1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A quasi Royal thread - sorry

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by MickLL, Jan 20, 2020.

  1. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    Following the recent events concerning the Royals I heard a radio programme in which it was said that Ms Markle gets much more negative press than Ms Middleton.

    I did some Googling and it seems that the above is true - even to the extent of wildly different reporting of the same action. For example touching the 'bump' while pregnant was positive and motherly when Kate M did it but narcissistic and bad when Meghan M did it ('quotes' from same newspaper)

    However my question is this. How reliable are the analyses which come from organizations such as PR Review (a magazine for the PR industry) and Buzzfeed (don't know them).

    I'm not so much interested in the Royals but I am interested in the accuracy of reporting. Any views?

    MickLL
     
  2. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I know nothing about PR Review but Buzzfeed is basicallly clickbait and not to be trusted with anything other than occasionally raising a smile at the world. Hardly a reliable source I'd have thought.
     
    Mark101, Zou, Gezza and 2 others like this.
  3. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    Thanks.
    To fill in a bit more Buzzfeed gives 20 headlines (I think it's 20) culled from UK papers each headline dealing with essentially the same thing. So my 'bump' example came from Buzzfeed who were 'quoting' a UK newspaper. I suppose that I could search each and every paper (name of paper and date given in each case) but I'm not that interested really).
    PR Review claims to have analyzed all UK royal coverage and decided that MM was mentioned 20ooo times in the UK press and got 70% negative coverage. They claim that KM was mentioned 14000 times and got (about) 30% negative coverage.

    If that's true then I begin to understand their unhappiness - especially in the light of what happened to H's mother.

    MickLL
     
  4. beatnik69

    beatnik69 Well-Known Member

    You only have to take a look at Piers Morgan's ranting on Twitter, about MM, to see how much negativity she receives.
     
    NickM, Trannifan and Footloose like this.
  5. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I'm not saying they're wrong in this particular case, just that they are kind of known for '20 things you didn't know you couldn't live without' type material. That said it occurs to me that newspapers changing their tune is hardly a new thing. I'm pretty sure the Daily Mail once campaigned for us all to JOIN Europe. They print what they think their readership wants to read. And I'm afraid that what the Daily Mail readers wanted to read was negative press about Meghan. For Lawrence Fox to suggest that there was no racism involved towards her was at best oblivious.
     
    NickM likes this.
  6. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Think it is fair to say the establishment closed ranks on a coloured person entering royalty.......Maybe in 100 years, but certainly not in this day and age. They would see it as saving the royal family from their own misjudgements.
     
  7. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    Let's face it, all newspapers pander to their perceived readership by their editorial slant. It's a positive feedback loop. The readers feel justified in their prejudices by newspaper headlines and coverage. How 'real' it all is is up for discussion. Personally I'm not really interested in the royals and their perceived problems. It wouldn't bother me if the whole institution faded out. Property and land given back to the people. Duchy of Lancaster, duchy of Cornwall and all the rest of the pseud feudal landlord/tenancies destroyed. Mind you, I feel the same when the church sheds crocodile tears about poverty. There's so much institutions could do, but they rest on their power and wealth and control and do little to help others in need.

    Anyway... Megan knew what she was getting into. The situation reminds me so much of the 'second in line' syndrome. Think of Margaret, wanting her own life. Diana wanted everything, including some on the side. Harry sees William in his role and sees a life of being second unacceptable.. How Charles feels being denied the throne, goodness knows, but at least he seems happy now. It's a soap opera and exploited by the media. Loads fall for it which saddens me. But what do I know? They are happy loving the royals, so be it.
     
  8. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    When applied to the British press this is more or less the definition of oxymoron.
     
    NickM likes this.
  9. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    In the mean time it keeps all of the negative brexit news off the front page.....


    Graeme
     
  10. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Timing is everything:rolleyes:
     
    Catriona likes this.
  11. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Exactly, what used to be the "spare prince" syndrome. When you have been by-passed in line by a whole new generation, why buckle down to the restrictions of your birth as a spare? You either raise an army and usurp the throne, or go out and do your own thing. Good luck to him.
     
  12. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    The media and newspapers base what they cover on the responses they get from their readers; If you have over the years garnered readers who are biased in a particular way, you are going to feed them with the same kind of diet. There is also the well-established principle that printing sensationalist material boosts sales.

    If far more of those who disagree with articles railed against whats published instead of just keeping quiet and letting them continue in the same way, they aren't going to act in a more 'measured' manner. Those who shout the loudest, (even if their views are more extreme than the vast majority of other people) are therefore more likely to get noticed which is why the Labour and Tory parties inhabit opposite ends of the political spectrum.

    As for the Royal family and in this case, specifically Harry and Megan, I'm not surprised this has come to pass. I wish them well, but I suspect the media will continue 'hounding' them. However, since they are no longer 'Royals', they will presumably no longer be subject to the Royal families long-standing tradition of not 'kicking back' when it is 'harassed' by the media. Will we be seeing Harry and Megan in the near future contesting some of the flack they are subjected to?
     
  13. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I don't. While I accept that Mrs Windsor does her job well, the rest of them are just hangers on.
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  14. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Harry and Megan fresh air compared to most of the royals. best of luck to them.
    Perhaps the "Commonwealth Nations" could find a useful job for them.
     
    NickM and Footloose like this.
  15. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

    Being a direct member of the Royal Family is something you are born into, you have no control of that. It's not like applying for a job advertised in the paper.

    Personally in my life I've had to work and save for everything I have, but the one thing I have which many royals don't have is freedom. I cherish that more than anything.
     
  16. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    At least I'm retired and now making a minimal contribution to supporting them.
    Am I alone in finding the Royals even more boring than Brexit?
     
  17. TimHeath

    TimHeath Well-Known Member

    My impression has been that the media bias against Meghan has been more to do with her past as a divorced American actress rather than her skin colour.
     
    Mark101, Gezza, MJB and 1 other person like this.
  18. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    I wonder how the negative press Meghan received compares to that which the Duchess of York received?
     
  19. miked

    miked Well-Known Member

    Kate writes: Think of Margaret, wanting her own life. Diana wanted everything, including some on the side.

    Oh, let's not stop there: Some of us recall a newly-married Brian slipping out - in years gone by -to enjoy an alternative evening's entertainment with his one-time best friend's wife; or Princess Margaret having a dalliance in the Caribbean with her trusty friend, Basil; then again, coming more up to date, we have Andy (with non-sweating 'pandies') partying with one (perhaps more) of Jeffrey's young recruits . . . Oh dear me, when it comes to thrusting and hooraying, the Windsor crew have consistently shown more unbridled enthusiasm for the rut than any antlered Monarch (or Monarchess) of the Glens.
     
    Learning likes this.
  20. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    They seem a bit like mallard drakes! Or is that they get caught out more than ordinary folk?
     

Share This Page