Smear Campaign? And if so, by whom? (Re: William and Kate)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I agree, and I'm sure it won't be long before the press is criticising her for it (while privately congratulating itself for having forced her hand). I wonder if they're really surprised about why William is so suspicious of them.
 
Well to bring the subject back to the media, I do think the papers are acting rather arrogantly.

I suspect that they do want to flex their muscles and show the Royal Family that 'we own you, we can make you or break you'

The problem is that for me, a Royal Family that can be so easily controlled by the media is not a family that I would respect.
Do people really believe what the media tells them anymore and more to the point do they care?? I must admit when I listen to reports on the weather I am sceptical and when they report on anything else I wonder what they arent telling me.
 
I also have increasingly the impression that this is all part of a "power game" between the press and the young royals (especially William). Honestly the press doesn't really care for the rest but William and Kate really sell. Information about them is worth thousands of Pounds but they dare not to deliver. No "inside leaks", hardly any pictures together mostly well on a distance with no PDA, no engagment and wedding that could be marketed all in all hardly anthing that really sells - hence the press is showing its ugly side. Pretty much like blackmail. We'll trash you until you provide us with some gossip to sell papers.
That's why I am also not so sure anymore whether the post on the Party Pieces site was really such a good idea. In a way Kate has given in. The press "demanded" her to declare what it is she does 24/7 by calling her names etc and she gave in and made that "public announcement" about her employment at Party Pieces.

Well said, Isana. I think the press have been looking for a good story about W & K for a long time and not really found it. Hence, its always the same bits rehashed. What amazes me is how some members of these forums seem to take what the tabloids publish as the gospel.

I actually do thing the Party Pieces website upodate was a pretty need way of addressing the Waity-Katie bit. The press had really started baying for blood on this point, and it was important that it be addressed, once and for all. If they hadn't, the idle Waity-Katie story would juts not have died down.
 
I agree about this probable "power game" between the press and the royals. How ironic that they'll most likely be playing this love-hate relationship all their lives.

The name Kate Middleton must generate enormous public interest... perhaps more than I thought. On top of the papers she sells, we've read her impact on merchandise... clothes... roller skates! Must be a huge blow for the media that she's decided to spend most of her days quietly in Berkshire. As for the Party Pieces updates, I think it was a sensible move. One way or the other, she'd have to prove that she is working. And it's actually quite admirable that they took this long to update the About Us section, since I'm certain First Birthdays has been around for a while. I know it feels like she has given in, but they have left her no choice. What's a girl to do if she has no voice? Sometimes I wonder why the Middletons couldn't just hire a publicist like most celebrities. Anyhow, I don't think it's a defeat. A real defeat in this power game with the media would be if she got another 9-5 job, in London, where they could be free to snap shots of her day after day after unending day, scrutinize her actions, her hair, her wardrobe, and ultimately sell truckloads of papers.
 
Do people really believe what the media tells them anymore and more to the point do they care?? I must admit when I listen to reports on the weather I am sceptical and when they report on anything else I wonder what they arent telling me.
There are some very guilable people out there! :beamup:
 
There are some very guilable people out there! :beamup:
True but surely people understand that the media is financed by advertising/sales. A story about PW and KM going on a few dates quite happy in each others company enjoying themselves wont sell the same papers as a scandal/breakup/conspiracy/engagement. If they manage to combine the four they can name their price for their magazines:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
True but surely people understand that the media is financed by advertising/sales.
True, in theory. The thing is, from time to time, gossip pages do get a story right. With the current economic instability, there are a lot of people angry or shattered by downturn in their own finances while corporate chiefs get to walk away with millions after running their companies to ground. Papers like Daily Mail highlights the discrepancies in living standards between the haves and havenots. They do serve the purpose of highlighting inequities and provide a conduit for the general public to vent their anger and frustration. On the flip side, this excercise can also give both the writers and editors an enormouse sense of power: ability to influence and lead changes without the associating responsibilities and accountabilities of an individual manager, say the Prime Minister. And their readers, given a platform to voice their opinion on the posting boards anonymously, again without accountability, feel free to leave some of the most vitrios messages without guilt. If these posters were asked in face to face interviews on the same subjects, most would never say the same things they posted. Seeing ladies like Kate who don't seems to have any financial worries touches in some people, a nasty spot of envy, jealousy, and I suspect, some selfloathing.
 
They do serve the purpose of highlighting inequities and provide a conduit for the general public to vent their anger and frustration.......
Seeing ladies like Kate who don't seems to have any financial worries touches in some people, a nasty spot of envy, jealousy, and I suspect, some selfloathing.
I am all for free press and I hear you about the jealousy I just personally wish that the press would hold itself to a higher standard ( I live in hope). We see more and more that the media itself is the story instead of reporting it and that annoys me. I do think Kate is paying for the complaint though . Whether it is the press getting even or simply filling columns with criticism that used to be filled with paparazzi snaps. They may also be trying to flex their muscles as other posters have suggested and establish a dominance in the relationship with Kate. I cant see them winning that war long term after Diana there is more public sympathy with the young royals than with the press.
 
:sad: As far as the DM is concerned, they did seem to have a "lazy Kate/perfect Chelsy" narrative going on up until the wedding - now they seem to be treating Kate better. I think they just do that because it's a template that sells papers - I've heard that they had the exact same template with Diana and Fergie, where Fergie was the fun, free-spirited one they praised.
 
:sad: As far as the DM is concerned, they did seem to have a "lazy Kate/perfect Chelsy" narrative going on up until the wedding - now they seem to be treating Kate better. I think they just do that because it's a template that sells papers - I've heard that they had the exact same template with Diana and Fergie, where Fergie was the fun, free-spirited one they praised.


Maybe it is just me but I think the British press tends to write very favorably towards Kate almost to the point of wondering if they ever bothered to consider that no one is perfect. At the wedding the British media was instructed by the Queen not to say anything bad about the wedding and they complied. Talk about biased journalism.
 
The British tabs are merciless...you are right I remember when they were praising Fergie as a "breath of fresh air" (got so damn sick of that phrase!):bang: Meanwhile, Diana was a neurotic, high maintenance depressed shrew in a bad marriage.

Then when they turned on her(Sarah) she was a fat, lazy freeloader who had no sense of style and was a terrible mother.

And it happened VERY quickly...so if I was Kate, Pippa or even Chelsy I'd be very careful.

The Daily Mail giveth, and the Daily Mail TAKETH AWAY.
 
Did Kate and William virtually disappear from the media limelight when they moved to be near his RAF job? I admit I don't pay much attention to them, but it seems that there was kind of a blackout with them beginning at that time.
 
No - they took random tabloid pictures of both of them. No blackout that I could see.
 
Did Kate and William virtually disappear from the media limelight when they moved to be near his RAF job? I admit I don't pay much attention to them, but it seems that there was kind of a blackout with them beginning at that time.


No - it is due to the fact that Anglessey isn't all that busy a place so there is little media there - they would have to go out of their way to find them there whereas when they are in London there are lots of media available to report on them.

Over the next two years, while William is working there, we will see little of them for the same reason, except when on official duties.
 
The coverage will change, trust me. It always does. What's this about the Queen telling the press not to say anything bad about the wedding? It's news to me.:ermm:


Maybe it is just me but I think the British press tends to write very favorably towards Kate...At the wedding the British media was instructed by the Queen not to say anything bad about the wedding and they complied.
 
Maybe it is just me but I think the British press tends to write very favorably towards Kate almost to the point of wondering if they ever bothered to consider that no one is perfect. At the wedding the British media was instructed by the Queen not to say anything bad about the wedding and they complied. Talk about biased journalism.


Can you post a link from an official site, or unofficial site for that matter, to back up the claim that the Queen or anyone for that matter, instructed the press not to say anything negative about the wedding?
 
The coverage will change, trust me. It always does. What's this about the Queen telling the press not to say anything bad about the wedding? It's news to me.:ermm:


I heard on one of the channels I was watching stateside but I don't remember which one. I do find it interesting how the media has always regarded her. In the American media, people magazine for example, has never written a critical article about Kate. By that I mean it is always just glowing reviews. I am not asking them to rip her apart but they could appear less biased. You could also consider that The daily mail pointed out that some European newspapers thought Kate's dress was nothing but a copy while England and America's media seemed to love it.

Since she is royalty and he proposed they have just accepted her. When she makes a mistake though they will jump all over her just to make up for it and I wonder if she will be able to handle a less than generous media.
 
:previous: The American press may suck up to Kate and William as much as they like. They seem to believe William is some sort of Diana reincarnation. :whistling:

As to the Queen telling the British Press what it may and may not print, write or show, hell will freeze over before the tabloids would "take orders" from the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury or God himself! :ROFLMAO:
 
MARG said:
As to the Queen telling the British Press what it may and may not print, write or show, hell will freeze over before the tabloids would "take orders" from the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury or God himself! :ROFLMAO:

Well they certainly don't ''take orders'' but they do have a gentleman's agreement about certain things, far more then the US Press would ever agree too- like leaving William along at college or not publically stating the exact location of their house in Wales or most reputable papers agreeing not to try and follow them on their honeymoon, the US press would never agree not to publicize these things as the British press have done

Doesn't Britain has a press complaint dept where plp can complain about how harsh they've been treated or something? I believe the Middleton's did before the wedding....I don't believe the US tabloid press had that, we just have the courts
 
Well they certainly don't ''take orders'' but they do have a gentleman's agreement about certain things, far more then the US Press would ever agree too- like leaving William along at college or not publically stating the exact location of their house in Wales or most reputable papers agreeing not to try and follow them on their honeymoon, the US press would never agree not to publicize these things as the British press have done

Doesn't Britain has a press complaint dept where plp can complain about how harsh they've been treated or something? I believe the Middleton's did before the wedding....I don't believe the US tabloid press had that, we just have the courts


You are right they do have gentleman's agreement with the press. That shouldn't be ignored. I really don't think that the royals should make this type of agreements because while it might give the royals space it gives the public the impression of a press that isn't willing to do there job. That and the press could turn on the royals and make them regret the day they made a deal with them.
 
She's handled it well enough so far. The Daily Mail was horrid to her and her family for years.


When she makes a mistake though they will jump all over her just to make up for it and I wonder if she will be able to handle a less than generous media.
 
One thing that we're dealing with now that we didn't worry about so much in the 80s and 90s is terrorism. To leak where Kate and William live would be dangerous given that they don't have the protection they'd have if they lived in a palace. They have some protection but presumably not walls and gates. The agreement about William and Harry was after their mother's death. Had Diana not died as she did, there might not have been an agreement.


You are right they do have gentleman's agreement with the press. That shouldn't be ignored.
 
One thing that we're dealing with now that we didn't worry about so much in the 80s and 90s is terrorism. To leak where Kate and William live would be dangerous given that they don't have the protection they'd have if they lived in a palace. They have some protection but presumably not walls and gates. The agreement about William and Harry was after their mother's death. Had Diana not died as she did, there might not have been an agreement.


The press ageement came into play when William started school - due to the nature of the set out of Eton College. William, and later Harry, would have been seen walking around the town to get from one building to another and so the agreement was in place before Diana died.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The press ageement came into play when William started school - due to the nature of the set out of Eton College. William, and later Harry, would have been seen walking around the town to get from one building to another and so the agreement was in place before Diana died.

Wasn't that because they were minors? But at St Andrews he was an adult and that's when the gentleman's agreement I was referring too took place....
 
Wasn't that because they were minors? But at St Andrews he was an adult and that's when the gentleman's agreement I was referring too took place....


It was more to do with fact that the school isn't a normal one campus type school - like Ludgrove where they went to Primary school. Thus just to get from one lesson to the next they might have to be in the main street in Windsor.

The agreement made was that they would be able to go about their education without press reporting these events and William was still in education at St Andrews but the agreement to leave them alone while being educated was made before they started at Eton and continued until William left St Andrews.

They did also agree to leave him alone totally - unlike the York girls whose nights out are reported.
 
Last edited:
Oh right. Perhaps it affected the "gentlemen's agreement" about St. Andrews.

I remember how Harry had the sleeves too long on his jacket when he signed the book at Eton and thinking that the jacket would have fit better had his mother been alive. I'm not a Diana-worshipper, but I think that's something that she would have noticed.


 
You could also consider that The daily mail pointed out that some European newspapers thought Kate's dress was nothing but a copy while England and America's media seemed to love it.
Yes, a lot of the US and British media did rave about Kate's dress, but there were also a lot of comparisons to Grace's (I personally don't think they're similar). So I'm not even sure what point the daily mail was trying to make. Do they realize that it's possible to notice similarities but still love Kate's dress?

Since she is royalty and he proposed they have just accepted her. When she makes a mistake though they will jump all over her just to make up for it and I wonder if she will be able to handle a less than generous media.
She'll handle it fine - just like always. She's endured years of a less than generous media - like the attacks on her family, the accusations of social climbing, the criticisms about her job. And let's not forget it was the media that invented the name "Waitey Katie". Kate knows how the press operate, so I doubt she'll be surprised when they decide to turn negative again.
 
Last edited:
. . . . . . At the wedding the British media was instructed by the Queen not to say anything bad about the wedding and they complied. Talk about biased journalism.
I obviously was not clear in my earlier reply. Standards of conduct negotiated for when Princes William and Harry were at school notwithstanding. There is absolutely no way, not even a snowball's show in hell that the the Queen could "instruct" the British Media. Not the Queen, not the Prime Minister, not the Archbishop of Canterbury and not even God could tell the British Media what they could report, write, print or say about the Wedding or indeed any other aspect of Royal Life.

If the BRF had that sort of power they would have exercised in to greater effect after the divorce of Charles and Diana.

So there you have it, ugly headlines at will, however and whenever they want!!! Obviously they didn't "want" to at the wedding. Maybe they, like millions of others took the opportunity to revel in a rare bit of good news.
 
Last edited:
Plus, if "they" even tried to stifle the press, it would be reported. Agreements not to publish are just that--agreements. They aren't one-sided.


There is absolutely no way, not even a snowball's show in hell that the the Queen could "instruct" the British Media.
 
You are right they do have gentleman's agreement with the press. That shouldn't be ignored. I really don't think that the royals should make this type of agreements because while it might give the royals space it gives the public the impression of a press that isn't willing to do there job. That and the press could turn on the royals and make them regret the day they made a deal with them.


There may be an agreement not to report certain things but that won't stop the press from doing their jobs e.g. not saying exactly which house in Anglessey is the one where William and Kate are living is fine - we know that they are living there and there are press reports of the way they are living there but just not the exact house. Most people understand why that is the case.

The press write just as many negative stories about the royals as they do the positive ones so it isn't as if the press don't do their jobs but rather that they actually realise that some things aren't necessarily in the public interest for a range of reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom