/2024 12:06

@GuinnessBird there have been theories about that...

Roussette · 13/03/2024 12:06

GuinnessBird · 13/03/2024 12:03

If Harry and Meghan regularly release manipulated photos then why haven't any been rejected by the press agencies...?

There is a big difference between more hair on Harry's head, or taking out red eye which is tweaking...to a complete mash up doctored photo

CurlewKate · 13/03/2024 12:07

"The news agencies have made fools of themselves and need to perhaps inspect every celeb pic this closely in future for consistency. No photoshopping on informal pics from now on everyone!"

Photoshopping is fine- there would be no pictures if it wasn't. The news agencies are very clear on the subject. Anything which is clearly not news is not allowed.

Janiie · 13/03/2024 12:08

CurlewKate · 13/03/2024 12:05

It wasn't "an informal family shot". It was an official statement. And it was an undated composite.
.

Oh I missed the official event they were attending in the back garden with their everyday clothes on.

EasternStandard · 13/03/2024 12:08

People who are more H&M will post the same way

People who are for KM etc won’t change

Not much will happen except some money was made by the media from all the interest

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 12:09

Janiie · 13/03/2024 12:08

Oh I missed the official event they were attending in the back garden with their everyday clothes on.

You're being deliberately obtuse that the image was officially released by KP to media agencies.

But yes, someone tell Getty that they can accept images without question as long as they're staged in the back garden with every day clothes.

No bowties and tiaras = no questions asked.

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 12:10

EasternStandard · 13/03/2024 12:08

People who are more H&M will post the same way

People who are for KM etc won’t change

Not much will happen except some money was made by the media from all the interest

I don't think republicans are either for H&M or W&K.

EasternStandard · 13/03/2024 12:12

moonfacer · 13/03/2024 12:10

I don't think republicans are either for H&M or W&K.

I see a fair few posts that suggest otherwise for H&M