The Royals & Television Media, Tabloid Press/Photographer Pack

[TLLK]

Mr. Arthur Edwards is not amused at the moment.

Britain?s Wedding-Mad Tabloids Feel a Cold Royal Shoulder - The New York Times

For decades, when not effervescing over royal weddings and births, the tabloids have castigated the royals as lazy, frumpy, dissipated or self-indulgent. The royals have used all the means at their disposal to curtail access to their personal lives.

Each side is also aware of its dependence on the other ? the newspapers for access, and the royal family for publicity. Stig Abell, who served as director of Britain?s Press Complaints Commission, a regulatory body, described the relationship as ?a hug that was always threatening to become an assault.?

[Curryong]

I think that NYT headline is misleading. Britain's tabloids aren't 'wedding mad' about the May 19th nuptials, and have not been 'wedding mad' since the couple known to be dating.

In fact I have never seen a more sour, snide and nasty set of stories about the background of a bride about to marry into the BRF in my life.

I'm sorry Arthur Edwards is upset. He's always been fond of Harry and gets on well with most members of the BRF.

However, if he thought that Harry was going to beam and suck up all the sarcasm, lies and innuendos about Meghan and allow full range to the tabloids on his wedding day, then he must have been extraordinarily optimistic. Harry's extra protective of Meghan. The British tabs must know that, since the November 2016 KP statement. However they still went full-pelt on his fiancee.

And Arthur knows very well why the restrictive access has been put in place otherwise he wouldn't say 'He and Meghan have seen what has been written..and said 'We don't want anyone near the wedding'.

Yes, correct! And if the tabloids had been just a bit nicer, just a bit fairer, a bit more welcoming of a foreigner who is going to marry into the BRF, things might well have been different.

[TLLK]

It is a shame about Arthur who has seems to have been universally liked by most members of the BRF, however the tabloids have certainly kept a daily series of articles either praising or damning the family for years now. Is it really a surprise to Arthur that this is happening?

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

While Arthur is one of the nicer photogs (along with Ken Lennox when he took pics) I think he's upset at missing the chance to have some good snaps, like some of the past weddings, also he's probably due to retire soon and this is his last big royal wedding.

While he doesnt write the stories, I do agree, he has to have some knowledge of what his colleagues and benefactors are writing to go along with his and other ppls pics. Lets not forget he was one of the boys that crawled through mangroves to snap a pregnant Diana. So while hes mellowed with age, and never chased her and swore at her or other royals, they did up the game and help create the system that led to rude paps.

[Curryong]

Yes, Duch. I think the photographers have got a muck on the pluck as we say in Oz about being given very restricted access in a pen outside the Chapel, with over a thousand members of the general public milling about. This is not WA but a much smaller locale, and press and photographers are just going to have to suck it up. That doesn't mean they won't get a chance at the money shot with the carriage ride.

[royalanthropologist]

The English tabloids are particularly nasty (DM dangerously veers into that mucky territory but they do have wonderful pictures). I sometimes contrast them with the American ones like the Globe and Mail which seem to be mocking the silliness of their readers by coming out with increasingly outlandish stories. There was one talking about how Camilla was fighting with Kate for the throne and they had come to blows (one respondent actually spelled it as "thrown" which added to the comic effect). All very silly and amusing but I don't get the kind of nastiness you get from the likes of DM.

[Curryong]

The 'thrown' business doesn't surprise me at all, Royal. I really don't think newspapers employ proofreaders any more, or even spellcheck sometimes. The British tabs are pretty careless in that respect and they also keep referring to Elizabeth II as 'Her Highness'!

[wannable]

This doesn't bode well for H&M.

The digging of her past, mostly pre Suits, and her family. Harry seems to not have wanted all that to be exposed.

[sandy]

Her past is not "sordid." All what? The Tumblr gossip that is unsubstantiated?

[wannable]

I'm referring to the NYT article, and the mentioning of the articles of her past. They didn't mention tumblr.

Harry and Meghan should have expected this, she had blogs and was into Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, which collaborated with pickup her own phrases and pictures, investigative journalism of who she followed, followers, who posted what and she replied, etc.  she made the journalism job easy by her own media accounts.

[sandy]

Her "past" indicates a marriage that broke up and a live in relationship that broke up. I don't se how that's "scandalous."

And the blog picked by the DM sounded bogus because it referred to a stage actress not a TV actress.

[wannable]

Allegedly Harry is pist off with the press pack.  Did you read the article?

[sandy]

Yes, and the ones that complain about Meghan sound like teens or young people  who want to select harry's bride.

Why wouldn't Harry be upset. I see a lot of vicious things said in the DM like her being a "call girl" and having an "extra husband" plus DM has click bait articles.

Harry himself has not exactly been squeaky clean and as I recall, he was upset because he was baited by the paps some years ago and confronted them.

[TLLK]

Meghan needs to face the media to win over the doubters

Certainly the younger royals rate highly on the popularity charts and Meghan is now an important part of that new generation.

But in my job you also soon realise not everyone is a fan of the monarchy, and that is why they need to reach out to the doubters, not just their dedicated social media followers, to make sure that they continue to stay relevant.

IMHO this article focuses upon the Duchess of Sussex because of the nontraditional manner in which the Hubb Cookbook was launched to the media. KP filmed it and then released it to the press.

"So, I think that there should be a hybrid approach, the palace needs to balance it out with traditional media and social media.

"However they have had their fingers burned quite badly. The palace, with their handling of Meghan's father, for instance, so maybe this is a bit of a fight back from that."

[Curryong]

Absolutely,TLLK. There was the same sort of fuss with Harry's Invictus video, and I believe, a few years ago photos of the Cambridge children were released on social media at the same time as to the Press/traditional media. This Media pack, cook book, and video was released without Press involvement at all, and only a couple of days before the launch. So, they're not happy!

What they want, really, really, want, is unfettered access to Meghan so they can ask her all sorts of awkward questions about her father and half-siblings. They will be there at the Thursday launch no doubt, nursing their resentments and still not being given full access.

However, I would be very careful to keep the Press, especially the British tabloids onside. They can be savage, as Meghan has already found out (and Harry has long known) and also they will be needed for this important tour, Meghan's first. She needs a bit of good will from them. They however, could play ball by not giving the Markles a run every time they open their mouths.

[Macrobug67]

I came across an old thread from a few years ago.  Unfortunately it didn?t get any attention but I thought I would introduce it again. 

Can UK royals win battle against paparazzi? - CNN

Paparazzi pictures have plagued the British royals for decades. More than 30 years ago, images of Princess Diana frolicking in the surf were splashed across every British front page. And who could forget the startling images of Sarah Ferguson having her toes sucked. When Prince William and Prince Harry were children, stepladders were regularly propped against school walls in the hope of gaining surreptitious photos.
But the royals are not alone in their fight for the privacy of their children. The British press now blurs the faces of famous offspring, but around the rest of the world, there doesn't appear to be any strict regulation. No doubt, one day, Suri Cruise, Harper Beckham and Shiloh Pitt will have plenty to say on the topic.
The question is, how do you mandate a global press? Given George and Charlotte's positions as potential monarchs, is it unreasonable of William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, to demand privacy for their children?

Royal Family's Paparazzi Problem from Prince Edward to Meghan Markle Explained in New Film
The royals are well-aware of the power of a photograph. A new portrait of a royal baby can easily make the front pages of British papers, but so can an unfortunate candid or an intimate moment captured without permission by the paparazzi.

Harry and Meghan recently filed a lawsuit to ?protect their young son?s right to privacy in their home.? It alleges that drones, helicopters, and telephoto lenses have been used to try and capture Archie's photo, and court documents describe the ?relentless and quite frankly shocking efforts of the tabloid media to profit from serial intrusions on the privacy of a 14-month-old child in his own home.?

My opinion is that the children are a no go.  If the parents choose to have the kids at an event, knowing there will be media, then that is tacit consent. If they release photos then that is giving permission for that photo to be distributed.  But a long lens shot is wrong.

For the adults, again - they are given permission at events.  But a long lens photo of them in their private lives is just wrong. 

But one issue is foreign media - the UK may have restrictions but if another country gets hold of it , they can follow their own rules.  Of course if their own rules are broken there are consequences ie the court case of the photog who took Kates photos in France.

So what are they going to do.  Is it going to be a case of the media pushing and the royals pushing back with letters, lawsuits and appeals?  To each case or just a chosen few.  Does it give a inconsistent message to pick and choose? 

[Curryong]

All the senior royals have complained about and to the media for decades. Prince Philip?s dislike of tabloid journalists was well known. ?When he was abroad he said once ?You have mosquitos, we have the Press.? Charles got so fed up with them he gave up reading tabloids. What?s more several royals have threatened or undertaken legal action at times.

The Queen and Charles have launched legal cases in the Courts due to breaches of privacy, and won. Even Albert the Prince Consort sued over likenesses of his children, painted by his wife and himself being reproduced in the Press. The Cambridges have complained several times, sent legal letters and threatened action, as well as sued in France. So it certainly isn?t just the Sussexes who are litigious. And drones going over your home, and in at the windows, as happened at their Oxfordshire home should be a no no under any circumstances.

Continental royals and the Scandic often have arrangements with their Press for their families to be only photographed at certain times such as holidays, birthdays etc. The media there stick to the bargain for the most part. Magazines in republics like Germany, France and Italy don?t and follow the British route. And the British media (although its improved since the Leveson Inquiry which got rid of most paps) is the worst in the world, with lying tabloids and intrusive journalists.

My own opinion is that it would be much more preferable for there to be agreements in place between royals and Press about when and where they are to be photographed in their leisure time. That wouldn?t work with the Sussexes however, as they and the British tabs are at war. And in the US the couple (and Archie) have kept out of the media spotlight for the most part and been photographed only rarely. And that is fine by me, even though I?m hoping for a photo or video of Archie from his parents for his birthday in a couple of days time.

[wannable]

It's almost a dead business since social media. Instant picture share from anyone in the public.

[TLLK]

Information on the upcoming BBC program "The Princes and the Press."


The Princes And The Press - Media Centre

There are reports that HM the Queen, The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge are considering a boycott  due to the BBC's denial to allow the households to preview the program.

Royals could boycott the BBC over Princes and the Press documentary

The Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are reportedly threatening to boycott the BBC over a refusal to let them see a documentary about the royals? relationship with the media.

In a rare move, the three households have united to complain to the corporation amid fears that Monday night?s programme, the Princes and The Press, will repeat claims that Prince William and Prince Harry briefed against each other through their aides.

The documentary comes as tensions between the Royal Family and the BBC run high in the wake of the Martin Bashir scandal, where an independent inquiry found the journalist?s interview with Diana, Princess of Wales was obtained by deceit - with failings covered up by BBC bosses. The Duke of Cambridge made a scathing statement following the report.

The Daily Telegraph understands that despite the anger, the BBC will remain steadfast in its refusal to share the contents of programmes presented by Amol Rajan, the BBC?s media editor and a self-confessed republican.

This is thought to be partly due to the fact that the film is going through last minute edits to include details of the Duchess of Sussex?s apology for unintentionally misleading a court over whether she gave authorisation for an aide to brief the authors of a biography about her.

But the Palace is said to have threatened to refuse co-operate with the corporation on future projects if they are not given the right to respond to the full documentary, which airs on BBC Two.

The BBC is also said to be sensitive about its relationship with the royals in the wake of the Martin Bashir scandal. As a result, it is understood they are going through The Princes and The Press line by line, to ensure sensitivity.

Yet despite a series of meetings between the Duke of Cambridge?s aides and the BBC, they are determined that the ?investigation? will not be shown to courtiers.

It is unclear whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have raised any concerns about the show or were contacted before the other households complained.

A senior royal source told the Mail on Sunday that the Queen was ?upset? that the ?tittle-tattle? documentary would air without anyone at the Palace having a chance to see it.

It is the second time the Royals have intervened over coverage of the rumoured feud between the Duke of Cambridge and his brother, the Duke of Sussex.

Earlier this year, just hours before the documentary Harry And William: What Went Wrong? was due to broadcast, ITV removed claims by Omid Scobie, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's biographer, that Prince William and his staff planted a story about Prince Harry's mental health.

There is concern that the BBC documentary may repeat similar allegations, which have been consistently denied by the brothers.

The BBC said the show will examine the years in which the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have charted "very different courses" in their relationships with the media.

The first of the two-part documentary covers the ?years leading up to and including the engagement and marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? and provides ?context? for their relationship with the press, by examining the ?illegal activities? of some news outlets in the 1990s.

Mr Rajan, who is tipped to be a frontrunner to succeed Laura Kuenssberg as the BBC?s political editor, has been a vocal critic of the monarchy.
In a 2012 column for the Independent critiquing the media's relationship with the royals, he described the notion of a hereditary monarchy as "absurd" and Prince Charles as "scientifically illiterate".

Any boycott could put under threat joint projects between the Royal Family and the BBC, which have recently included a tribute to Prince Philip and a documentary series Earthshot which was presented by the Duke of Cambridge.

The BBC also films the Queen?s Christmas speech as part of a rota with ITV and Sky.

On Sunday, the Palace refused to comment on the documentary or any complaint to the BBC.

A BBC spokesman said: ?The programme is about how royal journalism is done and features a range of journalists from broadcast and the newspaper industry.?

[wannable]

IF social media was a survey of what people think of the BBC, it wouldn't be tax payer funded today - automatic billing that reaches your doorstep like electricity, water, gas, it would be pay for subscription like Netflix and Amazon.

Second comment (in social media) I've read so far, also in multiple forms is from royalists about BBC lied to Diana, so the above program must be crap too.

Third comment, Omid was interviewed, he lied, talking trash about staff then, but received instruction from a staffer with MM notes. 

Basically, I think a lot of people don't like the BBC?!

I'll watch it when both parts are aired, I hate the ''1 episode per week scheme'.  I usually, mini series or long series, wait until the entire thing is up and running. Binge or drop  :hehe:  ⬅ that's the key, the 1 episode per week, sometimes ends up with the 1st episode great, 2nd onward sucks.

[TLLK]

The Duchess of Sussex has also requested that her lawyer(s) refute any  possible claims made in the documentary that she was a "difficult boss."

Meghan sends lawyer to defend her against 'difficult boss' claims on BBC documentary

Royal Family issue extraordinary joint statement blasting BBC for The Princes and the Press series | Daily Mail Online

The BBC was accused of giving credibility to 'overblown and unfounded claims' about the Royal Family last night as it broadcast a controversial documentary about William and Harry - which also included a piece to camera from Meghan Markle's lawyer.

In an extraordinary joint statement, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace and Clarence House said it was 'disappointing' that the broadcaster had chosen to air allegations surrounding Harry and Meghan's departure from Britain.

Lawyers for the Royal Family were on standby over the two-part BBC2 series which included claims by Omid Scobie - a royal journalist dubbed Meghan's mouthpiece - that insiders from other royal households had briefed against the Sussexes.

Buckingham Palace has reportedly threatened a boycott on future projects with the BBC after courtiers were not allowed to view the programme before the first episode was aired last night.

Though the Palace only provided a written statement, the episode featured an appearance from Jenny Afia, a lawyer from Schillings who represents  Meghan, who insisted bullying claims printed about the Duchess were 'false'.

Meanwhile, in a strongly worded joint statement, given to the BBC ahead of last night's broadcast, the three royal households representing the Queen, Charles and William said: 'A free, responsible and open Press is of vital importance to a healthy democracy.

'However, too often overblown and unfounded claims from unnamed sources are presented as facts and it is disappointing when anyone, including the BBC, gives them credibility.'

The first episode has aired and it apparently  included the following:

The hour-longer episode one of the divisive two-part series, which was aired on Monday night, featured:

    Claims by Omid Scobie - the journalist who co-authored the controversial Finding Freedom biography about the Sussexes - that negative stories about the Sussexes had been briefed by other royal households
    Counter-claims by journalist and MailOnline columnist Dan Wootton that people 'behind the scenes' had come forward to the press after 'getting annoyed' at the behaviour of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry
    An on-camera interview by Meghan Markle's lawyer in which she denied claims that the Duchess of Sussex had 'bullied' royal staff
    An apology by a private detective who admitted he had targeted Prince Harry's then girlfriend Chelsea Davy in 2004
    Claims that Prince Charles had been 'overshadowed' by a decision by Harry's press secretary to release a statement criticising the press's coverage of his relationship with Meghan Markle while he was on a royal trip to Oman

[PrincessOfPeace]

The royal family isn't allowed a reply but Meghan is given the chance to have her lawyer make remarks?

[TLLK]

@PrincessOfPeace - From what I gather their main objection is that the three royal households' request to preview the documentary were denied and thus they could not make a reply to the claims in the documentary. However it appears that an attorney representing the Duchess of Sussex was given the opportunity to make this denial in the program. So I guess that she and her legal team had some knowledge of what was going to be covered.

[Curryong]

Take a look before it gets taken off.

The Princes and the Press: Episode 1: The New Generation - YouTube

[wannable]

It didn't get traction/public interest.

Too much lies since Megxit, Oprah, Diana BBC payment, Jason and the latest Ellen shenanigans.