This doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.
Why would William be more protected by the Press? He wasn't the heir, just the son of the Heir.
The tabloids had zero compunction about running multiple stories of the actual Heir and his affair, the whole Camilla-gate/tampn-gate was from hacking his phone (if you believe the "random guy with a CB radio picked it up by accident I have a bridge to sell you) and gleefully publishing all the details.
Also the Diana "squidgygate" phone calls, the reporting of her involvement with Oliver Hoare, Will Carling et al.
They also gleefully published Andre M-Ws exploits over the years - Koo Stark, Fergie's affairs, his involvement with Epstein.
William was photographed coming out of nightclubs, clearly drunk. Difference being he didn't start punching photographers.
The Press have never protected any of the Royals. If they have corroborated evidence they will publish. Especially not in the era since the 70s
This whole narrative about how William was protected but Harry wasn't, plus the whole "William is lazy" is just a fantasy cooked up by the Sussexes and their supporters to try to excuse Harry's - at times - appalling behaviour, and his own laziness.