The Iffy-Wiff Club: The Sussexes' Relationship with the press, tabloids, media

[Blue Clover]

New Thread

[wannable]

Prince Harry's Rep Releases Statement on Private Hotel Room Claims

^ The Rep is fixated like Harry with The Sun and Cosmopolitan didn't fact check or minimum help the Rep with a little investigation. Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph broke the story.

[Curryong]

Prince Harry's Rep Releases Statement on Private Hotel Room Claims

^ The Rep is fixated like Harry with The Sun and Cosmopolitan didn't fact check or minimum help the Rep with a little investigation. Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph broke the story.

The last time I heard, Camilla Tominey doesn?t live in LA, nor presumably does she skulk around hotels near Montecito. She is just as capable of using anonymous sources there who are reporting unfounded and malicious gossip as anyone else in the media.

[wannable]

Technology, a phone call, a text message from two hotels.  No need of sea travel and pony express to California.

Anyway, this Cosmopolitan news tells me the Harry suing problem, Re his hacking 'hearing' vs The Mirror Group. 300 Harry points heard from his team, 297 points rebuttal heard by the Mirror Group team, only conceding to 3. And this plus the other 4 cases will drag on very likely until 2024.

^ As an example from the Cosmopolitan magazine, Harry tells his Rep his anger against the Sun, the Rep a Yes person doesn't check it out, calls Cosmopolitan, Cosmo doesn't do their little ''origin'' (like the Mirror is doing in their hearing) and goes with it.

If Harry want's to know Camilla Tominey's ''source'', sue her and the Telegraph.

[Curryong]

Technology, a phone call, a text message from two hotels.  No need of sea travel and pony express to California.

Anyway, this Cosmopolitan news tells me the Harry suing problem, Re his hacking 'hearing' vs The Mirror Group. 300 Harry points heard from his team, 297 points rebuttal heard by the Mirror Group team, only conceding to 3. And this plus the other 4 cases will drag on very likely until 2024.

^ As an example from the Cosmopolitan magazine, Harry tells his Rep his anger against the Sun, the Rep a Yes person doesn't check it out, calls Cosmopolitan, Cosmo doesn't do their little ''origin'' (like the Mirror is doing in their hearing) and goes with it.

If Harry want's to know Camilla Tominey's ''source'', sue her and the Telegraph.

Whether it?s text, a phone call or whatever doesn?t guarantee that employees at any hotel etc are telling the truth, especially if some payment is offered. Harry doesn?t need to sue. He knows who he lives with and loves. If Camilla wants to spread gossip via anonymous sources that?s up to her.

[wannable]

Cosmopolitan has it wrong with the who. So Harry also has it wrong with the who.

[wannable]

Richard Eden
20 June 2023
Daily Mail
Original/Originator: The Hill, Washington D.C.

[Nightowl]

Is Richard Eden just realizing that Harry has opened his mouth for the last 3 years doing damage to the royal family and the entire country?  Harry has shown all of us and the entire world just how he feels anout the royal family, the British people and that only his views and feelings are all that matter to him.  Sad state of affairs when you show you hate the family you were born into and that gave you a very prividge life style with millions at your fingertips, talk about being disloyal and ungrateful simply is mind blowing.

[wannable]

He knows, he's just quoting a USA media outlet.

[TLLK]

I've moved discussion regarding the Sussexes and their various media productions to the Archewell thread.

[wannable]

Meghan "can't believe she's been attacked so viciously and so publicly" by Spotify and one of their execs.

By Mollie Quirk
US Showbiz & TV Reporter
Daily Mirror

^ A one sided situation in life never ends well. 

3 years of public vicious attack vs a 1 phrase public vicious attack.

[TLLK]

California passed a law in 2013 to make it illegal to photograph the children of celebrities in a harassing manner. However it would appear that this law does not apply to the recent photos of the Sussexes' children at the Fourth of July Parade in Montecito as the images were taken by a member of the public and later sold.

New law restricts paparazzi access to children of celebrities - Los Angeles Times

The Sussexes might find this to be a challenge in the coming years as currently there isn't a state law against publishing the photos.


Princess Lilibet Photos Reveal Prince Harry Faces Big Privacy Threat

Pictures of Prince Harry holding Princess Lilibet at a Fourth of July event have been published by the New York Post, two years after Harry and Meghan Markle bankrupted a paparazzi agency over images of Prince Archie.

The Sussexes went to a Fourth of July parade in Montecito where Harry and his two-year-old daughter were photographed together. A more blurred picture of the whole family circulated around Twitter.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid said the images were taken by "an eyewitness." They were captioned to Backgrid, a picture agency that distributes content, including on behalf of freelance and paparazzi photographers.The same photos were also published by U.K. tabloid the Daily Mail but with Lili's face pixilated, highlighting a growing challenge for Harry in his complaints about the British media and privacy.

The royal has repeatedly accused the nation's newspapers of ruining his childhood with invasive coverage of his life and that of his parents?yet now that they have moved to America elements of the U.S. media have behaved in a similar way, though with a crucial difference.

In Britain he has the protection of European privacy laws, which the couple used to force paparazzi agency Splash into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy over similar images of Meghan carrying Prince Archie in a public place when he was a baby.

Under the Human Rights Act, British newspapers can be sued over images taken in public if they show celebrities going about their private lives.Californian law does not afford any such right for images taken in a public place and when the Post has printed seemingly unsolicited images of Archie in the past no legal action followed.

[wannable]

No wonder the British media blurred the minor, whilst NY Post did not. Differing laws in USA vs EU (UK included), additionally in any of the ''royal parks'' taking a picture is completely illegal, much less distribute it.

I'm just gonna say it how it is and IMO, the couple moved to California for Meghan, all the privacy, security and whatever else excuses of why they moved there victimhood VS the (royal life) United Kingdom is codswallop. 

IOW, the couple have spare syndrome so heavily imprinted in their heart, mind and soul ✈

[Kristeh-H]

California passed a law in 2013 to make it illegal to photograph the children of celebrities in a harassing manner. However it would appear that this law does not apply to the recent photos of the Sussexes' children at the Fourth of July Parade in Montecito as the images were taken by a member of the public and later sold.

New law restricts paparazzi access to children of celebrities - Los Angeles Times

The Sussexes might find this to be a challenge in the coming years as currently there isn't a state law against publishing the photos.


Princess Lilibet Photos Reveal Prince Harry Faces Big Privacy Threat

Taking photos 'in a harrassing manner" seems like it could be subjective too.  If the paps are chasing them down or popping out of bushes, that's more obvious, but there are times when it might not be  --such as this parade when they are at a public event and lots of people are taking pictures (and I know you said that these pics were not taken by papparazzi, but by a member of the public). 

[TLLK]

Taking photos 'in a harrassing manner" seems like it could be subjective too.  If the paps are chasing them down or popping out of bushes, that's more obvious, but there are times when it might not be  --such as this parade when they are at a public event and lots of people are taking pictures (and I know you said that these pics were not taken by papparazzi, but by a member of the public). 

I agree @Kristeh-H that this could be a very grey  area as the company didn't actually take the photos but shared them after they were likely purchased. It's likely that the Sussex family didn't realized that they were being photographed.

[Kristeh-H]

I think any famous person should realize that they may be photographed if they step foot off their own property.  I'm not saying that's right--I wouldn't mind having 'photograph' laws tightened up a little--but that is the way it is currently.  Everyone has a cell phone and if they see a famous person, many people will take a picture. 

[TLLK]

So apparently there was a request to the American media to blur Princess Lilibet's face like the British papers did but the request was ignored.

Prince Harry's Battle Over Princess Lilibet's Privacy

Prince Harry's issues with the British tabloid media have extended to the U.S. as photographs of his two-year-old daughter, Princess Lilibet, were published this month without having her face blurred for privacy. This was despite a request for the news organization to do so, a new episode of Newsweek's The Royal Report podcast has learned.

Lilibet, who turned two on June 4, was photographed with her parents, Harry and Meghan Markle, and brother, Prince Archie, while watching a July 4 parade in their hometown of Montecito. The event marked a rare public appearance for Lilibet and the family watched the event in a private capacity from the sidewalk of a public road.

Within hours of the parade, photographs of the princess in Harry's arms were published by the New York Post and Page Six, which are part of the Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corporation.

In the U.K. the photographs were also published by the Mail Online, however a key difference between the transatlantic coverage was that the U.K. stories blurred the young princess' face, whereas the New York Post and Page Six coverage left the royal unedited.

My information here is that these photos were taken without Harry and Lilibet's consent," Royston said on The Royal Report, going on to add that steps had been taken to request the news outlets edit their images to protect the princess.

"In fact, as I understand it, they actually asked the Post to blur Lilibet's face," he continued, "and got no response."

Newsweek approached representatives of the New York Post and Page Six via email for comment.

Of the difference between the U.S. and U.K. laws which apply to publishers and the reason that Lilibet's face was blurred in U.K. coverage, Royston noted: "The key distinction here is that in Britain, even if you're in a public place there is still potentially a right to privacy if you are going about your private life."

"That's the kind of a subtle and complicated distinction, because obviously the base position is anything that is in the public domain already is public, not private, and public places are the public domain. But in Britain, under European privacy laws which were introduced into British law in 1998 as the Human Rights Act, if you were going about your private life, even if you were in public, you still have a right to privacy. Now, in America, that law simply doesn't exist."

[wannable]

California state ruling would have to change for ''all'' children, so far the children rule is 100% elitist, only celeb children. Then get a federal ruling for all states restricting, which is a batlle, not up hill though, but one would need a lot of money and influence to move the right people to change both laws. IF the individual or organization fight is elitist, it won't have a chance, if it is for all children, they will have a much better chance.

[wannable]

This is the US media, no suing. There have bee several US media outlets with unfavorable Sussex news originated in the US media. From separation, living in hotels, fighting in public or private clubs, having lunches and dinners at their own. 

What and why do you think the couple have not sued to date over there? Is the law more lax making it harder for the sue happy couple? Anyone?

Harry and Meghan TRIAL SEPARATION: 'Nasty Fights, Humiliation and Failure' Lead Prince to Pursue 'Peace' -  Inside The Drama
prince harry meghan taking time apart marriage troubles

By:Aaron Johnson
Jul. 18 2023, Published 5:00 a.m. ET

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been worn down after public backlash, failed business deals, and public spats with their loved ones, palace insiders revealed.
"They're trying to figure out what hit them," an insider claimed. "Harry doesn't fit in Meghan's tacky Tinseltown world," they added, saying he needs to "find himself."
It's been a rocky few months for the renegade royals who dealt with the negative fallout from the bad press as they tried to reestablish their lives in California after stepping down from their senior duties and waging war with the royals.
Prince Harry and Wife Meghan Spending 'Time Apart' After Marriage Troubles: Sources

[Curryong]

Probably because tales of public fights etc, edge of divorce and all the rest of the rubbish doesn?t come from viable sources. Apart from Angela Levin and co wittering on in failing TV Channels, viable British media, even the tabloids, have never stated  that divorce is on the cards for the Sussexes, let alone that there have been fights between them in front of others or any separation, trial or otherwise. .

And that sort of thing in the US is centred on very questionable outlets like the Enquirer and the Globe and others of that ilk. Even huge Hollywood stars have never bothered to sue the Enguirer. (A) because it?s a joke that nobody takes seriously and (B) too much time. effort, expense and trouble to spend on rubbish. And that?s probably the view of the Sussex couple.

BTW, the source you linked has no name, so viewers cannot  check the original article. What rubbishy magazine or other source first printed it. Original source please. And if it?s Radar, don?t make me laugh! The day Radar prints the truth about anything will be the day the sky caves in !

[wannable]

The couple are trapped with the first ammendment of freedom of speech, the press assembly in the USA. If the US had similar or equal laws like the UK including the EU, they'd have sued more than a dozen US media outlets to date.

[TLLK]

I'm going to take Radar's story about the Sussexes' supposed marital issues with a big spoonful of skepticism.

[wannable]

Totally, Neil Sean consulted with Radar, his source said 'we can write anything we want with half truths of  (spotify problem that may, very likely will have far reaching tentacles to other businesses) and it will pass - go to the digital press on to their website, it's only with the Brits they have issues and can sue''.

^ Hence my question yesterday about the press law.  :wink:

You see, there are milder stories the couple went berserk with the UK media described by the couple themselves, now we have full on hotter US media trashing from the East and West coast of the USA, quiet as a mouse.

[Curryong]

Neil Sean and the people he works for would ?consult? any news source that had bad stories about the Sussexes (or were prepared to make it up and publish it. And anybody who believes ANYTHING about anyone that Radar puts forth needs their head read. It would take a mountain of salt for me to read anything of theirs and wonder if there is truth in it. That?s how unreliable they are as a news source.

Look, I loathe the Fail with a passion, as you and everybody here knows that. However, if they had viable evidence from named independent witnesses about Harry and Meghan talking divorce, or photos of the two of them having a huge row in public (and it had audio not body language experts) then I?d believe it because the DM is a newspaper and mindful of British libel laws (though God knows they?ve been fined and paid out for breaking them.) I would then be prepared to believe it. But Radar. Never in 10 million years. They are not even on the level of the Enquirer, but miles below. Believable they are not!

[wannable]

Neil Sean is doing his job, he has a source at Radar, asked the person at Radar what, why are you guys publishing this story - the person told Neil they can publish whatever they want because the couple will not and can't sue them.

Why did Neil ask, well the three trashy gossip mags and sites have the equivalent of millions of Americans reading it online or at the supermarket stand, it's even bigger than the 10Million daily viewers of the Daily Mail UK alone. I fully understand the reason why Neil Sean asked this American publication.

The DM just published an embarrassing trashing from the Biden's to the Sussexes. Since they published it, 1. they are sure about their White House sources and 2. Waiting for Harry and Meghan to sue them.  The couple are being treated as collateral damage.  I do not know where this will end, but this story is really bad.