Smear campaign? And if so, by whom?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Sometimes I get an impression that Miss Middleton's friends feed information to news papers. Of course, I can be wrong...

Of course they feed information - but only positive ones which cannot be used against William and Catherine. The problem of the tabloids is that they don't seem to be getting at sources who know or tell about things the media could use for negative purposes. But I persoanlly doubt Catherine has that many friends left that are not children or grandchildren from Charles' or the queen's circle of friends. Which is a sad thought.

[Ifmeister]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Sometimes I get an impression that Miss Middleton's friends feed information to news papers. Of course, I can be wrong...

I wouldn't speculate that Miss Middleton's friends are necessarily the problem. I'm not sure what you know first hand of our tabloid papers here, but I suspect that much of what they print is ill-informed speculation. That is how our tabloids tend to work here, hence the many apologies they have to write and the numerous litigation cases they lose each year.

[Al_bina]

Well, I have an idea about tabloids. Not all information printed by yellow papers happens to be incorrect. I think that it is more about responsible interpretation of information/facts tabloids publish.
If in fact Miss Middleton's friends do provide information to news papers, they have to stop giving any information to any news papers because (1) news papers can creatively interpret this information and (2) the friends can do nothing effectual about it.

[Ifmeister]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Well, I have an idea about tabloids. Not all information printed by yellow papers happens to be incorrect. I think It is more about responsible interpretation of information/facts tabloids publish.
If in fact Miss Middleton's friends do provide information to news papers, they have to stop giving any information to any news papers because (1) news papers can creatively interpret this information and (2) the friends can do nothing effectual about it.

I would have underlined the word "If". Since we don't know, it is merely speculation.

[Elspeth]

Well, obviously from the article about the members of the other discussion forum, they're going to online forums for some of their information. It isn't just the tabloids, because we've been quoted by the Times at least once in recent years (although, thankfully, a lot more discreetly than the way the Mail treated the members at the other forum). I suppose it makes sense for the papers to keep tabs on royalty discussion forums as a way of seeing how people interested in royalty are reacting to both the royals and the stories about them.

However, I noticed that the Mail article said that the detail in the posts at the other forum suggests that the authors knew the Middletons. Setting aside the question of why a bunch of friends and acquaintances of this family would be trashing them on a discussion board, it did make me wonder how short a step it might be from "posts so detailed that the authors must know Kate" to "a source close to Kate." Because if the papers are getting their information from discussion boards (and presenting it as "an acquaintance of Kate Middleton told me") and discussion boards are getting their information from papers, that really does lead to the question of how authoritative anything is in the papers.

Having said that, I agree with Incas that there's an element of power and control going on - that the tabloids can make the royals dance to their tune if they want to - and that's probably one reason for the way they're acting. I just can't persuade myself that they aren't also trying to really damage the monarchy, because reducing the royal family to trivia and whipping up public feeling against senior royals can only do damage in the long run.

[TheTruth]

The thing is that, with the Mail, there will always be Saint Diana and the others. I'm pretty sure if she was alive and approved of Kate being William's girlfriend, there wouldn't be such a campaign against her. They've lost their cash cow and now it's like no one can get any positive report except people who liked Diana (cf. the recent article on Richard Attenborough). Perhaps they think William, since he's Diana's son, is too good for any woman except for his mother. Perhaps they wish him to be a bachelor all his life. Wonder how this will produce an heir ...

[Little_star]

Whatever happened to people not being fond of a public figure? Kate may not be a public figure but she is dating one (and a very high-profile at that) so inevitably there will be media attention that will result in people having opinions on Kate. Whether that is right or wrong is a different issue. So far as a concerted media smear, I don't think so.

Tha Mail is a trashy paper and always has been, they will print whatever they think will be accepted by the public imo. If you agree or disagree there is quite a strong public perception now that Kate is lazy, Will and Harry are lazy etc. I don't necessarily subscribe to that thinking but I do believe that a growing number of ordinary people do.

On a completely separate note I'm getting sick and tired of certain members claiming that dislike=jealousy. It's certainly a very illogical and incredibly weak leap to make.

[Isana]

I have the feeling the "smear campaign" started in the internet community and then translated to the papers. I have noted that there's a rather opinionated group of posters on several forums who are very much opposed to Kate Middleton and have been so for quite some time even long before any negative article was written about her. At first it was denied that she even was William's grilfriend then after university the first row of criticism started because Kate didn't have a job right away, then when she worked at Jigsaw her every picture was dissected, criticised and her every move torn apart. Finally she and her whole family were insulted as social climbers and golddiggers and now it's the Waity Katie line (a phrase, which was coined by someone at TIF, I think).
The Daily Mail obviously caught up with this group online and decided to use some of their story lines for their own publication - probably because they have no access to any real insiders as all the wrong reports about a possible engagement, Kate working for Testino, Kate living in Clarence House, Kate's mother attending Ascot with the Queen etc. clearly show.

[Luv2Cruise]

Originally Posted by Isana

I have the feeling the "smear campaign" started in the internet community and then translated to the papers. I have noted that there's a rather opinionated group of posters on several forums who are very much opposed to Kate Middleton and have been so for quite some time even long before any negative article was written about her. At first it was denied that she even was William's grilfriend then after university the first row of criticism started because Kate didn't have a job right away, then when she worked at Jigsaw her every picture was dissected, criticised and her every move torn apart. Finally she and her whole family were insulted as social climbers and golddiggers and now it's the Waity Katie line (a phrase, which was coined by someone at TIF, I think).
The Daily Mail obviously caught up with this group online and decided to use some of their story lines for their own publication - probably because they have no access to any real insiders as all the wrong reports about a possible engagement, Kate working for Testino, Kate living in Clarence House, Kate's mother attending Ascot with the Queen etc. clearly show.

This is EXACTLY what has happened. Thank you Isana, for speaking the ROYAL TRUTH.

The Daily Mail and others printed very favorable pieces about Kate early in her relationship with William. They've been reading internet royalty fora -- one in particular where the posters have disparaged Kate Middleton from Day 1 -- and have picked up their sleazy and disgusting lies and run with them. End of Story. "Waity Katey" originated at that horrible message forum. And then the Daily Mail, for whatever reason, outed much of the source of their erroneous information, complete with screen names and quotes and pictures that the posters at that site lifted from Facebook and put on that board. There are other photos of James where he is enjoying his friends while sailing, there are pictures of Kate's family's bonfire at their home, none of which will see the light of day because those aren't salacious enough. Those pictures of James in the French maid outfit and and other photos of Kate were emailed to the Daily Mail by some of those posters. Some of them would even hint coyly at having done it.

{inflammatory comment deleted - Elspeth}

[Elspeth]

The Times...

Seriously, Skydragon, don't the upper classes read The Mail for a bit of light relief?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The Times...

Seriously, Skydragon, don't the upper classes read The Mail for a bit of light relief?

Yes The Times is a hot favourite and the FT of course, followed I think by The Telegraph.

When we have guests or are guests, all of the papers are available to read and to be fair (), The Mail does have some interesting stories about a variety of subjects. They just seem to allow one or two no hopers print space, to invent 'stories', IMOoc, about some members of the Royal Family.
The Sun seems to be a hot favourite with some of the males, must be the pictures!

[Winnie]

I have read all the above statements, but I still don't understand why a smear campaign against Kate. What is the British Media afraid of that would cause such a thing, or is it just the fact that they don't have another "Royal" to pull apart at the present time? Rather silly in the long scheme of things and world news.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Winnie

Rather silly in the long scheme of things and world news.

But that's exactly the point: the buyers decide daily on the success of the editor-in-chief of a daily paper. So there is not much room for the "long scheme of things" but it's the need to have daily an eye-catcher as their lead in order to be the paper bought by commuters on their way to work. Because these commuters can decide daily if they take the Mail, the Sun or the Express at the news stands or at these little boxes at the entrances of the tube station.

[Warren]

Harry was the suitable media whipping boy for a while (smoking dope, SS uniform etc) but now he's served in Afghanistan he's harder to attack. Chelsy is in Leeds studying, so she's not much of a target. It's hard to whip up a media storm about William (the helicopter stuff died a quick death) so it seems that Kate's the one. It's easier with her because so much about her is a mystery, therefore more can be made up.

[zembla]

Media backlash is common in these cases, what goes up must come down. We now seem to live for seeing people rise fast and fall fast and then "redeem" themselves.

ETA: I've noticed a few stories on her brother lately and just noticed these new pics, he is a bit of a hot mess LOL...someone should talk to him.

[Duchess]

i don't think you could call the few semi negative/negative stories about catherine a "smear campaign"...just a change of pace from the usual fluff pieces that they've been printing. the summer is usually slow news time so they have to do something. you want smear campaing? the duchess of york during her marriage....need i say more.

[Kezza]

From what I understand is James himself registered on The Internet Forum Late last year when pics of him started to get posted on the forum. He apparently became friends with a few of them who liked Kate and his Family and let them have access to his facebook account to which those very people posted even more pics of James. One of those posters is said to know James in person, that posted a lot of photo's of James and his sister pippa. The Daily Mail lifted a lot of what that poster said and did and contributed it to the wrong poster.

Those pics didn't come from those so called nasty people they came from people who claimed to know James, or are fans of Kate.

Also the press are the ones who are smearing Kate not members of a forum, they just use us as an excuse to hide their own agendas.

[Little_star]

In what way are the Middleton family under seige? If the posts on this forum are correct then the only paper that is coducting the "smear campagin" is the Daily Mail and they are simply one paper out of half a dozen other tabloids.

Personally I think it's wrong of the Daily Mail to post personal information about family members, it's clearly a step over the line. However, if you believed some of the posts here you would think the entire country was talking about the Middletons when quite obviously they are not.

[amandamrgt]

Sorry, but I'm not buying this anti-Middleton smear campaign. Daily Mail may be just a tabloid, but it is sort of telling the truth, isn't it?
I found the latest report that Catherine is actually working 9 to 5 quite absurd really; working for your family may or may not be easier (I, for one, now pursue family buisness), but she's been holidaying all the time and is always "available" when William is around.

I don't have anything against Catherine personally, she can be a pretty nice girl for all I know. But if I were her, I wouldn't put whole my life on hold for anyone, even for a prince.

[Isana]

She didn't holiday "all the time" this year. She was on three vacations with William Klosters in March/April, Mustique in May, Mustique in August. That's 3 weeks and a very common amount of holidays for European standards. You get about 4-6 weeks off plus bank holidays in Europe. I think in the US it's much less.
Most events she attended (with the exception of the wings and the Garter) took place on weekends - so no sign for her not working either. She was hardly seen out and about enough to leave no time to work at Party Pieces. To the contrary. She was hardly photographed. For example the last pics of her and William clubbing were taken August 15 that's 3 weeks ago.