The Royals & Television Media, Tabloid Press/Photographer Pack

[wannable]

Then we have Omid bringing racism as a royal correspondent, 'I'm the only biracial RR, I'm badly treated'....when you lie and get caught, the public interest in your persona goes down. So he lied about how he got information for Finding Freedom, he lies about being the only non white (his Iranian background are Caucasian), he ignores or lied thinking he wouldn't be caught out about the fact that the Royal Correspondent and Royal Rota member of the Associated Press is BLACK.  :happy17: 

ETA: One in the past 15-20 years hasn't seen Roya Nikkhah moan about her roots. Her parents emigrated from the Middle East. See The Telegraph today: subject of the BBC Omid claim, Rajan the BBC producer admitting to the fact/mistake of interviewing Omid, that Roya and the AP black person, and the 30 years ago AP person Trevor McDonald, couldn't be blacker.

Basically about the BBC, they want ''more'' access to the royals.

[TLLK]

@wannable-Yes I did find that interesting that Mr. Scobie considers himself to be "bi-racial" when his racial background is clearly all Caucasian and that he chose to ignore that other members of the Royal Reporters group are either of African or Asian origin.   :unsure:

Thank you @Curryong for sharing the link and I did have the opportunity to view it. Curious to see if the next episode will also be available.
To be honest there was little that was "new" to me though a few revelations or recollections came out:


1. Appalled  that poor Chelsey had to endure those ugly hints about herself ie STDs and question as to if she'd had a pregnancy terminated. I'd also forgotten how often Catherine had her phone hacked-155 times!

2. "Work shy" William was more or less manufactured by the media which the reporters admitted.

3. Happily reminded that for the most part, Meghan received  positive coverage from the British press and that the papers were actively suppressing negative stories for several months. 

4. Surprised at how Meghan and Samantha sound alike. Had I closed my eyes, I might not have known which sister was speaking except for the content.

[Curryong]

https://mobile.twitter.com/scobie/status/1462896875615436804?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

For full transparency, the interview I gave for BBC?s ?The Princes and the Press? took place on November 19, 2020.  Omid Scobie

[Curryong]

As for the Royal Rota holding back negative stories in the Press about Meghan for months and months after the wedding to Harry, this piece by Richard Kay from December 2018 gives the lie to that. Barely six months after the wedding (May 2018) Kay is going over some of the stories about Meghan emanating from the months following. He?s not explaining every one to his readers so it?s clear that these stories had been out there for some time, being related to the public by journalists.

As I have often said here the negative stories began after the successful tour of Oceania by the couple in Oct 2018 and reached a peak during Meghan?s pregnancy, Archie?s birth (a period of isolation for Harry and Meghan) before the Africa tour and everything that resulted from that.

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

[wannable]

If she hadn't lied (and too much, historical evidence for the meghan saga books), she'd probably be sitting this week in DC rather than 🤡 with Ellen.

[Curryong]

The proposed bipartisan dinner is coming in December. The invitation to Meghan was extended by Senator K (can?t remember her name) in early November.

[wannable]

Camilla Tominey 💣 London: It was more than a year ago that I agreed to be interviewed by Amol Rajan, the BBC?s media editor, for his documentary The Princes and the Press, seemingly amid much misplaced hype.

Although I have spoken to dozens, if not hundreds, of these sorts of programs in the past, I did go into it with some trepidation, fearing it would be yet another attempt by the BBC to have a go at the ?media? it claims not to belong to (while constantly passing off newspaper exclusives as its own).

We met in a pub in Kentish Town and Rajan, 38, a Calcutta-born, government-schooled Cambridge graduate, was in typical cheeky-chappy form.

Crucially, our chat predated Martin Bashir?s 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales blowing back up in the BBC?s face ? and reports of a bullying complaint being made against Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, which hit the headlines days before their bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview in March this year.

Rajan mainly wanted to speak to me about breaking the story of Prince Harry?s relationship with a virtually unknown actress named Meghan Markle.

On October 30, 2016, we splashed the story of ?Harry?s Secret Romance with a TV Star? on the front of the Sunday Express, where I worked for 15 years before joining London?s Telegraph in September 2018.

After blowing some smoke up my backside about the exclusive, which was nominated for Scoop of the Year at the 2016 British Press Awards, Rajan then started trying to find out how I had got the story.

Since a journalist never reveals her sources, I gave him rather short shrift and we then went on to discuss how Meghan was initially very well received by the media, and the relationship between the palace and the press in general.

It was all pretty uncontroversial ? and I get the distinct impression that viewers are going to feel decidedly let down at this new BBC two-part series on the royals, despite the palace?s reported ?fury? that they have not been offered a proper right of reply to potential claims about the relationship between Princes William and Harry.

First of all, I know the second of the two programs has had to be extensively rewritten since the Duchess was forced to apologise for ?unintentionally? misleading the court over whether she collaborated with the authors of the biography Finding Freedom during a Court of Appeal hearing in her case against the Mail on Sunday earlier this month.

So it seems as if it is not a case of the BBC withholding preview copies from the palace ? but rather that it is still being edited right down to the wire.

The palace appears to be worried that Rajan has been told that royal aides purposely briefed the story of Megxit to the press, in an attempt to undermine Harry and Meghan. The Duchess has already claimed, incorrectly, that they briefed against her to me, when I wrote a story in November 2018 suggesting that Meghan had made Kate cry during a bridesmaids? dress fitting.

[wannable]

Cont...Again, without wishing to reveal my sources ? that is not an accurate description of how I came across that piece of information, which I still stand by despite Meghan?s claims it was Kate who made her cry. Perhaps they both cried? We?ll probably never know.

Omid Scobie, who has also contributed to the documentary, may have accused the palace of briefing against Harry and Meghan, but in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, he would, wouldn?t he? The former European bureau chief of US Weekly, who I know personally, took a commercial decision some time ago to become a cheerleader for Team Sussex. Good luck to him.

Do you want to know the real truth about royal briefings?

I can honestly say that in my 16 years covering the royal family, I don?t think I have ever been called by the palace press office and actively briefed a story. Funnily enough, they don?t call us up saying: ?You?ll never believe what Meghan did today.?

That?s not how it works. What happens is a journalist finds something out (which could be from anyone or anywhere), does some digging to stand it up and then calls the palace for a response ahead of publication (or not, if the intel is reliable enough).

Sometimes they offer guidance - but more often than not they decline to comment in line with the Queen?s long held ?never complain, never explain? mantra.

The palace?s role is largely reactive, rather than proactive. Obviously, the PR machine goes into overdrive in response to something like Harry and Meghan giving a 90-minute bombshell interview to Oprah in which they accuse members of the royal family of being racist ? but that?s what they are paid for (and why Harry and Meghan continue to employ spokesmen to brief back).

[wannable]

If you wish to read more, The Sydney Herald purchased the copyright from The Telegraph. Excellent piece from CT.

[Curryong]

If you wish to read more, The Sydney Herald purchased the copyright from The Telegraph. Excellent piece from CT.

Well of course it?s an excellent piece by Camilla T isn?t it, because it just happens to be an anti-Sussex article. And as for the snipe by CT at Scobie, every single one of the Royal Rota except him ?made a commercial decision? (driven by their newspaper editors) to follow the Palace party line.

Was Camilla there at the time of the bridesmaids dress thing? No she wasn?t. She took it as read however, as the British Press narrative at that time had turned against the Sussexes. As had the courtiers and aides within the Palaces.

[wannable]

What CT is really saying is that the BBC has the unedited before the apology and had to heavily edit, still editing it. In other words if the three royal households want to sue, a Court of law will request the unedited version.

A statement
Fury
BBC didn't want to provide a copy
They are running editing it

She's going to win another scoop award  :hehe:

[Curryong]

That wasn?t a Camilla Tominey exclusive. I read that the BBC were doing some editing of Part 2 of the doco during discussion of the programme Princes and the Press on Aussie media. That was days ago, and it appeared naturally due to the Court case having come after Part 2 had been recorded.

[wannable]

Precisely, because of MM's admission in the court case, the BBC is doing heavy editing.  Today Camilla Tominey confirmed that MM is the only one who colluded with the documentary. All royals were requested to participate in some form, all said no, except her by authorizing her Lawyer to participate, hence my previous comment.

IF the unedited version by any means ends up in the hands of the Queen, Charles and William....I can see it being used in more ways than 1.

[wannable]

Camilla Tominey

[TLLK]

The DT's review of Part One of the Princes and the Press.
archive.ph

For an organisation in need of friends, the BBC doesn?t half like making enemies. Nobody was crying out for a documentary about the Royal family?s relations with the media and yet the corporation decided to make one, sparking a row with the Palace. Cue dark threats about BBC boycotts; the broadcaster, for its part, refusing to let anyone see the contents ahead of transmission.
Well, what a storm in a royal teacup that turned out to be. The Princes and the Press, on the evidence of this first episode at least, contained no bombshells. Instead, presenter Amol Rajan led us through what we already knew, albeit with some canny insider takes from the royal press pack.
The timeline was laid out. Princes William and Harry developed an early hatred of the press after witnessing what happened to their mother, and later became the victims of phone hacking. William learned to play the game, Harry refused. The media?s love affair with Harry and Meghan turned sour, and paved the way for Megxit.
The Sussex Squad, as Harry and Meghan?s fans like to be known, complain that the media is biased. But here was a reminder that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge took their fair share of flak at one point, with William dismissed as workshy. Rajan wasn?t here to decide whether that was true or not, he explained, but to find out how those narratives took hold. He wanted to explore how ?the deal? between press and Palace works, and what happens if one side doesn?t keep their side of the bargain.That?s not to say that Rajan didn?t share his own opinions. It is clear, he concluded, that ?in some tabloid quarters, racially charged tropes were evoked and gave a xenophobic whiff? to coverage of Meghan.
One of the factors that marks out Rajan from his peers is his relaxed presenting style. If he leaned back any further in that chair, he?d be horizontal. It makes his fellow news presenters seem stuffy by comparison. He?s also very smart, but this programme wasn?t his finest work. Perhaps he felt under certain constraints, the BBC having a chequered history when it comes to covering the royals. Remember the BBC One controller having to resign after wrongly claiming that the Queen had stormed out of an Annie Leibovitz photoshoot in a huff? I?m sure Rajan would say he shows no fear or favour, but he also knows when not to overstep the mark.
Bar one former courtier, nobody from the royal side of things was involved in the programme, so instead Rajan interviewed various royal correspondents and commentators. Rachel Johnson made a self-flagellating appearance, admitting that her notorious reference to Meghan?s ?rich and exotic DNA? would get her cancelled now and ?rightly? so.
Rajan once expressed republican sympathies in print, but he understands the new BBC mantra: personal politics should be left at the door. His journalistic skills failed him only once, when he allowed Meghan?s cheerleader-in-chief Omid Scobie to paint himself as the ?only? mixed-race royal correspondent. Technically true, but it ignores the fact that a non-white royal correspondent appeared in this very programme (Roya Nikkhah of the Sunday Times), while the Press Association?s royal correspondent is black. A small fact but - as Prince Harry would say in his fight against fake news - truth matters.

Also KP has now decided to negotiate with ITV to air coverage of the Christmas Carol concert at WA rather than the BBC.

William and Kate Christmas carol concert to be shown on ITV | ITV News

ITV is in negotiations to host a carol concert involving Prince William and Kate, to be broadcast in the days before Christmas.

The programme ? a new format ? will be recorded at Westminster Abbey in early December but sources at ITV say they were only made aware of the offer late last week.

It comes two days after a documentary on the BBC examining the relationship between the media and Princes William and Harry.

A rare joint statement on Monday from all three royal households ? Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace ? criticised the BBC for giving ?credibility? to ?overblown and unfounded claims from unnamed sources?.

In an interesting twist, the Christmas carol programme, in which the Duchess of Cambridge will play a key role, is being made for ITV by BBC Studios ? a production arm of the corporation, although that is not unusual in broadcasting.

[Curryong]

Considering the awful ratings the Earthshot programme reputedly got I doubt that the BBC are wringing their hands in despair over an Xmas Carol broadcast in WA going to ITV. Very very few royal events get high ratings as people really aren?t terribly interested.

Things are tense between the Beeb and the royals at the moment because the Corporation refused to bend to demands for courtiers to see the programme beforehand and probably try to vet it. The royals however need the BBC more than the Beeb needs them. In times of National crisis Britons still turn to the BBC and have done since the war years.

The documentary Princes and the Press was (a) filmed well over a year ago. And (b) the Palace was invited to send representatives to take part and refused because their will was thwarted.

Sending a lawyer to participate isn?t colluding with anything. It is merely making sure that one?s viewpoint is represented. The usual suspects, Robson, Palmer, Wootton and Roya Nikkah were able to say their pieces. If the whole thing was so pro-Sussex then they wouldn?t have been invited to participate.

[wannable]

Awful

The best 👌 company reviewers to date 4/5, 7.7/10...

The book is also a best seller.

So MM lawyer went on her own with no authorization from her employer...so IF tomorrow the raw tape lands in the hands of the Sovereign, Charles and William, conveniently Meghan will be the victim pointing 👉 her finger to someone else, it wasn't me. And it will land...people are desperate for cash, a junior will blow the whistle so to speak, just like suddenly a piece of bank statement landed to Earl Spencer. Covid19 changed living style for a majority, blue collars.

The BBC already has 2 eggs 🥚 on their face 😳 😐 Diana and now this documentary, if not they'd need not run to edit edit edit. As of today's end of the working hours, they were still editing.   :laugh:

Fact: my family member who is a top manager at the #1 broadcasting Co said if they edit, their own lawyers watch, and say this may get us in trouble, here too, cut this part...

[Curryong]

Reviews can be biased and aren't the same as TV ratings. And Covid or not, British people whether W/C, M/C or U/C, wont be hanging out for a Carol service to watch. Xmas is a very busy time. It?s not just me that has stated here that Britons aren?t crazy about the BRF. Everyone who has lived in Britain for any length of time knows it.

The producers have been editing because this documentary has been almost two years in the making and things happened this year (2021) which required cuts, additions, tweaking and a ton of other things. There?s nothing sinister about that. And who says that Meghan didn?t send her lawyer to speak on the doco? It?s obvious she did.

Things happen at the corporation in ways that don?t happen elsewhere. That has been so since the 1920s. We have the ABC here which was established on the British model.  It doesn?t operate in precisely the same way as a business organisation does. Business and other broadcasting companies don?t collect licensing fees from the general public, for instance. .

So any relative working for another broadcasting company, especially a US or non-British one, wouldn?t know how the BBC operates.

[wannable]

Imdb, commonsense reviewer, rotten tomatoes have been and still is the measure of what to watch with their own comments and also letting the public comment and vote.

The editing BBC is because of Meghan's apology. That brings a trail 👣 of other potential lies that an entertainment industry lawyer will tell them cut here, cut there. ✂️

It's not a marvel film with bad scenes...this is a documentary that has implications on real people

[Curryong]

Rotten Tomatoes or not, the ratings for the Earthshot show that night were not exactly earth shattering.

There may well be a ton of editing going on with regard to episode 2 of the Princes and the Press. There often is with docos recorded many months before, especially with a long running and swiftly moving story months later. That still doesn?t mean that there is something sinister going on.

And again, viewers in Britain do still turn to the BBC (Covid or not) at times of national crisis. That?s been proved again and again.

And entertainment lawyers at the BBC!!! Ha ha ha! That would be akin to the Archbishop of Canterbury employing Disney attorneys!! Oh well, I?ve had a good laugh today at any rate!

The BBC have their own set of lawyers who are as fixed, certain and conservative as those used  by the RF. And always have had.

There has certainly been a lot of untruths mouthed by the British media, commentators and ?experts? (including RRs) over three years that has had implications for the individuals in one family, the Sussexes. Or aren?t they supposed to have human feelings?

[wannable]

Yes, the 3 have glowing reviews.

For now, Meghan's apology has caused editing. The  documentary of course has to be edited or they will look stupid.

Disney owns discovery Channel so yes they do have lawyers, particularly for their experts who advise or heavily participate anything about nature. For Disney, a panel reads a script to make sure it's balanced woke.

[Curryong]

Again, reviews aren?t ratings.

And I?m aware that Disney employs lawyers. What I was pointing out with the Archbishop analogy is that US type lawyers (and the way they approach things) at a place like the BBC would be akin to attaching a blow up mannequin of Mickey Mouse above the main entrance to St Paul?s Cathedral. Just wouldn?t do!

[wannable]

Can you link the ratings you're referring to?

I don't care for analogies...the BBC lawyers had to arrange with Charles William and Harry the amount they'd receive because of the Diana case. And it's a fact that because of Meghan's lies, edit and cuts are being done.  If the BBC wouldn't be editing, easily dragged into the court, loss of credibility and more egg than what they already have.

And William moving to ITV is his right, he's angry.

[Curryong]

I?m referring to the TV ratings for the Earthshot PRIZE hosted by William and shown on the BBC on a single evening. I read them when the ratings came out a few days later.

As for the SERIES of Earthshot

The Earthshot Prize: Repairing Our Planet - Rotten Tomatoes

The tabloid media are the ones that have been pointing to the editing by the producers at the BBC. As they are anti Meghan to a man and woman of course they?re going to highlight Meghan and reference the court case. She?s suing their employers.

Other than that we don?t know what they?re editing and changing as the Journos parroting the Palaces line are hardly likely to print anything unfavourable to Charles or William.

[wannable]

Rotten tomatoes as I said. It takes 3 months to compile, but their own reviews is 👍.  They have to really tell the public what they think. David Atenborough is A++.

Also in reference to William's move to ITV, the anger, time will tell if the move stays in anger or worse, a legal case. That the 3 households wrote a statement, that BBC couldn't give a precopy because they're toast...editing like mad...patience is the best practice to see which way, decisions to go. One remembers the Queen's Christmas speech is BBC.
Latest news, the Queen's speech will be broadcast SKY ITV and who knows BBC