The Royal Family and the Media

[Muhler]

Which is very true!
Daily Mail has good photos - and entertainment value in regards to their fiction. But that's about it.
Not even the trolls in the comments sections have style.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If there are anyone who thinks that the Daily Fail/Fail Online is a reliable source, then take a look at what Sebastian Shakespeare and Ephraim Hardcastle has written about in recent years.

And when it comes to the trolls in the comments section: They are a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, sick, spiteful bullies who hates everyone. But they represents a very tiny minority of the UK public, and many of them are from other countries.

I was in Denmark on a work-related visit before Christmas. And what really shocked me was when I read some of the comments in a Danish newspaper (don't remember which), but they were just as bad as those in the Daily Fail.

 

[Muhler]

If there are anyone who thinks that the Daily Fail/Fail Online is a reliable source, then take a look at what Sebastian Shakespeare and Ephraim Hardcastle has written about in recent years.

And when it comes to the trolls in the comments section: They are a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, sick, spiteful bullies who hates everyone. But they represents a very tiny minority of the UK public, and many of them are from other countries.

I was in Denmark on a work-related visit before Christmas. And what really shocked me was when I read some of the comments in a Danish newspaper (don't remember which), but they were just as bad as those in the Daily Fail.

That would have been Ekstra Bladet.

Basically the same type of tabloid - the same readers and the same types who comments. - The difference being that the EB readers constantly question the EB stories.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Yeah, I think maybe it was Ekstra Bladet. I often go through Danish newspapers to look for news about the DRF, but I don't usually read the comments sections.

 

[Dman]

The interesting part is that if you glance at the comment sections, it's very hard to understand where all these people's anger and hostility comes from. I mean, if you give some of those people a gun, I'm sure WWIII would come sooner.

 

[Al_bina]

Because many of us use the DM as a reference for royal related stories, I thought I'd post this article. I'm sure more tabloids will be added to the list.


Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=share_btn_tw

The pot calling the kettle black. Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, The Times are as reliable as Daily Mail is.

 

[Muhler]

The interesting part is that if you glance at the comment sections, it's very hard to understand where all these people's anger and hostility comes from. I mean, if you give some of those people a gun, I'm sure WWIII would come sooner.

So much the better that they get to vent their whatever-issues-they-have in the comments sections.

 

[Jacknch]

The pot calling the kettle black. Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, The Times are as reliable as Daily Mail is.

The reliability differs from newspaper to newspaper, but I see your point. I think it is always best read several versions of the same story from a variety of newspapers at home and abroad to glean a vague understanding of the truth

 

[cepe]

Because many of us use the DM as a reference for royal related stories, I thought I'd post this article. I'm sure more tabloids will be added to the list.


Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=share_btn_tw

This is my story of the yr and its only February.

Just reinforces what most people know.

And it isnt like most papers because the DM publishes "flat-out fabrication".

 

[EllieCat]

And it isnt like most papers because the DM publishes "flat-out fabrication".

As do two of the three New Zealand 'women's' magazines, with the third hovering.

And let's not forget 'alternative facts'

 

[Dman]

Don't know where to put this, so I'll just put it here-

What's really going on behind the royals' £20,000 hedge  | Daily Mail Online

 

[Pranter]

HA I think I would of put up a castle wall about 12 foot high and 2 foot or so thick...



LaRae

 

[Osipi]

And a moat! A moat with alligators or piranhas! I suppose though that a drawbridge would be asking for too much.

 

[Pranter]

I'm all on board with the moat filled with some of those big 20 or so foot long crocs from Oz...should be doable since there is that connection between the BRF and Oz.....

I think the drawbridge would be a nice touch! Modern of course, working on a electric garage door opener!


LaRae

 

[eya]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...how-the-monarchy-learned-to-love-social-media

"How the Monarchy learned to love Social Media"

 

[Marty91charmed]

Well, the offical accounts (especially on Twitter) have the main purpose of controlling more and more the media, imo. Boosting popularity comes second...

 

[Osipi]

From where I'm sitting in the US, it seems like even the mainstream media here is severely under fire for "fake news" and putting their own spin on things. Part of me believes that these channels and publications and tabloids and online websites (no matter where they are located) have had to resort to some severe changes as just doing responsible journalism as in "who, what, where, why and how" isn't drawing the interest of the public anymore.

In order to beat out the other guy for the public's attention, the more spin you put on something and the more negative things are slanted, the more popular your insights are going to be. Its sad as its putting themselves (the media) first before informing the public or taking into account the actual live, breathing human being they're reporting on.

 

[Muhler]

I'm afraid that's become a universal problem.
I simply do not trust most media anymore, not even among the more serious papers and networks. The number of trustworthy media sources is dwindling.

It's simply become too blatantly obvious that the journalists convey their own views rather than presenting as objective views as possible. - And they can't even see it!

The media has become very much a club of like-minded. People who went the same way in the education system. People who know each other personally, frequent the same places and mingle with the same people.

The number of fact-finding journalists, let alone specialists, are rapidly dwindling. Now they have to cover way too much ground and that's impossible. Sources like Facebook, Google, Wikipedia and Daily Mail have become substitutes four sound, critical journalism.

 

[Rudolph]

Speaking exclusively to Express.co.uk about the Royal Family’s use of social media, Jennie, ex-BBC Royal Correspondent, said: “I very much doubt the Queen is aware of what is going on in Meghan Markle’s social life.

“She keeps herself away from the private lives of her children and indeed, grandchildren. Just look at how long it was before she intervened with Charles and Diana, only really when the marriage was in trouble.”

Despite the Queen herself having a prolific social media profile - her Majesty has a Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube channel - the monarch has only tweeted twice herself to her 2.8million followers on the @royalfamily account.

Yet recent job advertisements from both Buckingham Palace and Clarence House have called for further digital communications experts to join the team behind running the various accounts.

Read more: 'Queen Elizabeth won't even be AWARE of Meghan Markle's Instagram' says Jennie Bond | Life | Life & Style | Express.co.uk

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I agree that the Queen doesn't interfere with her children/grandchildren private lives, but she is of course kept up to date on things that can bring damage/embarrassment to the monarchy, such as: the nazi thing with Harry, the Andrew/Epstein scandal and the News Of The World thing with Sarah etc.

And when it comes to royal news, Jennie Bond is as stupid as Robert Jobson.

 

[cepe]

I agree that the Queen doesn't interfere with her children/grandchildren private lives, but she is of course kept up to date on things that can bring damage/embarrassment to the monarchy, such as: the nazi thing with Harry, the Andrew/Epstein scandal and the News Of The World thing with Sarah etc.

And when it comes to royal news, Jennie Bond is as stupid as Robert Jobson.

Well said

She knows whats going on. The media are just ticked off because they don't know the details.

Hope it always stays that way

 

[Osipi]

I think the Queen does know what's going on in her family's lives in the matter of Harry possibly telling her "I've found and I'm dating a wonderful woman" and maybe telling her a bit about Meghan. I don't know how often they see each other (any members of the Queen's family for that matter) but we do know Harry's asked and has gotten permission to use the private Balmoral grounds for a charity hike. She most likely doesn't follow their tweets or Instagram or any social media though and wouldn't think of interfering with their private lives unless they asked for advice. That's what Grannies do.

There is a whole lot to the royal family's mechanics that we have no clue about and I do think they are entitled to their private lives and especially HM having her "away from the throne" times. They are public servants that do so much for the crown and country and definitely are not a reality show.

 

[cepe]

I think we have always got to remember that HMQ is "The Boss"

Harry wouldn't wait till he was about to or had proposed to anyone before he spoke to the Queen. She's his Granny but he also needs her permission.

The royals have their own family rules (same as we all have) but the press are not involved and therefore just speculate. Especially non-British press who are possibly in unchartered territory.

 

[hel]

A quick look at Jennie Bond's twitter feed seems to indicate that she's currently promoting Co-op Funeral Care's report.

https://twitter.com/coopukpress/status/836554622294687744

Jennie Bond Retweeted
Co-op Press Team‏ @coopukpress 16h16 hours ago
More
"It's about communication @DavidCollingwo1 and I want to break the taboo & encourage conversations about death" @jenniebond1 #DigitalLegacy

This is no different from the LA jeweler name-dropped Catherine and their long ago meeting in Mustique or the Daily Fail popping Kate into a story about Ivanka Trump in order to up their hits.

Jennie is merely making mouth noises about Meghan because it will draw attention to an article that's really about the thing she's being paid to promote.

No-one will read a story about digital media trends relating to death. But put Meghan and HM's names on it, and it's a story with legs.

You can see, and play with, a chart that compares trends in google searches. This link leads to a chart I've made comparing Meghan, Catherine, Eugenie, Emma Watson and Pippa over the last 90 days. . This tool is instructive if you want to see why a given celebrity is being popped into a seemingly unrelated story.

 

[hel]

Good lord, Rebecca English (who by all appearances is a nice, smart lady who's way better than the paper she writes for) is nevertheless doing an amazing job channelling Alison Steadman in the 1995 Pride and Prejudice.

 

[eya]

"Does Prince William really deserve a trial by television?"

IAN HART: Does Prince William really deserve a trial by television? - Worthing Herald

"Let's give Prince William a break"

Camilla Tominey: We should give Prince William a break | Camilla Tominey | Columnists | Comment | Express.co.uk

 

[Skippyboo]

Interesting that the Queen and Philip only started attending the Commonwealth Day service in 2011. Definitely doesn't appear to be in category as Trooping the Colour, Garter Day or the Remembrance weekend events as keystone royal calendar events

 

[Dman]

Interesting that the Queen and Philip only started attending the Commonwealth Day service in 2011. Definitely doesn't appear to be in category as Trooping the Colour, Garter Day or the Remembrance weekend events as keystone royal calendar events

I think William being seen partying on the day was the issue. Nothing wrong with him not being able to attend, but the optics and look of those pictures and videos coming out on that day was something else.

I think the media took the story in the wrong and completely unnecessary path with going on by his number of engagements. I didn't understand that. They all know William has increased his duties and it will increase even more after his pilot job comes to an end. The year just started too. I think this criticism was wrong.

The media should be notice how well William balances family life and official duties. He knows how important both are. The man takes care of his responsibilities.

 

[MARG]

Actually, I am not sure who they were targeting with their stories, or should I have said what?

• William was on a ski trip with his old mates.
• Catherine hates his old mates and didn't even go to many of their weddings.
• Catherine was left home with the kids (we assume).
• William was shirking work (not on duty).
• William was shirking royal duty (not listed to attend).

Has William become lonely for his old friends?
No other wives or girlfriends were there so it wasn't him leaving his wife for the weekend or her refusing to mix.
Was Catherine actually alone at home or did she have plans for the weekend.
The last two are self-explanatory.

I believe they are looking at the mechanics of the Cambridge marriage and trying to stir up or trip over a "problem".

 

[Osipi]

Its very apparent that the media focuses on what seems to be apparent without thinking of things that could be going on behind the scenes and out of the public eyesight. Anything and everything can be read into what things "look" like and the media takes that and runs with it.

For all we know, William was happily sent on the ski trip because with the major in-your-face kind of hectic tour coming up to Paris, Kate's weekend was filled with last minute fittings and alterations to the clothes she was going to wear, there was the hair appointment and the decisions made just which jewelry she was going to wear and if any would be borrowed from the royal vault along with who knows what other details needed to be sorted out.

Now, I was just playing with what "could" possibly be just like the media did with things. Its easy to do. Its just that the media does like to play to the negative slant of things. People love reading about negative things happening in other people's lives for some obscure reason and it generates clicks and draws people to buying their publications. Let's face it. William going skiing and retiring to his room early to call home would be... boring.