The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
Rhiannon and Roya aren’t accredited royal photographers. We shouldn’t conflate the two to make a point.
__________________

  #602  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Rhiannon and Roya aren’t accredited royal photographers. We shouldn’t conflate the two to make a point.
The point is they are all media. And it's clear where they have problems with.
__________________

  #603  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:19 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
But why do they all need the same shot is my question? It's not like they have to go back to their boss and turn it in. Their boss would already have the shot to publish.

And I figured it was standard procedure because SO MANY of them complain about it. So perhaps, it's just the younger generation/ If that's the case, then yes, clearly, it's not just an issue Harry has with them.
Because they want to make money. I mean it's not that complicated to understand why they want the shot.

I have no idea if it's just the younger generation. Even if it were, Harry seemed to be the one younger royal that would make it a point to speak and now according to Arthur, he doesn't.
__________________
  #604  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
Because they want to make money. I mean it's not that complicated to understand why they want the shot.
How does anyone make money if everyone has the same shot? They don't. The reason the woman at Sandringham made money was because she wasn't at the media pen and had a better angle.

Again, St. George's isn't as big as WA, and space is limited. It's unlikely that they would allow all photographers. If they allow some, and not others, how would that work out? Is that a fair system then? Or just allow AP in and have them share with EVERYONE. Seems much fairer if you can't allow all of them in.
  #605  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Woodbridge, United States
Posts: 894
This gives the few photogs the opportunity to make more money and gives the other photogs a chance to get the carriage money shots. When it comes to W&K's wedding the most memorable was when the left in the Aston Martin.
  #606  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
Many of these freelance photographers are the ones who do the grunt work on royal engagements.

Long after Anderson Cooper and People Magazine have gone back to America after the wedding, it’s people like Arthur Edwards et al who take the photos of Harry at one of his charities.
  #607  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:27 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Right. Harry doesn't necessarily have a problem with all media. It's those that go over the line. He jokes with Rhiannon. He's answered questions from her when he arrives at events. He's done interviews with a number of them. He even introduced Meghan to Roya Nikkhah at Nottingham when they saw her at the walkabout.
I just wanted to add a comment for better quality and a better discussion. This is what my degree and career center around, i.e. journalism. I think too many people are confusing paparazzi with royal photographers. These are the official photographers who supply the publications who have written the articles. They are not responsible for the content those publications publish. The royal photographers don’t “go over the line”. Conflating the two is like mixing up the New York Times or Wall Street Journal with the National Enquirer or OK! Magazine. These are ‘elites’ so-to-speak. I think it is ridiculous for Harry and Meghan to prevent them from taking pictures. It solves nothing and it’s taking out anger at the wrong people. Not only that but they are not the first royals to have horrible things written about them nor the last. Go after the publications for false stories or whatever but the royal photographers are not responsible. This will only come back to bite them later.

This is these people’s careers and livelihood. I don’t think many people here really understand what their ( the photographers) concerns are and are being too flippant about the issue. St. George’s is not small enough for this to be necessary nor is Windsor (which is the public property of the British government not the royals). This is a public wedding. They wouldn’t be broadcasting it or have the media presence at all if that were the case. He’s the 2nd son of the heir.
  #608  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine View Post
I just wanted to add a comment for better quality and a better discussion. This is what my degree and career center around, i.e. journalism. I think too many people are confusing paparazzi with royal photographers. These are the official photographers who supply the publications who have written the articles. They are not responsible for the content those publications publish. The royal photographers don’t “go over the line”. Conflating the two is like mixing up the New York Times or Wall Street Journal with the National Enquirer or OK! Magazine. These are ‘elites’ so-to-speak. I think it is ridiculous for Harry and Meghan to prevent them from taking pictures. It solves nothing and it’s taking out anger at the wrong people. Not only that but they are not the first royals to have horrible things written about them nor the last. Go after the publications for false stories or whatever but the royal photographers are not responsible. This will only come back to bite them later.
But those photographs line the pockets of the those tabloid. And your comparison of WSJ and NYT to National Enquirer or OK is not accurate in this case. Arthur Edwards works for The Sun. That's a tabloid, not the "elites" you speak of. And just to point out, they are not denying anyone photos. All photos the AP takes will be shared with other outlets, just like BBC's live feed will be sent to others as well. It's not like AP will get the exclusive publishing rights and they are leaving the rest in the dust.

And to go after the publication is almost useless as they have to publish an apology, but that's about it. And what does it do in the end? They weren't in the business to be accurate or fair in the first place, they are there to sensationalize. The only effective way is to go after their pockets.
  #609  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:34 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
The PA competes with the likes of Getty and Shutterstock. The PA sells it’s photos just like any other agency.

If I’m a freelancer who is part of the every day royal rota, why should I get left out of trying to make a buck.
  #610  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:46 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
But those photographs line the pockets of the those tabloid. And your comparison of WSJ and NYT to National Enquirer or OK is not accurate in this case. Arthur Edwards works for The Sun. That's a tabloid, not the "elites" you speak of. And just to point out, they are not denying anyone photos. All photos the AP takes will be shared with other outlets, just like BBC's live feed will be sent to others as well. It's not like AP will get the exclusive publishing rights and they are leaving the rest in the dust.

And to go after the publication is almost useless as they have to publish an apology, but that's about it. And what does it do in the end? They weren't in the business to be accurate or fair in the first place, they are there to sensationalize. The only effective way is to go after their pockets.
You aren’t understanding what I am saying. Yes, some photographers work specifically for publications but their job is to supply photos. Arthur Edward is a royal photographers not the paparazzi. He is ‘official’ which is why I said ‘elite’. It does not matter who he works for or who he supplies. He’s not responsible for their content. Edwards gets paid for photos. The publications pay for the photos and do what the will with them. It’s not a community money pot that pays all employees. So what if AP or BBC gets photos? The only one making money is that agency. The publications aren’t hurt. They buy those photos from AP and publish the same crap. The photographers suffer for nothing. They’ve done nothing wrong.

Publications are fined and, yes, they apologize as well. There are many lawsuits by famous individuals against them. The Cambridge’s has a big lawsuit in france because of the paps. Arthur Edwards does not fall under that group nor do the other royal photographers.
  #611  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Woodbridge, United States
Posts: 894
Royal Wedding FAQ:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...l-wedding.html

The New York Times seems to be ramping up its royal coverage and should provide an interesting and balanced source for information.
  #612  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
It’s great for Americans that networks and press are covering the wedding but at the end of the day Meghan is marrying into the British royal family. No matter if she was the popular woman in American, it wouldn’t impact British public opinion.

It will be the tone set by media in Britain that matters. Yes it will be the usually gushing coverage on the BBC but that’s only short term. Harry and Meghan maybe going for their short term gain at the sacrifice of long term prosperity.
  #613  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine View Post
You aren’t understanding what I am saying. Yes, some photographers work specifically for publications but their job is to supply photos. Arthur Edward is a royal photographers not the paparazzi. He is ‘official’ which is why I said ‘elite’. It does not matter who he works for or who he supplies. He’s not responsible for their content. Edwards gets paid for photos. The publications pay for the photos and do what the will with them. It’s not a community money pot that pays all employees. So what if AP or BBC gets photos? The only one making money is that agency. The publications aren’t hurt. They buy those photos from AP and publish the same crap. The photographers suffer for nothing. They’ve done nothing wrong.

Publications are fined and, yes, they apologize as well. There are many lawsuits by famous individuals against them. The Cambridge’s has a big lawsuit in france because of the paps. Arthur Edwards does not fall under that group nor do the other royal photographers.
Cambridge lawsuit is different situation and in different jurisdiction. I believe in Britain, you have to make a complaint to IPSO, and they decide if it violated the standards. I don't believe there is a fine, but each party pays for their cost in the proceedings. At the end, if it's determined that the paper violated codes of conduct, IPSO will rule that they have to apologize and run a retraction, as was the case when The Sun basically insinuated Meghan is a porn star on their front page. I don't think they are fined. Usually, that's when it all stops. They can appeal at times, but it's not litigated in court. Of course, I could be completely wrong on this as I'm not too familiar with UK regulations, and can only piece together what I've seen and read over time. I remember when Harry issued the letter, the tabloids were up in arms about how they don't know what he's talking about, and how if it was true, he should've just complained to IPSO. Well, MONTHS later, we saw the apology from The Sun. Funny that the misleading headline made their front page in bold and capital letters, but the apology was a tiny little thing.

And photographers might not have done something wrong, but for some of them it's the price of working for those that do not follow basic decency in coverage. The type of "news" their paper runs is pretty consistent, and you can't tell me they don't know it. As for the freelancers, it's unfortunate, but at times it's just the way it is. Like I mentioned earlier, they seem to be not making exceptions at this wedding. Once they have a rule, they follow it even if it's inconvenient at times. Like with no politicians. So if they decide everyone gets the same photos, then there is no reason to let some in, but not others. At the end of the day, this isn't a state or semi-state wedding and it's on private grounds. They get the say. If this was in public area, that'd be different. And notice how all the broadcasting channels aren't whining that they have to get it from BBC?

Now they can always boycott his events from now on if they so choose. Of course, I have a feeling they won't because ultimately, stories and pictures of Harry and Meghan sells.
  #614  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:03 PM
Zaira's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: A, United States
Posts: 1,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
Because they want to make money. I mean it's not that complicated to understand why they want the shot.

I have no idea if it's just the younger generation. Even if it were, Harry seemed to be the one younger royal that would make it a point to speak and now according to Arthur, he doesn't.
This is what is to me the more concerning part, more than the media and wedding issue since they will still be getting their darn shots either way.

My concern is that I always loved following Harry's events because he understood the media and used that to his advantage in a way that I thought was especially savvy. I have felt a definite chill in Harry overall this past year toward the media, but also just less warmth overall on his engagements.

Harry did a lot to improve his image by working with reporters and papers and getting them to cover IG and stuff. For Arthur to speak so bluntly tells me this relationship has truly broken down and that isn't good IMO. It isn't all Harry's fault, but at the same time he needs the media to be on side and needs to be more diplomatic and less hot headed or driven by his anger. He won't help Meghan in the long run by not having smart media outreach.
  #615  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:10 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Cambridge lawsuit is different situation and in different jurisdiction. I believe in Britain, you have to make a complaint to IPSO, and they decide if it violated the standards. I don't believe there is a fine, but each party pays for their cost in the proceedings. At the end, if it's determined that the paper violated codes of conduct, IPSO will rule that they have to apologize and run a retraction, as was the case when The Sun basically insinuated Meghan is a porn star on their front page. I don't think they are fined. Usually, that's when it all stops. They can appeal at times, but it's not litigated in court.

And photographers might not have done something wrong, but for some of them it's the price of working for those that do not follow basic decent in coverage. The type of "news" their paper runs is pretty consistent, and you can't tell me they don't know it. As for the freelancers, it's unfortunate, but at times it's just the way it is. At the end of the day, this isn't a state or semi-state wedding and it's on private grounds. They get the say. If this was in public area, that'd be different. And notice how all the broadcasting channels aren't whining that they have to get it from BBC?

Now they can always boycott his events from now on if they so choose. Of course, I have a feeling they won't because ultimately, stories and pictures of Harry and Meghan sells.
This is ridiculous. The way this is being handled only the photographers are losing out and none of the publications. That fact alone makes this move pointless and more than a bit petty.

Also these aren’t private grounds. I already said that. St George’s and Windsor do not belong to the royals. They may get the say but it will backfire.
  #616  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
St George’s Chapel is open to the public. Anyone can attend services there.
  #617  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine View Post
This is ridiculous. The way this is being handled only the photographers are losing out and none of the publications. That fact alone makes this move pointless and more than a bit petty.

Also these aren’t private grounds. I already said that. St George’s and Windsor do not belong to the royals. They may get the say but it will backfire.
The papers are loosing out. No one will have the exclusive. We all know something isn't that valuable when everyone has the same thing. It's the exclusivity that matters. The photographers are still allowed to capture any money shot they can along the procession. However, treating the photograph of them coming out the same way as they've always treated the live feed of the wedding is fair. And you still haven't answered my question if it would've been fairer for them to allow in some photographers, but not all of them? Because quite frankly, I don't think they can handle everyone being in there and then coming in and out.

And Windsor Castle isn't a public street. They have the right to close down the Castle when it's necessary as they did for the two days that CHOGM was at Windsor Castle.
  #618  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:20 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,597
They've been more aggressive than gushy toward her anyways. So really nothing will change. They have attacked her since Day 1 and 18 days to go they still attacking her and the day after they will go back to attacking her. So frankly I doubt blame Harry.
  #619  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
It’s great for Americans that networks and press are covering the wedding but at the end of the day Meghan is marrying into the British royal family. No matter if she was the popular woman in American, it wouldn’t impact British public opinion.

It will be the tone set by media in Britain that matters. Yes it will be the usually gushing coverage on the BBC but that’s only short term. Harry and Meghan maybe going for their short term gain at the sacrifice of long term prosperity.
Well, considering The Sun has already insinuated she's filmed porn on their front page, various tabloids paid estranged family members to dish all kinds of unverified dirt on, and already had all kinds of unsavory headlines about her including racist coverage. Not sure how much worse they can do.

And really, weren't some upset that Meghan is fame hungry, shouldn't this calm their worries?
  #620  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
The police can close down anything due to security concerns.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
british royal family, caricatures, cartoons, fleet street, newspapers, tabloid press


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Madeleine and Chris: Media and Public Opinion LadyFinn Princess Madeleine, Chris O'Neill and Family 743 12-20-2015 09:30 PM
Dutch Royal House Code of Conduct for the Press (Media Code) Silvermj Dutch Royals 41 06-30-2014 06:15 AM




Popular Tags
alqasimi althorp archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy armenia bangladesh belgian royal family birthday celebration castles charles of wales clarence house crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cypher cyprus danish history denmark diana princess of wales duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch royal family felipe vi foundation french revolution friendly city future genealogy general news germany hamdan bin mohammed hill house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha king salman languages lithuanian castles meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco christening monaco history monarchism nobel 2019 official visit palaces prince charles prince harry prince of wales princess margaret royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia south africa spain spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts united kingdom working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×