The Royal Family and the Media

[ACO]

Emily Andrews initial report on Suva implied Meghan was at fault. She has since changed her mind and even went out of her way on the latest ON HEIR podcast to explain it was another reporter who implied it but she didn’t agree.

I do think overall the coverage was fair but their needs to over dramatized things and then act shocked by the media reaction is annoying. So I’m glad that American reporter called it out in a sense. I also agree with the comment upthread in that we need more diversity in the RRs. This tour made it more obvious.

Overall successful tour. There were some hiccups that they will definitely learn from but seems the countries are pleased with the results. No doubt HMQ is too.

[Pranter]

Even so E.A. was quick to say on the podcast (twice) that other reporters (I think it was a couple) heard Meghan ask to leave. So she didn't change her mind IMO...she's just trying to avoid more backlash because she got huge backlash on Twitter when this all went down.


LaRae

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Even so E.A. was quick to say on the podcast (twice) that other reporters (I think it was a couple) heard Meghan ask to leave. So she didn't change her mind IMO...she's just trying to avoid more backlash because she got huge backlash on Twitter when this all went down.


LaRae

No matter what happened at the market, it was very clear Meghan wanted to do everything on this tour. I think she outdid herself on her very first major tour. Despite Harry and officials wanting her to rest.

[ACO]

No it was one (Simon something...) who kept saying he saw Meghan turn to her RPO, so in his opinion she was asking to leave. Emily actually says she didn’t agree with that. They concluded that they didn’t know what happened but at the end the RPOs did their job. The whole thing was unfortunate and somewhat overshadowed her 1st speech.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by ACO

Emily Andrews initial report on Suva implied Meghan was at fault. She has since changed her mind and even went out of her way on the latest ON HEIR podcast to explain it was another reporter who implied it but she didn’t agree.

That was bull. It was her. In fact, her initial tweet said Meghan left early. That's it. Not even mention the security concerns. Just that she left early.

Then people took her task and tell the whole story, she doubled down again to say there was no chaos or crowding. The reality is, we saw videos from other outlets, mainly Australian, that told a different story. That's why she toned it down. If those footage didn't come to light, she'd still be telling the story she initially told. She has in fact changed the story several time since then.

[Fros]

Originally Posted by ACO

A recap from a non royal reporter perspective.

https://abcnews.go.com/International...ry?id=58894240

I thought it was interesting how he saw things vs the regular RRs.

The distance from the media was mentioned in the BBC article and by Rebecca English on Twitter. I am not sure why they are making that an issue on tour when the couple's focus is completely on their host nation and people they are meeting. Some reporters even confirmed the couple came to the back of the plane and greeted the press on the way back to Sydney for the closing ceremonies.

[Dman]

How Royal Gossip Work-
https://www.thecut.com/amp/2018/12/r...mpression=true

Great article by Lisa Ryan. I know this belong in the royal family and media thread but unfortunately it’s closed.

[Lumutqueen]

I'm not going to link the article, by the DM have taken a big step this morning by naming trolls who have actively targeted Meghan on social media. Some of the comments are truly disgusting, it's a bit step by the DM and it's a good one.

[Terri Terri]

The DM?! What hypocrisy!

[...]

I too have now made the decision not to click on or link DM articles anymore!

[tommy100]

A good move that action is being taken but if someone takes it upon themselve to do something back to these trolls would it be a good move from the DM, to expose someone to threat? And of course the DM seems to ignore its own articles against Meghan, those in glass houses...

[Curryong]

I've got another couple of headlines for this newspaper.

'The Fail unmasks its online commenters' and 'Hypocrite newspaper plays goody two shoes.'

This rag had an anti -Meghan story on its online editions every day for about six weeks late last year, and now has the gall to paint itself as a crusader for decency. Don't make me laugh!

[Elenath]

And if the DM where so concerned, it should, perhaps, start by moderating it’s own comment section.

[Lyonnaise]

This tweet shows the hypocrisy of the DM: https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/st...05204130754561

From Kevin: Mail on Sunday putting Liz Jones’ latest attack on Meghan Markle next to a piece condemning “cruel trolls” who “spew bile” at her is comedy gold

Also, the DM has just given some of these people a huge boost in publicity. I'm sure their social media platforms are getting a lot of hits now. So they're not going to stop. Why now when they have hundreds, possibly thousands, more people visiting and probably agreeing with them.

[Marlo]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I'm not going to link the article, by the DM have taken a big step this morning by naming trolls who have actively targeted Meghan on social media. Some of the comments are truly disgusting, it's a bit step by the DM and it's a good one.

The Telegraph wrote an article about the hate group too.

[Osipi]

The hypocrisy of the Fail is more than enough proof that they'll do an about face on the surface of a pin head to attract readers and clicks. They have the trolls already. Now they're aiming for troll trolls.

I've always said the Fail is only good for a bird cage liner and they're proving that point for me.

[evolvingdoors]

I know I may get fleck for this:
I personally find the DM exposure of them troubling. Whatever their comments and opinions may be, these people still have families and loved ones, some may be suffering from mental illness, or maybe their lives just suck and they are jealous and venting out and so that drive them to this behavior, perhaps it is a mere phase.. and maybe some are just racist PoS; either way, unlike Meghan they do not have personal bodyguards. It’s enough that one of Meghan more fanatic fans decides to go after these people and try to harm them, or they will end up harming themselves because of this exposure, neither is unheard of (there’s been enough comments, such as those wishing the death of the Cambridge’s, from those who worship Meghan that makes one worry for their mental health too).

I highly doubt any of these people comments will ever ruin or touch Meghan’s life in any way, but this article can destroy their lives... bullies and trolls are not to be tolerated, but many of them are not necessarily bad people, simply troubled who need help.

My view is this: yes deal with those who make the truly horrible comments (via the acceptable and legal ways), that is a better way than exposing them to the world, nothing will be gained from that.
Honestly, what the DM just did is IMO just as despicable as what the minority fringe from either side (the haters and the fanatics) writes.

It is worrisome to be honest, in so many ways.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

Honestly, what the DM just did is IMO just as despicable as what the minority fringe from either side (the haters and the fanatics) writes.

I had a very similar thought when initially looking at the article. It’s tit for tat. But unfortunately it’s the way of social media that the information the DM has acquired can be acquired by anyone. They have contacted the people they’ve highlighted in the article because some have given comments.

[jacqui24]

Apparently KP has started blocking some of those accounts. What I will say is, I can understood spending a lot of time online talking about things and people you like, but who in their right mind spends so much time on someone they don’t?

And I had to laugh at one of them claiming exposing her will get trolls to come after them. So it’s ok for her to be a troll, but not be trolled? Cry me a river.

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

I know I may get fleck for this:
I personally find the DM exposure of them troubling. .. bullies and trolls are not to be tolerated, but many of them are not necessarily bad people, simply troubled who need help....Honestly, what the DM just did is IMO just as despicable as what the minority fringe from either side (the haters and the fanatics) writes...It is worrisome to be honest, in so many ways.

No flack, but there is more to this, IMO.
First, the DM will do anything for clicks and this is yet another example. Gaak.
Second, I know lots of troubled people. Almost all understand that good manners have value. In fact, they want others to show them good manners in interactions. Sadly, trolls have decided they need not be good mannered in their online comments. And these same people will behave far better to others LIVE than they will online. Because there are consequences to being a jerk in public. If they are un "troubled" enough to get that, they can do the same online.
I may understand that trolls get a rush out of their manipulation of others. I just, frankly have never thought lust for power to be a mental illness. For most people that do it, power plays are their choice. We as a society need to stop choosing these silly online grabs at power.
I'm not unempathetic for people who are jerks online to get attention. I just think they choose how they expend their energy and they reap what they sow. Maybe they should all put down their phones and volunteer somewhere for a move valuable kind of attention and interaction.
JMO.

[jacqui24]

Btw, let’s NOT blame terrible behavior on mental illness. It’s things like this that adds to the stigma of mental illness. It’s not a replacement for terrible people doing terrible things. Truth is all statistics have shown people with mental illness are far more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators.