The Royal Family and the Media

[ACO]

Charles and Camilla just head their press pack reception. It was listed in the CC which was odd. I assume the Cambridges and Sussexes will also be holding their soon enough as this fall is busy.

 

[Lady Reem]

I doubt the media pack will be a granted a question & answer session anytime soon with Meghan anymore than they have with Sophie, Kate and other royal wives. And why should they have that level of access? It’d just be an excuse/platform for the pack to unnecessarily hound her, intrude into personal boundaries. Nope, I doubt it will happen. Meghan will stay focused on royal duties, patronages, etc. and concentrate on her natural audience. She is not a politician. She supports her husband and vice verse in representing the Queen, within a team of other members of the BRF.

 

[Winnie]

Lady Reem, your last post was completely correct. Her "job" now is as a wife in support of her husband in his role as grandson of Queen. He in turn will support her and her love of helping others, which Harry likewise does. The Media in it's time went after Kate and her family and years ago Sophie. It seems to be the media's job to try and destroy but they failed then and they will again with Meghan. Pathetic to always have to find fault on others whether for their personal lives or clothes that they wear or worse make up knowingly false stories. I sincerely hope that Harry and Meghan hold strictly to a division in their private and royal roles which will make for a calm and happy marriage. JMHO

 

[Lady Reem]

Lady Reem, your last post was completely correct. Her "job" now is as a wife in support of her husband in his role as grandson of Queen. He in turn will support her and her love of helping others, which Harry likewise does. The Media in it's time went after Kate and her family and years ago Sophie. It seems to be the media's job to try and destroy but they failed then and they will again with Meghan. Pathetic to always have to find fault on others whether for their personal lives or clothes that they wear or worse make up knowingly false stories. I sincerely hope that Harry and Meghan hold strictly to a division in their private and royal roles which will make for a calm and happy marriage. JMHO

They specifically single out the Duchess of Sussex for this particular ‘special’ kind on treatment. They want a session with her on her own. Well they can get lost after what she’s been subjected to by media sorts even the so-called ‘serious ones’ - and by god there’s been plenty of that.

 

[Zaira]

Actually, I do recall the media had a meet and greet with Kate after the wedding. It was off the books and casual. I believe Palmer mentioned it a ways back. Anyone else remember this?

Anyway, I think Meghan should take her cues from Camilla. Camilla is fairly media friendly, and lord knows NO other royal wife faced the level of negative scrutiny she did for years (no without merit given the history). But she and her team were smart in making friendly with the media. Still properly distant, but talking to them and giving them quotes on engagements, giving the photographers direct shots and doing off the record meetings.

 

[Fros]

Actually, I do recall the media had a meet and greet with Kate after the wedding. It was off the books and casual. I believe Palmer mentioned it a ways back. Anyone else remember this?

Anyway, I think Meghan should take her cues from Camilla. Camilla is fairly media friendly, and lord knows NO other royal wife faced the level of negative scrutiny she did for years (no without merit given the history). But she and her team were smart in making friendly with the media. Still properly distant, but talking to them and giving them quotes on engagements, giving the photographers direct shots and doing off the record meetings.

There were 2 incidents that William's team personally intervened with the press over the coverage Kate was getting. Shortly before their wedding some of the more harsher critics of the press were contact by William's team.

Amanda Platell spoke about it in this article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2078175/Kate-Middleton-Im-sorry-getting-wrong.html

"Shortly before Kate Middleton became the Duchess of Cambridge at the royal wedding in April, I was taken aside by Prince William’s people for a quiet word and told I was not being fair to her."

I believe after Charlotte's birth the press were giving the Cambridges a hard time about limiting access to their kids so there was an off the record meetting with select members of the press and the Cambridge family and kids. I remember Emily Andrews tweeting about how George looked very much like Kate's side of the family.

The difference between Camilla and Meghan's situation.

I say this as a person who likes Camilla but while a ton of bad press towards her was unwarranted some of the bad press towards her was because of her own actions. She was the other woman in the marriage, she was the mistress that is a fact.

I don't think Meghan's actions have warranted the sort of bad press she gets. It's been a one-sided assault against her using terrible people who were part of her life to spew abuse and defame her.

The other difference a lot of the tension between the press is in regards to lack of access BUT Harry and Meghan do give the press access when it comes to work but they see their private lives as off limits- which is the cause of the tension even if they grant an interview or whatever it is the press want they will always want more (and its more likely they want to know more about Meghan's relationship with her father rather than anything actually useful)

 

[jacqui24]

Look, by reporter accounts, the longer distance from Meghan only started after the wedding. It wasn't always like this, which tells me there was goodwill from the Sussexes at first. I'm sure they can all do the math as to why this changed. Time to stop playing stupid and do their part if they want to have a mutually beneficial working relationship.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The media don't care at all. All they care about is the money they are able to make and if that means selling nasty stories they will write them. They have always done that - they portray one royal as good and the other as bad, the take sides, they manipulate the public to do their bidding. As long as people buy their stories they will continue printing them and they don't care what the royals or anyone else says about them. They will turn on a royal when that royal doesn't give them what they want.

 

[loonytick]

As someone who has worked in relation to non-royal iterations of press pack receptions (they happen a lot with government officials and the press who cover them), I’ve seen most fall into two categories.

There are off-the-record information sessions, where reporters are given background information that helps them understand what the officials are doing. These usually are to either head off wild speculation in the press or to hopefully influence the tone of future coverage. I would say the Cambridge’s meeting regarding the kids was in this category: “no need to guess why you don’t see much our kids, these are our priorities for protecting them which need to be respected.”

The other category is much more casual, and I bet it’s what press are hoping to get with Meghan before the tour. These meet and greets are purely social, a chance to just be comfortable with each other and acknowledge that they all spend a significant portion of their working time together. Based on it being called a reception, Charles and Camilla’s press pack event was probably one of this type. Both sides agree to these for the same reason: to be seen as human and not “the enemy.” And honestly, it tends to work.

In neither model are reporters firing off questions.

The complicating factor, however, is that reporters on the royal beat are only one part of the press that covers royals. Their editors aren’t in the room for these events. Neither are the general assignment reporters who are often the ones who write the most hostile, boneheaded or misinformed articles.

 

[Fijiro]

The incident at the Fiji Market, IMO because Prince Harry and Meghan were on separate events, the security team that was always with both had to be divided; hence there was no amply security at the market. And coupled with the fact that the market crowd was much bigger than probably what they expected, things got out of hand real quickly.

 

[ACO]

A recap from a non royal reporter perspective.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/traveling-meghan-harry-reporters-notebook/story?id=58894240

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

 

[RaggedyAnn]

A recap from a non royal reporter perspective.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/traveling-meghan-harry-reporters-notebook/story?id=58894240

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

I think his comments on the couple and the media were interesting. Especially about understanding why the media is kept at arm's length because of certain reporting. It was informative in that regard. Again, I will reiterate that we need new and more diverse royal reporters because the same old same old is clearly not doing anything to advance their relationship with the family.

 

[jacqui24]

I think his comments on the couple and the media were interesting. Especially about understanding why the media is kept at arm's length because of certain reporting. It was informative in that regard. Again, I will reiterate that we need new and more diverse royal reporters because the same old same old is clearly not doing anything to advance their relationship with the family.

It is indeed an interesting point. It's worth noting that the reporters that originally tried a very bad spin on the Suva Market situation are slowly changing their tone. But when it first happen, it was definitely was turned into something that it was not by blaming Meghan. Some didn't even bother to explain it was a situation her security made, rather than her until they were taken to task.

 

[Zaira]

A recap from a non royal reporter perspective.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/traveling-meghan-harry-reporters-notebook/story?id=58894240

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

It was very interesting to me the high calibre of the correspondents the US stations sent on this tour. James articles was great, I thought, in highlighting why these kinds of tours are important.

I think his comments about the relationship between the usual RRs and the H/M were spot on, but I do worry that the distance will not be good for the couple in the long run. Harry used to be much more engaged with reporters on trips and it benefited him I think. I think there is a balance to be struck and i hope these two find it.

But James comment about Suva was especially spot on. The RRs reporting on it (minus a couple) was really not good.

 

[AlowVera]

It is indeed an interesting point. It's worth noting that the reporters that originally tried a very bad spin on the Suva Market situation are slowly changing their tone. But when it first happen, it was definitely was turned into something that it was not by blaming Meghan. Some didn't even bother to explain it was a situation her security made, rather than her until they were taken to task.

I was surprised by their lack of empathy for a pregnant woman even though it was not the case what if she might have felt faint and had to make a hasty retreat. Their first tweets where to assign blame instead of find out how the Duchess was?



I loved how in New Zealand one of the host said to them we know how much you have done, this is your time to relax. Why not give the girl a break? They can teach the uk press a thing or two.

 

[jacqui24]

The Australian reporters are also a stark contrast to the UK reporters on the Suva market issue.

There is also an article out today by UK media that said Meghan didn't speak enough and she stood there like a good wife of the past. 3 speeches in 5 days isn't enough for them? When was the last time we got that much from a royal spouse on the first major tour?

 

[RaggedyAnn]

One reporter also said this tour was too Hollywood. Um? Where? Specifics please?

 

[Osipi]

The Australian reporters are also a stark contrast to the UK reporters on the Suva market issue.

There is also an article out today by UK media that said Meghan didn't speak enough and she stood there like a good wife of the past. 3 speeches in 5 days isn't enough for them? When was the last time we got that much from a royal spouse on the first major tour?

Know what would have happened had Meghan spoken more than she did? The UK media would be putting out emergency bulletins that Meghan was trying to overshadow Harry and then take it from there in a direction I don't even want to *think* about.

It was refreshing to read the Australian and the New Zealand coverage of the tour because, frankly, it was positive and drew us right along with them as they followed Harry and Meghan.

 

[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]

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]

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]

A recap from a non royal reporter perspective.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/traveling-meghan-harry-reporters-notebook/story?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/....html?utm_source=tw&__twitter_impression=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.