4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2023 22:55:40 GMT
Apologies if this has all been said before. but life's to short to worry about past mistakes or read 20 PAGES on this SHOWER.. No-one is making you read the thread. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jan 9, 2023 0:32:26 GMT
😂😂😂😂 It’s hilarious that people still think that Charles, William and Kate have stayed out of this, when there has ben a steady drip of stories based on ‘Royal sources’ that can only have come from their press secretaries (ending of course with ‘…. Palace declined to comment’). Some of this stuff had in fact already been briefed to biographers sympathetic to them, in terms flattering to them, naturally - particularly the Robert Lacey book ‘Battle of the Brothers’ www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/princes-william-harry-explosive-argument-meghan-bullying-allegations-78397819Any time you see a Royal Rota journalist write a story from ‘Palace sources’ about the book commenting on how any of them feels, the source will be the Press Secretary. Some examples: www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/03/duke-sussex-wrong-claim-king-charles-has-shown-no-willingness/www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-is-part-of-the-royal-family-again-but-not-the-firm-sources-saywww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11593605/Royals-exhausted-Harry-Meghans-stream-misinformation-sources-say.htmlThere will be more of these over the coming weeks. The only difference is that Harry is speaking directly, and making himself accountable for the things he wants to say, rather than hiding behind ‘sources’ or loopholes (like Diana recording tapes rather than speaking directly to Morton so they could deny he had interviewed or met with her). The Observer editorial linked above may be right that this has become a psychological need for him, a form of catharsis after a lifetime of not being able to speak truth directly. That the way the institution has worked in this regard has fundamentally traumatised him - but he is hardly the first Royal to do so. On Radio 4 yesterday Jonathan Dimbleby was saying that Charles had cooperated with his biography back in the 90s because he felt the need to ‘lance the boil’ of his own bad press coverage. His book came out first, before the Morton book, and he did a TV interview for it! It's hilarious that you keep on posting as if you have inside knowledge that everything Harry and Meghan say is gospel truth. Seriously, I don't have a dog in this fight and think anyone that does needs to take a look at themselves and their life but you're a parody... Au contraire. What is hilarious in this thread is the posting of "facts" gleaned through the prism of a hostile media and Twittersphere, only for Kathryn to utterly demolish them with some evidence-based reasoning citing sources. Surely, wherever you sit on royal matters, one cannot but admire her forensic analysis. If only journalists were so skilled. (Some are, I grant, but so many aren't.) |
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Jan 9, 2023 5:28:19 GMT
]It's irrelevant what the actual passage says - the Taliban have seen the excerpts all over the media (both mainstream and social) which is all they need to take offence and possibly retaliate. Harry's 'kill tally' should never have appeared in the book! Riiiight, so NOW people are worried about the Taliban retaliating for the invasion of Afghanistan. Probably would have been better off getting worried before we sent the armed forces over there, if you’re so terrified of provoking the terrorists. Once upon the time the media insisted that they supported British soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and would not dream of giving space to Taliban commanders making threatening ex-servicemen. Unless that particular ex-serviceman threatens the status quo. The toffs, the RF, and the conservative media have effectively closed ranks. Qu'elle surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Jan 9, 2023 5:41:36 GMT
Haven’t really known where to stand on this whole issue. But Harry’s crusade against the tabloid media is something I’d happily stand behind him and support him on. This country has been totally f*cked by the tabloids for decades. Why hasn't any real reform happened since Levinson? Is Hacked Off still active?
Clearly, the power structure still feels as if the distractions the tabloids provide the public keep the heat off of an ineffective government. Personally, I think all the tabloids should be shut down, and media forced to report facts without spin. If for no other reason than seeing Piers Morgan's head explode from trying to contain himself to reading straight copy without then being allowed to tell you his beloved POV.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 9, 2023 9:32:19 GMT
Haven’t really known where to stand on this whole issue. But Harry’s crusade against the tabloid media is something I’d happily stand behind him and support him on. This country has been totally f*cked by the tabloids for decades. Why hasn't any real reform happened since Levinson? Is Hacked Off still active?
.
Hacked Off is still active, but Leveson 2 (which was truly the most important part, looking at how the press and police and government interact) was mothballed and the majority of the recommendations from Leveson 1 have not in practice been implemented. inforrm.org/2019/10/16/new-report-ipso-five-years-on-fails-to-satisfy-25-out-of-38-leveson-recommendations/amp/ |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 9, 2023 10:12:18 GMT
Was anything ever going to come of Leveson? When it was a hot topic and our media were hacking dead girls phones it needed a report. But not sure I ever thought much would come of it, for one of the reasons of the many reasons that our media are quite powerful |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 9, 2023 12:50:24 GMT
Much as I admire the ability to repeatedly deflect and distract (media! It's the media!!!), the issue for the public is what comes directly out of their two mouths; from Oprah to Rambo Windsor's interviews this week, and a hundred points between.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 9, 2023 13:21:45 GMT
I am interested in how the press works - I have been since I was a teenager and briefly wanted to be a journalist - and I’ve spent far far too much time over the years delving into it. I do things like actually read full court judgements to libel and privacy trials, and follow the outcome of complaints to IPSO (and formerly the PCC). I watched the Leveson enquiry avidly. Yes, same for me too (though you research more rigorously than me) - I did a journalism degree (my dissertation supervisor and mentor was Ros Coward, a royal reporter who has written books on royals, then moved to writing books about feminism) and I worked a tiny but as a freelance journalist before moving into theatre. I've worked on or closely with people from The Crown and various stage productions that sought to illuminate the hidden power structures underpinning British society and that's what fascinates me the most. Remember when the American media outlets cut away from and refused to broadcast Trump from the White House press room, because they could not in good faith broadcast lies? I wish the British media could have a moment like that, but too much of our press are the ones standing behind and financing the liars. I'm not so much interested in Harry and Meghan as people, though I wish them well - they both seem like privileged, damaged people who mostly just want a good life for themselves and their children. Which is their right, of course, but they're not going to be the radical firebrands holding truth to power that some want them to be. The most interesting thing Harry is doing is pulling back the curtain, and revealing how sheltered, manipulative and feudal the entire royal system is. William's comment "you can't have Africa it's mine" is so perfect Mike Bartlett would put a red line through it for being too on the nose. It's almost hilarious how reactive and rote it all is - the response to Spare being accidentally put out early in Spain was to instantly get Will and Kate's neighbours to release footage of them trick or treating with the kids, along with an interview trashing Harry. Because Will and Kate can't give interviews saying that Harry's a spoiled brat but their friends sure as hell can. It's all so predictable: any hint of criticism or scandal, the kids get trotted out and someone close to Will and Kate but decidedly not Will and Kate badmouths Harry. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 9, 2023 16:04:17 GMT
Oh indeed, Harry is not the place to go if you want a figurehead for dismantling the monarchy.
He wants reform, not abolition - he wants the monarchy to work better than it currently does for the people within it. His argument - if you actually pay attention to it - is that the institution is wasting talented family members like his wife, when they could be making better use of them. That the personal divide-and-conquer approach of having all the press offices competing to throw each other under the bus is damaging to the Institution in the long-term.
It’s actually ironic that their most ardent Royalist critics cannot see that aspect of it. They blame him and Meghan for the damage done and cannot credit the idea that he attributes that damage to a different root cause. His analysis is essentially that it is systemic, not solely to do with any one individual (even though individual family members are complicit in it) but a pattern that has repeated across generations because of the relationship between the two institutions.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 9, 2023 16:06:25 GMT
Was anything ever going to come of Leveson? When it was a hot topic and our media were hacking dead girls phones it needed a report. But not sure I ever thought much would come of it, for one of the reasons of the many reasons that our media are quite powerful Well, there were certainly witnesses who were sceptical on the stand at the enquiry about how effective the process would actually be. I think people had hope that if the political will existed that there would be some reform. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 9, 2023 16:52:46 GMT
The future of the Levenson inquiry is dependant on the next election.
It looks at the moment that Labour are in a good position to win the next General Election, how the papers report this and whether they actively target Labour MP’s will define the relationship if they get into Power.
It is very difficult to argue that there is some complicity between certain sectors of the press and the current Government, will they be able to build the same relationship with a Labour Government and therefore continue the Parliamentary cosines.
As was seen in 1996 the press flipped and became supportive of Blair when the writing was on the wall, it is interesting watching the press at the moment, there is some indication that the same is happening, The Times Political columns are becoming more balanced maybe not the columnists and the front page of the Sun has been keeping Politics off the front pages.
The Mail & Express are unlikely to move but will they be as toxic as they were with Corbyn and the Telegraph have allowed Starmer some column inches in the last year.
The press’s actions in the next 18 months will be an interesting watch if they move towards Labour the election win will soon follow.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 9, 2023 18:04:22 GMT
Was anything ever going to come of Leveson? When it was a hot topic and our media were hacking dead girls phones it needed a report. But not sure I ever thought much would come of it, for one of the reasons of the many reasons that our media are quite powerful Well, there were certainly witnesses who were sceptical on the stand at the enquiry about how effective the process would actually be. I think people had hope that if the political will existed that there would be some reform. Never going to be political will with a Conservative government. Paul Dacre recommended for a nighthood by Johnson. Can't see Starmer doing anything to forward this |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2023 14:03:09 GMT
Looks like there might be a few *spare* copies available ..
|
|
914 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jan 10, 2023 17:01:58 GMT
Why bother buying it when the BBC are including the ripe, juicy (not) "how I popped my 🍒 in a field behind a pub" from the audiobook in its news bulletins? 🤮🤯🤢
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 10, 2023 17:40:21 GMT
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 10, 2023 17:46:28 GMT
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 10, 2023 18:00:30 GMT
The RF are obviously racist. They permitted an overtly racist hate campaign against Meghan for years, and their systemic racism (eg lobbying to be made exempt from laws banning racial discrimination) is well-documented, as are many individual incidences of racism.
Presumably Harry had some remorse over losing his family hence his hesitation now to go full guns blazing, but he's not said "the RF aren't racist", he challenged the exact wording of how he recounted a single incident.
The RF's years-long smear campaign against one of their own family members is a thousand times more vindictive than anything Harry has done.
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthernAlien on Jan 10, 2023 18:06:18 GMT
"selling like hotcakes" according to the cashier in Waterstones on Princes Street in Edinburgh at lunchtime, as she stood there putting their promotional stickers on a huge stack of them next to her, as the two people in front of me both bought a copy...
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 10, 2023 18:18:16 GMT
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 10, 2023 19:17:36 GMT
The RF are obviously racist. They permitted an overtly racist hate campaign against Meghan for years, and their systemic racism (eg lobbying to be made exempt from laws banning racial discrimination) is well-documented, as are many individual incidences of racism. Presumably Harry had some remorse over losing his family hence his hesitation now to go full guns blazing, but he's not said "the RF aren't racist", he challenged the exact wording of how he recounted a single incident. The RF's years-long smear campaign against one of their own family members is a thousand times more vindictive than anything Harry has done. So do we believe him? Or not. |
|
752 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 10, 2023 19:23:16 GMT
Harry said in his interview that lots of race stuff is “unconscious bias” and that it is only if someone points it out and you don’t do anything about trying to understand what you have done that it moves on to becoming racist.
As with all the Harry Megan stuff there’s a lot of nuance that is lost by the headlines (and remember press coverage from papers that Harry is literally suing at the moment).
I always thought when they tried to limit access to the press when Archie was born there would be trouble.
I still don’t really care about any of the Royals, I find it amazing how certain people are of their negative opinions (I’m with Kathryn that the press are quite unrelenting and, as we’ve seen with Brexit, powerful)
Harry iis, however, providing a perfect argument for ending the Monarchy and replacing it with historical buildings, a big of pageantry and an elected president. Plus we should maybe write down the constitution after what Boris tried to do!
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 10, 2023 19:41:16 GMT
The RF are obviously racist. They permitted an overtly racist hate campaign against Meghan for years, and their systemic racism (eg lobbying to be made exempt from laws banning racial discrimination) is well-documented, as are many individual incidences of racism. Presumably Harry had some remorse over losing his family hence his hesitation now to go full guns blazing, but he's not said "the RF aren't racist", he challenged the exact wording of how he recounted a single incident. The RF's years-long smear campaign against one of their own family members is a thousand times more vindictive than anything Harry has done. So do we believe him? Or not. Does it matter? Whether or not Camilla (or whomever) once speculated on Archie’s skin tone barely registers against literally lobbying the government to be made exempt from racial discrimination laws. Quite apart from the sinister amount of control the RF have over the government (no human being should be above the law, much less allowed to re-write laws purely for their own benefit), what kind of corporation even thinks “wow laws banning racism? We definitely don’t that! Let’s actively lobby for the right to be racist!” |
|
|
|
Post by marob on Jan 10, 2023 21:07:54 GMT
I’ve gone really bad for not reading much of anything anymore, but that does make me want to give this a go. 😂 Maybe when it’s out in paperback and you can get it from Asda for £4.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 10, 2023 21:45:31 GMT
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 10, 2023 23:32:16 GMT
Only beaten by a book about another Harry? |
|
