Talking to the media

Started by Mike, December 23, 2017, 05:05:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mike

I remember in Diana's day there differing opinions whether or not it was wise for Royals to do interviews with the press.  What are the current thoughts on this?    :xmas4:
Mark Twain:
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
and
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

Kritter

I think they should do interviews in order to promote their various works & passions. I think the old days of constant mystery should end in the information age or they will find themselves irrelevant.    :random44:

royalanthropologist

I really do think that Diana was a revelation in terms of press management. Before her, the British monarchy was a crusty institution that was so removed from reality that it was in danger of being forgotten altogether. She showed them that you need not always ignore the press and that it can be useful for you in certain situations. Her work on landmines through the press is exemplary. She shone the light on causes that would have otherwise been forgotten and the press was very useful in this.

At the same time we must be honest and recognize the fact that the BRF never has had and currently does not have anyone who has Diana's charisma or personality in general. I am not even too sure they want someone like that again so it is a bit tough to get them to engage on the same level. Of course the press was also  part of Diana's downfall so perhaps there is a cautionary tale there for the family too.

Generally speaking I think that you just have to be cautious what you say and not say because the press is always looking for controversy somewhere.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

Quote from: Mike on December 23, 2017, 05:05:34 PM
I remember in Diana's day there differing opinions whether or not it was wise for Royals to do interviews with the press.  What are the current thoughts on this?    :xmas4:
They have done interviews with the press for years and years.  What they have NOT done was to share marital troubles with the press....

Kritter

^ Then Charles broke that rule with his interview to explain his personal problems & Diana followed his lead.   :Lothwen:

TLLK

#5
Quote from: Kritter on December 23, 2017, 05:10:50 PM
I think they should do interviews in order to promote their various works & passions. I think the old days of constant mystery should end in the information age or they will find themselves irrelevant.    :random44:
:goodpost:@Kritter

Most monarchs, heirs, other family members  grant interviews throughout the year. QEII is a  notable exception to this policy. :xmas8:

IMO they should also continue to share this work through their various social media accounts. Nearly every royal family has their own official Twitter, Instagram or Facebook accounts in addition to their official websites.

Here is Jordan's Twitter account- RHC (@RHCJO) | Twitter and Spain's Casa de S.M. el Rey (@CasaReal) | Twitter 

Denmark's official website has links to their social media accounts. Media centre | The Danish Monarchy - Front Page


QuoteThey have done interviews with the press for years and years.  What they have NOT done was to share marital troubles with the press...
:goodpost: @amabel
IMO the other royal houses observed the BRF's  messy divorces from the 1990's and did their best to keep marital problems contained to official press releases. Denmark's Prince Joachim and Princess Alexandra waited until after the CP couple's 2004 wedding to announce their separation, divorce and the eventual remarriage of both Joachim and Alexandra. (Alexandra's second marriage has also ended in divorce.) Spain seemed to keep the lid on Infanta Elena and Jaime's divorce too.

Only Luxembourg seems to be seeing some cracks with Louis and Tessy's divorce  IMO.

QuoteI really do think that Diana was a revelation in terms of press management. Before her, the British monarchy was a crusty institution that was so removed from reality that it was in danger of being forgotten altogether. She showed them that you need not always ignore the press and that it can be useful for you in certain situations. Her work on landmines through the press is exemplary. She shone the light on causes that would have otherwise been forgotten and the press was very useful in this.

:goodpost:@royalanthropologist- I agree that she did like Prince Phillip did much to revolutionize the way that the BRF highlights its charitable activities and day to day operations.  Thank you for your positive post on the late Princess of Wales.  :thumbsup:

Most royal houses have their own form of a Court Diary that is still released to print media and on their official websites. Some do an excellent job of keeping them updated  ie: Spain's Casa Real site. Others...not so much ie: British Monarchy. (They've been known to go weeks with out updating the electronic version of the Court Circular, but the one printed in the Times is accurate and released on a daily basis.

SophieChloe

#6
They want us fools to believe they are above us.  They ain't. 

Double post auto-merged: December 23, 2017, 07:15:49 PM


Quote from: Kritter on December 23, 2017, 06:00:24 PM
^ Then Charles broke that rule with his interview to explain his personal problems & Diana followed his lead.   :Lothwen:
And good for her. 
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Duch_Luver_4ever

Although one could argue the her book two years prior to the Dimbleby interview promoted it, Richard Alyard, Charles secretary said to Max Hastings "We have to do something" in response to getting trounced in the press. Diana was always several steps ahead of them in the media game, whether it was strategic or not, thats another question....
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Kritter

Is a book an Interview? I didn't know that. WOW we really do learn something new everyday.   :eyes:

Let us not miss an opportunity to slam Diana,  Isn't that right?   :nod:

Duch_Luver_4ever

Andrew Morton WAS a royal reporter....
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

TLLK

QuoteDiana was always several steps ahead of them in the media game, whether it was strategic or not, thats another question....

@Duch_Luver_4ever - Yes she was a sharp and clever individual who understood the need to speak directly to the press when it was necessary.

Kritter

^She learned the royals PR game from them & got better at it. To bad Charles & his advisors were too dense to know that. Had they not been so dismissive of her maybe they would not have been caught with their britches down.   :boredatwork:

TLLK

Quote from: Mike on December 23, 2017, 05:05:34 PM
I remember in Diana's day there differing opinions whether or not it was wise for Royals to do interviews with the press.  What are the current thoughts on this?    :xmas4:
So to answer @Mike's original question-IMO it is wise to continue to do interviews with the press but now that the royals like other public figures have their own means to share their information and news, we're now facing a world in which royal journalists (Andrew Morton, Richard Kay, the  late James Whitaker) are becoming less of an influence. I believe that her sons have chosen to not become too involved with individual journalists after watching how they treated their mother. Also they've had their own very negative experience with certain members of the press due to the phone hacking scandals that were brought to light during the Levenson inquiries.  Would Diana have adapted to this new means of communication? I'd like to think that her sons would have shared their views with her.  :xmas4:

Kritter

Harry does interviews most but he is the royal that looks towards the future more than the past.   :yipee:

royalanthropologist

The media is a double-edged sword with very sharp edges. The first lesson is that they are not really your friend...they just want a sensational story. Give them as much as is essential but nothing more. The media is never a good place to litigate or restore a marriage. They just pit one against the other and you become like the Punch and Judy show for the public to gaze at.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

Of course which is why the RF distrust and outright hate much of the media, as they are only too aware that if you give them an inch, they take a yard and that they are not there to do the RF any good but to get a story and make money.  Fair enough, tis their job, but I think most royals only use the meida to publicise their causes, and don't trust them an inch.
Diana did try to use the Media to put out her side of hte marraige problems, and Charles responded, but after Dimbleby I htink he realised that it was not a good idea and hasn't done so since.  Diana thoguht that she coudl handle the media, and that she could use them without being used, but she couldn't.   They didn't care about her,mostly.
And now with teh court cases about hacking phones, the intrusiveness of social media as well, I think the RF really know enough to keep well away from the Press except for "Publicity for their work".

royalanthropologist

Plus the world is a lot more questioning and cynical than it was in the 1980s/1990s. Had those media scandals and accounts come out today, they would never be accepted as fact at first glance. First of all the online trolls would have a field day picking over them and many people would express a lot more skepticism, pointing out certain glowing errors and contradictions. The media is a very complicated game. Once you dip into it, there is no turning back. They want more and more until you have nothing more to give. As someone once said to a soap opera star about scoops: "The ultimate media story is when you die...that is when the ratings really hit the roof".
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Kritter

Quote from: amabel on December 24, 2017, 11:43:02 AM
Of course which is why the RF distrust and outright hate much of the media, as they are only too aware that if you give them an inch, they take a yard and that they are not there to do the RF any good but to get a story and make money.  Fair enough, tis their job, but I think most royals only use the meida to publicise their causes, and don't trust them an inch.
Diana did try to use the Media to put out her side of hte marraige problems, and Charles responded, but after Dimbleby I htink he realised that it was not a good idea and hasn't done so since.  Diana thoguht that she coudl handle the media, and that she could use them without being used, but she couldn't.   They didn't care about her,mostly.
And now with teh court cases about hacking phones, the intrusiveness of social media as well, I think the RF really know enough to keep well away from the Press except for "Publicity for their work".

The BRF could not survive without the media. They are the ones who leak most of their stories to the media. They use the media to project the image they want the public to see. The royals are as human as anyone else but according to the media "they are special". They have been putting out royal propaganda for years but what happened to them was Rupert Murdoch who went for the sensational instead of the stale propaganda in order to up his profit level.      :xmas2:

royalanthropologist

I have always believed that if the monarchy ends in the next 100 years, Rupert Murdoch would have played a very important part in that process. Of course members of the BRF did not help themselves by losing the "dignity" which they had cultivated for centuries. The Tudors were brutal but you never got the impression that they were undignified at any point in their reign. The Hanoverians were also undignified but did not feel the urge to share their indignities with the public. The Windsors just lost the plot. They could not decide whether they were a moral family or tabloid fodder.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

I think it is very likely the monarchy will end in 100 years... but I can't see what Rup Murdcoh has to do with it.  It will probably end because the royals in 100 times will prefer freedom to being "on show" and having to live a life that is so restricted and the public  will not want them to do so.
The RF have to tread a fine line between being "too distanat" which will make the public lose interest, and telling to  much bout themselves, which will erode respect.
George's son or grandkids may get tired of treading that line.
But it was mainly Diana who chose to put her private life out in the media, by the MOrton book.  People blame the queen for the programme "at home with the RF" in the 1960s but it is hard to see how she coudl ahave avoided making some attempts to "open up" a litle bit to the public, and show a carefully edited programme that covered some of her private life.  However she never imagined that it woudl be followed by one of her offspring's wives deciding to talk to jouranlists about intimate things and giving them a wonderful story about the problems in her marrriage. 
Charles responded, foolishly, by talking about his side of thte marital troubles, to Dimbleby, but I think after he' had done so, even if he woudlnt' admit it, he knew it was a mistake and has never spoken publicly of Diana or his marriage again.
I hope WIll and Harry will never make those mistakes..


Kritter

Quotebut I can't see what Rup Murdcoh has to do with it.

If you can't see what Rupert Murdoch has to do with this then you really weren't paying attention.
Quote
having to live a life that is so restricted and the public  will not want them to do so.

They have more rights & Freedom than the people do. They fight through their PR campaigns to keep their lifestyle going & won't give it up willingly.

QuoteCharles responded, foolishly, by talking about his side of thte marital troubles, to Dimbleby, but I think after he' had done so, even if he woudlnt' admit it, he knew it was a mistake and has never spoken publicly of Diana or his marriage again.

No he does it through leaks because he thought he would gain sympathy & it didn't work out for him.

Duch_Luver_4ever

@Mike I think the current climate is more like the old days with a dash of openness/warmth (even if Diana had to drag the Rf kicking and screaming to it) I think theyre going back to the more controlled events like the past, say from 69 to 85 with In Public and Private and Speaking Personally.

I think they also took a lesson from Diana/WoW that the bare all/all access interview/books are not to be repeated. We'd likely see one only if a non royal spouse was put in a similar situation to Diana again.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Kritter

W&K have already talked about how hard it was for them having the BRF behave the way they did after their Mother died.    :loco:

Duch_Luver_4ever

Its been very little of that, and nothing critical of HM or DoE, even when Harry briefly spoke out about walking behind the coffin, he quickly backtracked on it. Most of their speaking out has been fond remembrances of Diana.

The RF would im sure love it if they said nothing about her, but they know its like letting a pressure cooker calm down, theyre letting the boys speak in a measured manner to avoid any future outbursts. Last thing the RF wants is a tell all book by them on what happened that week, or on what C&C are like behind closed doors.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Kritter

^ This thread isn't about books, documentaries or writing but interviews instead. I agree none of them would have the kind of courage it would take to tell the truth about the BRF.    :mask5: