The Royals & Television Media, Tabloid Press/Photographer Pack

[wannable]

The Express is claiming William and Kate ITV decision has created a public backlash. They want to see Christmas Carol in the BBC because of the mandatory bill like water electricity and gas they pay.

[Curryong]

The Express claims dozens of things daily, many of which are untrue. And people only go on Twitter or other platforms about news articles, TV programmes, docos etc if they are tremendously outraged about something of the moment and want to vent their resentment and frustration or are extremely excited and want to share with thousands of others.

But it?s all of the moment. Next day, week, month, something else occupies their minds and fingers. The Twitter mobs posting anywhere don?t represent the vast majority of the population most of the time because people in general are neutral or don?t really care.

[wannable]

And YouGov is skewed too? William and Kate being above 75% favorable with their citizens.

[TLLK]

It's time to move on from popularity ratings and the back and forth bickering. If the bickering continues, then this thread will have to be closed.

[Curryong]

That Express article you were referring to in your last post didn?t mention YouGov polling at all. It was quoting and referring to what people were saying on Twitter and other platforms about the Cambridges? decision to switch from the BBC to ITV for the Xmas Carol Concert. At the moment, on Twitter, the mood is ?Shouldn?t have done it!?

Tomorrow, next week, next month, it will be some other point people on there will be venting about. As for the Cambridges, as they continue in their public lives, until death presumably if the monarchy survives, there will be other points at which the Twitter mob (or whatever comes after it) the British public and yes, even the media, will not be 110% in agreement with their actions and decisions. That?s just life in the public eye, and public discourse.

[wannable]

So social media wants it aired in the BBC. Lovely.

[wannable]

It's time to move on from popularity ratings and the back and forth bickering. If the bickering continues, then this thread will have to be closed.

IMO a healthy discussion of opposing views. If unpopular there wouldn't be a 'mob' wanting Christmas Carol at the BBC or worse requesting to defund the state channel.

:flower3:

[TLLK]

Thread is reopened.

[Curryong]

Clip from one of our morning breakfast shows here, in which RR Robert Jobson states that, in spite of denials from people like Camilla Tominey  the three Palaces do brief reporters personally at times. He also says he doesn?t know what the Palace is getting into a flap about.

Royals BLAST BBC for documentary about Princes William, Harry and Meghan Markle | Sunrise - YouTube

[PrincessOfPeace]

Not sure why Robert Jobson negates Camilla Tominey. Two different perspectives. But just as a reminder Jobbo has been one of the most vocal critics of Harry and Meghan.

[wannable]

Jobson had access for his Charles book, the famous lines; what MM wants MM gets, tiara gate...following Charles in his cc duties, the POW would throw him a bone rather than 'is it true' or 'I have this, do you have any comments', which is Tominey's style, as stated by herself.

[TLLK]

Amanda Platell participated in the documentary but now criticizes the BBC for its slant and claims that she was conned. I'd be curious to know how other journalists who participated in the recent documentary feel, but perhaps they're waiting for the second episode.

PLATELL'S PEOPLE: How the BBC's golden boy Amol Rajan conned me into royal hatchet job  | Daily Mail Online

Eight months ago, I was introduced to the BBC?s rising star Amol Rajan who asked me to be interviewed for a TV documentary he was making.

It was about Princes William and Harry and their relationship with the media after the death of their mother Diana. He said the working title was The Princes And The Press but, he went on to say, delphically, that it didn?t ?capture what we?re doing?.

Indeed it didn?t. The first part of the resultant series, broadcast last Monday, was, in my opinion, a hatchet job on the Palace and the Press . . . and a hagiography of Harry and Meghan. It was so biased against the royals the Palace has since threatened a boycott of future dealings with the BBC.

Clearly, being party to such a calumny was not what I signed up for when I submitted myself to at least two hours of filmed conversation with Rajan, who it must be said, was charming, self-deprecating and made me feel everything was on the level. When I saw the programme, my two hours had been reduced to less than two minutes of selective quotes. I felt utterly conned.

To avoid further ghastliness, I asked Rajan to show me any other edits of our chat that might appear in the second episode on Monday, given that six months has passed since the interview. He replied: ?Alas impossible to share: we are still working on the programme. I?m so sorry as always want to be fair.?

I think viewers have already made up their mind about how ?fair? the series is.

The producers allowed Meghan?s lawyer Jenny Afia to speak with the duchess?s approval, at length and unchallenged. Most shamefully, they seem to have failed to offer the Royal Family the same opportunity.

What?s more, they gave disproportionate prominence to Omid Scobie, a Meghan super-groupie who was co-author of a fawning biography. He had free rein to claim the Palace briefed against her because she was too popular. Yet the national broadcaster, set up by Royal Charter, refused Palace staff the courtesy of a preview to see what the Queen and her family were accused of.

I?m deeply ashamed to be associated with The Princes And The Press and feel let down by Amol Rajan, who I believe misled me.

During Monday?s episode, he highlighted two of my Daily Mail columns that were critical of the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William ?even though I?ve written any number in their favour. It seemed I was being used to bolster Meghan?s case. I should have known better.

However badly treated I feel, Heaven knows what the royals feel about being trashed by the BBC.

[wannable]

🤷🏻‍♀️

A journalist feeling duped.

[TLLK]

Camilla Tominey shares her perspective on the "deal" between the British monarchy and the media. Which IMO is more or less what occurs in other European Constitutional monarchies. While her view is focused on the British, it's truly no different with what we see occurring in Spain, Denmark, Belgium etc...
The royals carry out their official and charitable duties and the press covers them. On occasion there are issues over privacy particularity with tabloid coverage, so there's an attempt to try and exercise some control over this ie: Dutch Media Code. It's not a written pact but a delicate balancing act between the royals and the press.

The truth about the Royals' "deal" with the press | Royal Insight - YouTube

Prince Harry and William's relationship with the press has been put under the spotlight once again after the first episode of the BBC documentary The Princes and the Press aired.

The two-part film explores how ?the deal? between press and Palace works, and asks the question what happens if one side doesn?t keep their side of the bargain.

But the reality of this "deal" is far more nuanced, according to The Telegraph's Associate Editor and veteran Royal commentator Camilla Tominey.

"The deal goes wrong when Royals think that they can turn off the tap of publicity when it starts to get critical and negative", Camilla Tominey said in the latest episode of the Royal Insight video series.

And the Daily Mail's royal reporters: Rebecca English, Richard Kay and Richard Eden share their perspective on the BBC's recent documentary and their concerns about the best journalistic practice that they feel was lacking in the program most notably why were certain claims not challenged or followed up ie: Omid Scobie's claim about being the only mixed race reporter in the royal press pack and why Ms. Aifa was able to make her claim regarding the Duchess of Sussex and the inquiry into accounts of bullying behavior.

The latest on the royals vs the BBC after THAT documentary | Palace Confidential - YouTube

[TLLK]

.Here's additional preview information on the second part of the Princes and the Press.
https://archive.vn/KcXla

It might have upset the palace, caused soul-searching at the BBC and reignited the worst of the Royal brothers-at-war rumours.
But a controversial BBC documentary about The Princes and the Press has delivered one clear victory for a member of the Royal Family: its name.
The Duke of Sussex will be able to celebrate a triumph in his mission to end the use of the term ?Megxit?, with the BBC choosing to instead call its second episode ?Sussexit?.
The Duke has recently argued the more popular term of ?Megxit?, used regularly in the media, is sexist, having been created by an online troll to put his wife at the centre of their departure from the working Royal Family.
?Maybe people know this and maybe they don?t, but the term Megxit was or is a misogynistic term, and it was created by a troll, amplified by royal correspondents, and it grew and grew and grew into mainstream media,? he said.
The second episode of The Princes and the Press, called Sussexit, is due for broadcast on Monday night and is expected to air claims about briefing from within the palaces, a lack of support for the Sussexes, and a senior member of a Royal Household helping a tabloid newspaper in its court case against the Duchess. The palace, which has only been in recent contact with programme-makers through its lawyers, has dismissed the contents of the two-part documentary as ?overblown and unfounded?, disappointed by what it perceives as failure to offer a proper right of reply.

The Duchess of Sussex?s lawyer will appear again in the second episode, which covers the period of 2018 to 2021, including the birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and royal tours of the Cambridges and Sussexes.Examining the ?circumstances around the decision of the Sussexes to step down from their senior royal roles?, it details the various legal cases served by Prince Harry and Meghan, and discusses how the relationship between Diana, Princess of Wales, and the press affected her two sons.

The Sunday Telegraph understands it will include coverage of the Martin Bashir scandal, in which the disgraced BBC journalist was found to have used falsified documents to convince the late Princess to give an interview to Panorama.

The programme was being edited until the last minute this week to take in developments in the Duchess of Sussex vs Mail on Sunday case, in which the former working royal apologised for failing to remember she had authorised her then-press secretary to brief her biographers.

It could include an overlooked detail in the evidence, in which the Mail on Sunday?s editor Ted Verity said that in 2020 he ?had a meeting with a senior member of the Royal Household? with ?direct knowledge? of how a letter from the Duchess to her father was drafted. This was not gossip or tittle-tattle: it was what I considered to be high-grade information from a serious individual in a position of authority and responsibility who knew the implications of what they were telling me,? he said in a witness statement.

Lawyers for the newspaper group later confirmed to the court that the source was not Jason Knauf, the Sussexes? former press secretary who eventually provided on-record evidence revealing the couple had authorised him to brief the authors of their biography.

The BBC has not confirmed which elements considered for the documentary will make the final cut.

No previews of the show were made available to the palace, which was asked to respond to a series of allegations in it but believes it did not have enough information to do so.

One palace source said the approach amounted to little more than a ?fishing expedition? aimed at getting aides to give credence to stories they had never commented on before, calling the content ?unfounded conjecture?.

?These are speculative rumours,? said another, of tabloid stories covered in the programme.Here's additional preview information on the second part of the Princes and the Press. The BBC is fully standing by the programme, made by Amol Rajan, with sign-off for the final episode to be broadcast going to executive level.This was not gossip or tittle-tattle: it was what I considered to be high-grade information from a serious individual in a position of authority and responsibility who knew the implications of what they were telling me,? he said in a witness statement.

Lawyers for the newspaper group later confirmed to the court that the source was not Jason Knauf, the Sussexes? former press secretary who eventually provided on-record evidence revealing the couple had authorised him to brief the authors of their biography.  It is thought to include unverified claims that a leaked story about the Sussexes leaving the Royal Family came from someone within one of the Royal Households.

The Duchess of Sussex's lawyer will appear on screen to insist she is not a bully, following an internal palace investigation into her treatment of staff, which is yet to deliver its findings.

Rajan has said he will not tackle the ?culture wars? into which the ?younger royals have been conscripted?, but instead hopes to ?bring light where there is heat?.

A joint statement provided by Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace in response to the show said: "A free, responsible and open press is of vital importance to a healthy democracy.

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

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

[TLLK]

Placing this article here as it involves print media and more than one royal/public figure.

The images of royal women doctored with  bruises and cuts featuring Spain's Queen Letizia and the UK's Duchess of Cambridge have been used without their permission in a domestic abuse campaign. Other public figures featured include the VPOTUS Kamala Harris and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.

While I do understand that need to highlight the serious issue of domestic violence, IMHO it is wrong to use the doctored images of these public figures  as battered women without their permission. IMHO the photos  suggest that this crime was inflicted upon  them by their equally high profile partners/spouses which is very unfair to them.

Doctored image of 'abused' Kate Middleton was used without Palace permission  | Daily Mail Online

Kensington Palace was unaware that the image of the Duchess was being used as part of the campaign, according to The Sun.

It is understood that the images are intended to shock, rather than suggest any of the individuals are victims of domestic violence.

Italian artist and activist Alexsandro Palombo, who edited the pictures, said he wanted to ?draw attention to the poor responses from politics regarding the problem of gender-based violence? and underline ?ineffectiveness of the support and protection system to the victims?.

But some comments on social media were critical: ?You are not funny. Don?t use images of women who didn?t give you their authorisation,? said one.

[Curryong]

I think it would be much better if this very much needed campaign had used some high profile and respected internationally known celebrities for this, rather than royals. Celebs, especially perhaps singers and actresses, would have been more acceptable and people would still have taken notice. A prominent European  politician or two, (Angela Merkel?) wouldn?t have gone astray either! Always of course, with their permission and those of their partners/spouses.

The people in charge must have known that Queens Consort etc wouldn?t have agreed to their photos being doctored. It?s simply being used as shock factor. If it hadn?t been then surely, out of the British royals anyway, Camilla, who is patron of several anti sexual assault  and anti DV charities, would have been an obvious pick. That however would certainly have caused outrage. Something has gone awry here in this campaign and the main message is sadly getting lost.

[Curryong]

Tominey, Palmer, English and the rest seem to have all got their proverbial knickers in a twist about the fact that the BBC hasn?t got the memo that the Sussexes are irretrievably evil, wicked, irresponsible, lying traitors, the line their newspapers and they have been peddling for at least three years.

?Best journalistic practice? to them and their cohorts seems to consist of ?Attack the Sussexes as much and as often as you can? fine, attempt even in some small way to try and understand some of the motivation behind why the Sussexes left, BAD, BAD.

And Tominey especially is always reiterating ?Oh the Sussexes only wanted good stories written about them, only wanted good PR?, while ignoring the literally thousands of articles attacking, degrading and insulting the couple, especially Meghan, that appeared in the tabloid and broadsheet British Press in a virtual tsunami from 2016 onwards. Articles which the Sussexes sucked up and never referred to.

And it might be a very good idea to always remember that the vast majority of these RRs are employed within a newspaper group that is being sued by Meghan. It?s this newspaper group that holds the enormous balance of power in this situation, not the Sussexes. 

[TLLK]

 :

I think it would be much better if this very much needed campaign had used some high profile and respected internationally known celebrities for this, rather than royals. Celebs, especially perhaps singers and actresses, would have been more acceptable and people would still have taken notice. A prominent European  politician or two, (Angela Merkel?) wouldn?t have gone astray either! Always of course, with their permission and those of their partners/spouses.

The people in charge must have known that Queens Consort etc wouldn?t have agreed to their photos being doctored. It?s simply being used as shock factor. If it hadn?t been then surely, out of the British royals anyway, Camilla, who is patron of several anti sexual assault  and anti DV charities, would have been an obvious pick. That however would certainly have caused outrage. Something has gone awry here in this campaign and the main message is sadly getting lost.

I agree with you 100% and am disappointed that what would have been a very effective campaign has now been diluted by not approaching these women to gain their consent to participate.

[wannable]

The behaviour of BBC and the Sussexes, they equally deserve to be as they are.  The first has a growing defund the second being isolated not only publicly but little by little by their own circle, ghosted.

[Curryong]

The BBC won?t be defunded. That would be ridiculous. Impossible for the Govt to allow the prestigious national broadcaster to go down. It would mean the Govt would have to be the sole financial support and that wouldn?t ever happen. It, and the Sussexes will carry on as usual. The Sussexes have shown no appetite for returning to the UK at all. And nobody knows what communication there is between them and the Queen, Charles etc.

[wannable]

It's a form of pressure, a change of management may happen or not.

[wannable]

Meghan Markle's lawyer tonight issued a technical and bizarre denial the Duchess had ever bullied staff - but then accepted 'She wouldn?t want to negate anyone?s personal experiences.?

Of course, the lawyer (via MM) don't know yet (or know or are exercising prudence) what Jason Knauf, Simon Case (the ex boss of JK who works for #10 since months ago) and at least 7 ex staffers have said to the BP investigating team in Ref. to the Bullying and to improve the HR rules within and most importantly, the above had to be changed in a way to not be sued by mainly the Queen, Charles and William.

[wannable]

The BBC last night appeared to back down on claims that Buckingham Palace briefed against Harry and Meghan after being accused of peddling 'overblown and unfounded' allegations. A BBC2 documentary presented by Amol Rajan examining the relationship between the royal households and the media also stepped back from suggestions that William allowed aides to brief about his brother's mental health - which was categorically denied by, and deeply offended many in, the royal household. The two-part documentary series had already drawn unprecedented censure from Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace. The royal households believe it contains a slew of unsubstantiated and categorically inaccurate accusations about collusion with the media, particularly in connection with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex during the tumultuous period of their decision to quit royal duties, dubbed 'Megxit'. The households' lawyers had been preparing to examine the final programme with a fine-tooth comb and had not ruled out a formal complaint. But last night's prime-time offering had seemingly been watered-down at the 11th hour, with editing going on up until the last minute. Plans for an accompanying podcast have also been postponed by the BBC. A royal source said: 'It is unlikely the matter will be taken further.'

👍🏻

[Curryong]

Jason Knauf gave evidence for the newspaper group in the latest round of Meghan?s case against them. He still works for the Cambridges Royal Foundation until next month. It?s hardly likely he would have done so without William?s permission and even encouragement. That is plain unvarnished fact.

And the Sun (Wootton) got their scoop about the Sussexes leaving Royal duties and leaving for Canada from someone senior (either Royal or otherwise) within the Royal Households, a scoop which spurred Harry and Meghan to their statement and actions in 2019 and stymied the tabloid article. The Palace may believe they?ve won this round but the truth about such things almost always has a nasty way of making its way to the surface eventually, one way or the other. .