The Royal Family

[Danny]

It’s great for a moment but it’s just publicity for his move to GB News

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, JoshBRFC said:

Piers is intelligent, but he’s also a massive cunt. Him storming off and resigning I find rather funny.

I'm pretty certain  he was forced to resign 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Cicero said:

What a baby. 

The ironic thing is hes always talking about people being snowflakes and to sensitive 

[Honey Honey]

To be fair it's not like he's crumbled to the first person that's had a go, he's crumbled to a specific person. Many have been on that show calling him all sorts.

[UNIQUE]

you cant take a girl from the streets and marry her into the aristocrats of the world and expect it to turn out well. the girl is pretty and she did well with her acting but the bottom line is she was born into a life much like the rest of us and she had no business being in the royal family. you can only fake it for so long. 

[Harry]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

That's the Buckingham Palace statement. They aren't admitting publicly any fault on their part but it's also hardly a declaration of war. At worst, they're disputing the recollection of the comment about the colour of the baby's skin. Leaves the door open for bridges to be built I think. The media are still clearly a bigger problem. Hopefully this accelerates the pace at which this story finds its way back out of the mainstream news cycle.

That's a seriously masterful statement.

My take is they dispute the characterisation of the discussion of the baby's skin as being linked to the title or to it being from any personal racism. 

Perhaps a serious conservation Ankit the fact that a blank baby would be a subject of some animosity within a portion of the common folk, and whether they were prepared for that.

[JoshBRFC+]

His spelling annoys me but.... Hmmm.

 

 

[Moon Monkey]

26 minutes ago, JoshBRFC said:

His spelling annoys me but.... Hmmm.

 

 

Out of interest,  what conclusions were reached in the questions of the second peice, where the reporter isn't named? Where the conclusions nasty or nice? Because that could be crucial to the articles angle, for a proper comparison. 

I would expect the Royal correspondent in the Femail section of the paper, to be a pleasant read, but I'm not sure about the article in the Online section as the actual conclusions are missing.

 

[Honey Honey]

7 hours ago, Moon Monkey said:

Out of interest,  what conclusions were reached in the questions of the second peice, where the reporter isn't named? Where the conclusions nasty or nice? Because that could be crucial to the articles angle, for a proper comparison. 

I would expect the Royal correspondent in the Femail section of the paper, to be a pleasant read, but I'm not sure about the article in the Online section as the actual conclusions are missing.

 

The article was made up of several thoughts from various people. It consists of psychologists, body language experts etc who all pretty much say this is just normal. Then among it are the opinions of gossip columnists who are primarily negative. They just hate her and it oozes out in their words. 

I'm not convinced by these why are two people described totally different. I think it completely misses the point of how these businesses work. We know why and it's probably not what those who have to ask why think. For me saying the same thing is not necessarily a requirement. Your reputation can proceed the article and the article was born out of social media attacks about Meghan's bump. The Daily Mail is a business, the editors and the writers are driven by clicks and sales. If there are two articles about the same thing the real question is why they came to the determination that Meghan's needed to be that way to make money. At that particular point in time of the article it's clear that Meghan was already hated on, so they're taking that and selling it, they're reading the room for the hits.

Some like to think of the "media" as some sort of being that controls your brain. It is really a complex and diverse group driven by profit and their own fame. Social media is a fantastic example of what being a journalist is about. An ordinary person on social media who wants likes and followers, particularly those who they don't personally know will fall into one of two groups. They either naturally say what sells and don't realise it or they are actively tailoring what they say to sell. The mainstream media is made up of exactly the same. Editors, those who write the headlines, they know what they are doing, they're doing what will get hits. Daily Mail haters always forget the Daily Mail readership in this, most likely because they wrongly consider them to be brain washed and see themselves as knights in shining armour coming to the rescue of society.

Why she is hated is difficult to pin down to any moment in time. It seems to accumulate. The Palace leaks about how nasty she is probably keeps pushing it rather than creating it. It may also be to do with Harry's reputation. As they withdraw from duty the hatred just gets worse. Adopt woke positions and you know who will pile on.

Many people who "hate" on her seem to repeat the line that they find her fake. 

Negative columns are more common in the right wing tabloids, which suggests something about the readership desire. However they have also been seen in gossip magazines, the Mirror and the Guardian. When they say the British press have treat them badly it is the whole lot of them cashing in at times on an audience that wanted that negative gossip and judgment. 

[RandoEFC+]

2 hours ago, Steve Bruce Almighty said:

Some like to think of the "media" as some sort of being that controls your brain. It is really a complex and diverse group driven by profit and their own fame. Social media is a fantastic example of what being a journalist is about. An ordinary person on social media who wants likes and followers, particularly those who they don't personally know will fall into one of two groups. They either naturally say what sells and don't realise it or they are actively tailoring what they say to sell. The mainstream media is made up of exactly the same. Editors, those who write the headlines, they know what they are doing, they're doing what will get hits. Daily Mail haters always forget the Daily Mail readership in this, most likely because they wrongly consider them to be brain washed and see themselves as knights in shining armour coming to the rescue of society.

I'm mostly with you but I think there's a more complex 'chicken and egg' situation at play. While I wouldn't argue against the point that the Mail plays to its audience and its comments section, there are still a lot of people, probably mostly older people, who read the Daily Mail and approach things like this without a predetermined opinion which is then influenced by their editorial approach to these stories. I'm thinking mostly of my Nana who occasionally comes out with stuff about how she read the EU were doing this, that or the other to our fishing waters, or Harry and Meghan expect to be able to leave the royal family whilst still getting this title or that payout. I just wonder how many other people across the country end up forming the basis of their opinions on the pseudo-factual reporting you get in papers like the Daily Mail. I wonder how this will change as the social media-literate generations continue to grow until they form a majority of the public. We're not far off that I shouldn't think.

[SchalkeUK]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

I'm mostly with you but I think there's a more complex 'chicken and egg' situation at play. While I wouldn't argue against the point that the Mail plays to its audience and its comments section, there are still a lot of people, probably mostly older people, who read the Daily Mail and approach things like this without a predetermined opinion which is then influenced by their editorial approach to these stories. I'm thinking mostly of my Nana who occasionally comes out with stuff about how she read the EU were doing this, that or the other to our fishing waters, or Harry and Meghan expect to be able to leave the royal family whilst still getting this title or that payout. I just wonder how many other people across the country end up forming the basis of their opinions on the pseudo-factual reporting you get in papers like the Daily Mail. I wonder how this will change as the social media-literate generations continue to grow until they form a majority of the public. We're not far off that I shouldn't think.

It will never change, for when papers are no longer being printed and the 'scum' gang seem to have retired, facecrap will keep all the fake garbage alive and thriving and there will still be Covid for years until that sort of info is finally wiped out by sensible legislation that makes it impossible to make money purveying lies, untruths, myths and pure 'merdre' That is the only thing an old man has to look forward to not having to even deal with at the moment in my life when I look to the sunset (Mr Chips).  There is still time to 'fill the world with love'

[RandoEFC+]

4 minutes ago, SchalkeUK said:

It will never change, for when papers are no longer being printed and the 'scum' gang seem to have retired, facecrap will keep all the fake garbage alive and thriving and there will still be Covid for years until that sort of info is finally wiped out by sensible legislation that makes it impossible to make money purveying lies, untruths, myths and pure 'merdre' That is the only thing an old man has to look forward to not having to even deal with at the moment in my life when I look to the sunset (Mr Chips).  There is still time to 'fill the world with love'

That's what I mean though, currently it's a minority (I think) who shout the loudest in the Facebook comment sections and fall for the clickbait on links shared on Twitter and Facebook. These are the ones Harvey is describing as driving the news rather than being brain-washed by it. There are still plenty of people who have just always read the Daily Mail and end up having their views influenced by it. I fear that as the social media generations make up a greater section of the population, the former group will grow and potentially become a majority while the latter will shrink as that generation shrinks. So when you say 'it will never change' I would call that an optimistic scenario, I think it'll get worse before it gets better and the best you can do is accept it for what it is in the knowledge that you can't really stop it.

[Harry]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

I'm mostly with you but I think there's a more complex 'chicken and egg' situation at play. While I wouldn't argue against the point that the Mail plays to its audience and its comments section, there are still a lot of people, probably mostly older people, who read the Daily Mail and approach things like this without a predetermined opinion which is then influenced by their editorial approach to these stories. I'm thinking mostly of my Nana who occasionally comes out with stuff about how she read the EU were doing this, that or the other to our fishing waters, or Harry and Meghan expect to be able to leave the royal family whilst still getting this title or that payout. I just wonder how many other people across the country end up forming the basis of their opinions on the pseudo-factual reporting you get in papers like the Daily Mail. I wonder how this will change as the social media-literate generations continue to grow until they form a majority of the public. We're not far off that I shouldn't think.

I don't believe the Murdoch papers are just click motivated. They are absolutely driven by ideology of the owner. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

15 hours ago, JoshBRFC said:

His spelling annoys me but.... Hmmm.

 

 

The Daily Mail is racist. I think that’s been known for a long time and it’s a bigger issue than going beyond whether they were mean to the pretty girl who married a prince tbh

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

I don't believe the Murdoch papers are just click motivated. They are absolutely driven by ideology of the owner. 

They're both, mate. Murdoch is absolutely click motivated, otherwise he wouldn’t have demanded Google start paying him- that’s money he was losing out on clicks because google was giving the story away.

But he’s also very ideologically driven, because he’s used his media empire to push the absolute worst policy positions conservatives can come up with in the Anglosphere

[Honey Honey]

2 hours ago, SchalkeUK said:

It will never change, for when papers are no longer being printed and the 'scum' gang seem to have retired, facecrap will keep all the fake garbage alive and thriving and there will still be Covid for years until that sort of info is finally wiped out by sensible legislation that makes it impossible to make money purveying lies, untruths, myths and pure 'merdre' That is the only thing an old man has to look forward to not having to even deal with at the moment in my life when I look to the sunset (Mr Chips).  There is still time to 'fill the world with love'

Or like the Independent. Ended its print press and became a massive clickbait machine which catches clever people out all the time because they did so without having the reputation that the Hate Mail has. 

 

5 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

I'm mostly with you but I think there's a more complex 'chicken and egg' situation at play. While I wouldn't argue against the point that the Mail plays to its audience and its comments section, there are still a lot of people, probably mostly older people, who read the Daily Mail and approach things like this without a predetermined opinion which is then influenced by their editorial approach to these stories. I'm thinking mostly of my Nana who occasionally comes out with stuff about how she read the EU were doing this, that or the other to our fishing waters, or Harry and Meghan expect to be able to leave the royal family whilst still getting this title or that payout. I just wonder how many other people across the country end up forming the basis of their opinions on the pseudo-factual reporting you get in papers like the Daily Mail. I wonder how this will change as the social media-literate generations continue to grow until they form a majority of the public. We're not far off that I shouldn't think.

Agree with a lot of that.

You don't necessarily need a predetermined opinion on a subject, but to be a predetermined user type. I work in a company that in part helps identify those types of people who will likely respond the same way as someone else based on a certain characteristics. To be a DM reader you're already a certain type, you respond to certain things, if you have no opinion and go into something that's tailored to sell to you, it speaks in a certain way that is what you like to read and believe.

[Honey Honey]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

I don't believe the Murdoch papers are just click motivated. They are absolutely driven by ideology of the owner. 

In the UK Murdock doesn't own the Torygraph or the Hate Mail.

With the Torygraph, the readership are a type, Conservatives primarily. They won't print something that will make their readership leave.

[Bluewolf]

[Harry]

4 minutes ago, Cazza said:

How do we know any of what Meghan Markle is the truth.... Where's the proof or can she just spill out any old bollox.

You know most women in their late twenties and thirties are as mental as anything.... ?

Laws for libel and slander.

She's credible though. She may have things wrong in her own mind, or she may be exaggerating, but you'd think she'd be basically speaking the truth.

[Batard]

43 minutes ago, Cazza said:

How do we know any of what Meghan Markle is the truth.... Where's the proof or can she just spill out any old bollox.

You know most women in their late twenties and thirties are as mental as anything.... ?

I had noticed, yes. 

[Cicero]

Not even a week and I already wish this died. The less we hear about them and this story, the better. 

[Moon Monkey]

8 hours ago, Cicero said:

Not even a week and I already wish this died. The less we hear about them and this story, the better. 

100% This ^

[Machado]

 

 

[Toinho]

No point in the royal family. It’s embarrassing we’re still in the commonwealth  

[Bluewolf]

I know I have been trying to avoid this whole Royal debate and all that but how come Prince Philips funeral wasn't front page news then???