Really beautifully written. This is the post that got me to upgrade to paid. As an American, I really appreciate your pieces on the Royal Family because I (like so many) know the characters and events better than other British domestic issues. So Royal stories make it easier to follow your forensic dissection of all the f**kery.
I'm curious, is there any significant coverage in mainstream media outlets saying, "hey, this man may have a point?" Is the public really subject one large propaganda machine?
Last night my husband was watching BBC World News "Outside Source" on PBS. BBC on PBS is like a double reputation boost - making it a sort of gold standard of quality journalism in the popular US imagination. OS is fast paced and nowhere to be found on the internet but I'm sure of these things - the piece on Prince Harry started out reasonably enough but after saying something along the lines of "Harry claims Camilla leaked on him in 90s" inserted (without citation) a statement about how Harry was just confused and didn't understand what was really going on. They then cut to a talking head from a "former Sun editor" about how all of Harry's claims were absolute hogwash with no pushback or counterpoint. I knew I shouldn't be surprised based on your column was flabbergasted nonetheless.
It'll be interesting to see how more considered coverage of the actual book shapes up in the American press this week. "Prince Harry takes on Murdoch" should be red meat to many outlets but the British wagon circling seems to be bleeding over, be it with coverage outsourced to London offices or imported "royal experts" or laziness. NPR's headline for the Netflix series was "U.K. critics pan 'Harry & Meghan' Netflix series", and NPR's media correspondent wrote a book ON MURDOCH.
Sorry this is so long. I don't have Twitter so haven't learned how to be concise.
Really beautifully written. This is the post that got me to upgrade to paid. As an American, I really appreciate your pieces on the Royal Family because I (like so many) know the characters and events better than other British domestic issues. So Royal stories make it easier to follow your forensic dissection of all the f**kery.
I'm curious, is there any significant coverage in mainstream media outlets saying, "hey, this man may have a point?" Is the public really subject one large propaganda machine?
Last night my husband was watching BBC World News "Outside Source" on PBS. BBC on PBS is like a double reputation boost - making it a sort of gold standard of quality journalism in the popular US imagination. OS is fast paced and nowhere to be found on the internet but I'm sure of these things - the piece on Prince Harry started out reasonably enough but after saying something along the lines of "Harry claims Camilla leaked on him in 90s" inserted (without citation) a statement about how Harry was just confused and didn't understand what was really going on. They then cut to a talking head from a "former Sun editor" about how all of Harry's claims were absolute hogwash with no pushback or counterpoint. I knew I shouldn't be surprised based on your column was flabbergasted nonetheless.
It'll be interesting to see how more considered coverage of the actual book shapes up in the American press this week. "Prince Harry takes on Murdoch" should be red meat to many outlets but the British wagon circling seems to be bleeding over, be it with coverage outsourced to London offices or imported "royal experts" or laziness. NPR's headline for the Netflix series was "U.K. critics pan 'Harry & Meghan' Netflix series", and NPR's media correspondent wrote a book ON MURDOCH.
Sorry this is so long. I don't have Twitter so haven't learned how to be concise.
Piers Morgan being “unwatched” on Talk TV 😆