Royal reporters

[CurlewKate]

Just heard an interesting/depressing thing about the slimyness of old school royal reporting. Apparently, James Whittaker (well known to us older people) couldn’t get close access to Charles and Diana while they were on holiday so sat on a cliff watching them on a yacht through binoculars. After 8 hours without them exchanging a word, he drew the conclusion that their marriage was in trouble….and broke the story. Those were the days-they had to suffer for their stories!🤣

Difference with Hello etc its just a lifestyle being sold through glossy pictures...x on holiday

Royal reporting is more disgusting in that it seeks to destroy people, making up rumours, taking a picture or a video clip snd saying omg look how he/ she looked at x person or x person made rude comments ..and then you read the article and its full of hot air, nothing to it but some secret source and alot of maybes.

Yes people believe its true and there follows the social media trolls snd nasty comments

It's not just the royals that are followed by reporters, it's the "royal adjacent " people.
DH and I were staying in a hotel in Oban one week in 1994 and the place was full of paparazzi who were trying to get pictures of Princess Diana's mother who lived on Seil and had recently become a Catholic.

I go as far with you as to say, yes, Boris's private sexual morality is at one with his wider morality.

But frankly...his amoral, do-anything-that-suits-Boris-best agenda, his too jokey attitude to serious issues, his hypocrisy in supporting Brexit when he himself knew damn well it wasn't a good idea etc etc where do you stop? was as clear as the nose on his face! Surely, surely no-one was deceived about Boris, even without knowing about his bed-hopping etc. I mean - he'd been on HIGNFY so many times, making an ass of himself.

I remember thinking, when he became PM - please God, let us not have any real crises to deal with...and then we had Covid and the Ukraine war (which, tbf, he did the right thing about).

I don’t believe a word of that. You’re seriously telling me they sat in the exact same spot on a yacht for eight hours straight, and he watched them through binoculars the entire time—just to conclude they didn’t speak? What, they didn’t go inside to eat, use the bathroom, or do anything remotely human?
More likely, he already sensed something was off from their public behavior, then spun this dramatic “cliffside stakeout” story afterward to make it sound like he was the one who broke it first. It sounds more like a self-serving journalist myth than anything based in fact.

And honestly, it’s not so different from many royal reporters today. They throw around phrases like “sources say,” “a friend of the couple,” or “I think” — when the truth is, they don’t know a thing. Just look at the past year: not a single one of them had any real insight into what was going on with the royal family. It was all speculation dressed up as reporting.

They know people love gossip, so they churn out as many stories as possible — because in the end, clicks mean money.

Interesting. Obviously he was an odious man- but he wasn’t in a position of power, or political influence. I suppose if he wanted to have Nazi themed orgies with consenting adults that was his business. So no, I don’t think he should have been exposed. Contradictorily, however, I am quite pleased he was…

What I have experienced in my life to date tells me that the best trustworthy people seem to carry the same values across their public and private life. Maybe that’s naive but Boris Johnson’s reckless behaviour with women is definitely an indicator of his overall character if you ask me.

I agree it doesn’t matter to the public if you are a writer or an artist. If you are in a leadership role such as the CEO of a company, or head of a church, or head of state, or in a role in which you represent more than just yourself and your work, then I’m afraid it does matter.

I agree that it was clear to see what type of person he was from his public displays. However his treatment of his wife and his affairs was another facet of that whole personality. It would have been very surprising if he had actually been a faithful and good husband given the other awful aspects of his personality on display.

What I'm saying is, it's possible to see a truer picture of someone in public life's nature if aspects of their private life are known. For example, if you treat your wife and family like dirt and without respect, I would expect you're prepared to treat your employees, advisers and the public in the same way.

Of course that's a generalisation but I would venture to say that people who have a lack of morals and integrity in their private life are likely to act in the same way in their public role.

There was a time when being outed as a homosexual would ruin your life. Now no-one cares. Leave people's private lives alone, unless it has very direct bearing on competency.

‘Royal Reporter’ is probably the easiest beat to have. You pick your side, you’re fed lines from whichever household you align with, you write some shit about “a source close to….” and watch the numbers roll in. Extra bonus points if you include something from “a body language expert.” Follow the rules (nice things about Catherine, terrible things about Meghan) and you’ve got yourself a career for life.

Ime it’s usually fatal to read the biography or autobiography of a writer or artist you enjoy as you will never see them, or their work, in the same light ever again!

This reminds me of a discussion on the radio years ago when people were poking into Diana's and Charles's marriage. There was a phrase that these snoopy reporters were using to justify their tactics. They claimed it was 'in the public interest'.

Now I'm sure we on this thread understand what that means, but the other person (not too bright) in the discussion thought it meant 'things the public are interested in'. Oh dear. Well, yes, like you I can't pretend not to be interested on a very disgraceful level in exposes of sexual antics but I know in my heart that it's rarely anything to do with me, and not necessarily in the public interest in the true sense of that phrase!

We're all human, Curlew.

Yes, and he was forever preaching at us and telling us what to do, like during Covid.
I just used to think oh fuck off mate, you had a child you wouldn't even acknowledge until you were forced to.

I’m not sure where I said we weren’t all human? And I do understand the difference between “in the public interest” and “interesting to the public” I think that Mosely’s sexual morality is interesting to the public, but Johnson’s is in the public interest because it speaks to the sort of person he is.

Yes - I was actually agreeing with your post.

🤣

it’s definitely risky!

I love Thomas Hardy (who really was very sympathetic to the predicament of women in his work ) but he was so mean to his wife…but not as bad as horrible Charles Dickens! What a creep he was, both to his wife and his very young mistress who he almost kept captive for his exclusive use.

You have to separate the art from the artist I suppose.

Absolutely! I’m not a royal supporter but I don’t envy the RF having to rely on some of these despicable creatures to put their work in to the public domain!

There are some prime examples out there touting their wares at the moment!

I won’t mention names but one guy who resembles a fifth form prefect eager to tell tales to the headmaster seems thoroughly odious imho!

The posher ones who fancy supplementing their careers as historians seem to be a strange combination of effete but vicious!

They are a strange breed! You can see a lot of the male journalists gradually morph in to pseudo royals themselves, or try to ressemble them at least. They start appearing in double-cuffed shirts and navy blue blazers, Windsor knots and signet rings! Just bizarre!

I suppose it helps them tread the fine line between offering up snippets of gossip and breaking non-stories, while staying suitably obsequious in case someone offers them a tip!

And some of the smug and catty female correspondents are no better, sitting around in half circles slagging their next victim off through bitter half smiles! It’s horrible!

As a pp said, you can’t take their objectivity seriously as they obviously go where the money takes them! I hope they are enjoying their new kitchen extensions and parquet oak flooring courtesy of H & M!

Someone must be reading or viewing or paying for their content though, as there are more and more of them?

Sorry-I misunderstood!

My sil is an English Professor. She says the only straight male writers she’d have been happy to be alone in a room with as a young woman were Laurence Stern and Seaumus Heaney….

I think they’re very good choices, especially Seamus!

Now I have to disagree with you coffee ! Thomas hardy may have looked sympathetic to his heroines on the surface but underneath they all had to face punishment for things beyond their control!
tess was ruined and ultimately payed the price for being raped !
his books are the most depressing I’ve read of the time .
im unsurprised to discover her treated his wife badly.

Oh my god, I can't bear Thomas Hardy. So depressing.

Yes 👍, I’ve never read an author who made me feel so totally defeated and depressed.

100% and people fall for it and we end up with social media platforms sharing it around like its a fact as gullible people fall for it. The modern day colliseum of pitting people against each other and its crazy how well it works.

But Hardy was advocating for women, by demonstrating through literature the ways in which society punished them for e.g. being raped.

They did suffer, yes, but I think he wanted to show that and provoke sympathy for them. I think he was also restricted by Victorian censorship as to what he could portray, so the rape had to be almost missable- in fact I did miss it the first time I read Tess as a teenager,until she had the baby and then I realised….innocent times!