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.
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.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.
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.
There are some very guilable people out there!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.
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 magazinesThere are some very guilable people out there!
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.True but surely people understand that the media is financed by advertising/sales.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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....
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?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.
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.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.
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.. . . . . . 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.
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.