I think it highly likely that Harry knows, if they weren’t royals, he’d likely still have a mum. Secondarily: if there wasn’t a media obsession, he’d still have a mum.
Surprisingly, he is not taking the line that would be a direct threat to his family’s livelihood and legacy. Whether he wants to or not, it is hard to fault him for not doing so, the response to what he has done suggests most people of influence aren’t even ready to contemplate abolition!
I almost wrote something about this simply because absolutely no one in the US and. UK press seemed to have anything interesting to say—and it IS interesting.
You have shown why it is significant. If one can wade through the goofy California-ness of their framing, and the the hazy romance, a rock is being lifted up on a media culture that seems unbelievably manipulative, dishonest and destructive to British society.. (I’m not British—so I’m taking the testimony of friends.)
As a casual observer, of certain events and stories, I think they are even more manipulative and dissembling than US media, with a more united front, and a much bigger impact when the collude. They circular the wagons much more.
Yes, I know Harry is only tackling tabloid press head on but it’s still useful.
The fact they hold the royal family almost as hostages, so that they end all up trading damaging stories with their guards like cigarettes in prison shows how much power the British press wields.
Was it always like this? How did it get this way? And why are people so damn gullible?
I say this about the US too, of course. But sometimes the narratives the British press concocts seem so manufactured —maybe because I don’t live there.
I watched some of the documentary and it does raise the question of the point of the monarchy. Yes, it immediately drops the question. But the whole thing raises so many sharp questions about the history of colonialism, I have to think that the challenge hangs in the air.
I think it highly likely that Harry knows, if they weren’t royals, he’d likely still have a mum. Secondarily: if there wasn’t a media obsession, he’d still have a mum.
Surprisingly, he is not taking the line that would be a direct threat to his family’s livelihood and legacy. Whether he wants to or not, it is hard to fault him for not doing so, the response to what he has done suggests most people of influence aren’t even ready to contemplate abolition!
I almost wrote something about this simply because absolutely no one in the US and. UK press seemed to have anything interesting to say—and it IS interesting.
You have shown why it is significant. If one can wade through the goofy California-ness of their framing, and the the hazy romance, a rock is being lifted up on a media culture that seems unbelievably manipulative, dishonest and destructive to British society.. (I’m not British—so I’m taking the testimony of friends.)
As a casual observer, of certain events and stories, I think they are even more manipulative and dissembling than US media, with a more united front, and a much bigger impact when the collude. They circular the wagons much more.
Yes, I know Harry is only tackling tabloid press head on but it’s still useful.
The fact they hold the royal family almost as hostages, so that they end all up trading damaging stories with their guards like cigarettes in prison shows how much power the British press wields.
Was it always like this? How did it get this way? And why are people so damn gullible?
I say this about the US too, of course. But sometimes the narratives the British press concocts seem so manufactured —maybe because I don’t live there.
I watched some of the documentary and it does raise the question of the point of the monarchy. Yes, it immediately drops the question. But the whole thing raises so many sharp questions about the history of colonialism, I have to think that the challenge hangs in the air.