Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Daily Mail And The Markles
24 Answers
Why are they plastered all over pages 1,2 and 3 of the Daily Mail after all the trouble she has caused?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smurfchops. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's not only the Mail, it's always front page 'news' on the Express too, at least they are a part of the British establishment (ex). What I don't understand is why the Express continually have trivial non-news about Carol Vorderman, - a complete non-entity. I think either she knows someone on the staff or she has a PR company paying a fee to the paper.
smurfchops - // Why are they plastered all over pages 1,2 and 3 of the Daily Mail after all the trouble she has caused? //
I think you may have that the wrong way around.
The initial court case this week proves that it is the Mail Group that is causing the trouble, rather than the Duchess, hence her successful court case against them.
But regardless of the editorial and indeed legal teams' thoughts towards them the Duke and Duchess still represent circulation figures when they are featured in the papers.
The Mail cannot afford to be snitty and refuse to publish stories about them, because their rival newspapers will, and that means circulation figures will drop, and that is something they cannot afford.
So the Mail can swallow its pride, to follow its moral outrage which the court have already forced down its throat, and get on with dealing with the competition.
You may feel that the Mail is being hypocritical in publishing its stories, and you'd be absolutely right, but since when did a sense of morality matter when there are papers to be sold?
I think you may have that the wrong way around.
The initial court case this week proves that it is the Mail Group that is causing the trouble, rather than the Duchess, hence her successful court case against them.
But regardless of the editorial and indeed legal teams' thoughts towards them the Duke and Duchess still represent circulation figures when they are featured in the papers.
The Mail cannot afford to be snitty and refuse to publish stories about them, because their rival newspapers will, and that means circulation figures will drop, and that is something they cannot afford.
So the Mail can swallow its pride, to follow its moral outrage which the court have already forced down its throat, and get on with dealing with the competition.
You may feel that the Mail is being hypocritical in publishing its stories, and you'd be absolutely right, but since when did a sense of morality matter when there are papers to be sold?
The Mail has got its trolleys in a robble this morning because the couple have advised of a major interview with Oprah Winfrey, thus - they reckon, putting the final nail in the coffin of their royal status.
Honestly, looking at what being a Royal involves, including the sacrifice of anything approaching privacy, I think they are well out of it.
Honestly, looking at what being a Royal involves, including the sacrifice of anything approaching privacy, I think they are well out of it.
TTT - // Ditto that, I though they wanted out of the public eye? They are signed up to go on the Oprah show 4FS! //
I have put forward this point before, but it bears repeating.
There is a world of difference between what an individual chooses to share with the world at large, and what is shared without their consent - that is invasion of privacy.
That means that if the couple choose to be interviewed on TV and say whatever they choose to say, that is their choice, and that is a choice that we all should have.
However, if the media intrude into their lives in a way that means issues private to them are exposed without their control, then that is an invasion of privacy, and that is not acceptable for anyone, even if they do choose to be in the public eye.
It's a vitally important distinction, and one that it is very easy to miss, but it's still valid, and everyone is entitled to privacy, however public they choose to make some areas of their lives, because that is their choice.
I have put forward this point before, but it bears repeating.
There is a world of difference between what an individual chooses to share with the world at large, and what is shared without their consent - that is invasion of privacy.
That means that if the couple choose to be interviewed on TV and say whatever they choose to say, that is their choice, and that is a choice that we all should have.
However, if the media intrude into their lives in a way that means issues private to them are exposed without their control, then that is an invasion of privacy, and that is not acceptable for anyone, even if they do choose to be in the public eye.
It's a vitally important distinction, and one that it is very easy to miss, but it's still valid, and everyone is entitled to privacy, however public they choose to make some areas of their lives, because that is their choice.
TTT - // AH, agreed but surely going on a chat show merely add grist to the "fair game" mill that the media turn?? //
I don't believe it does, no.
The media likes to excuse its worst excesses by confusing what is in the public interest with what interests the public, and they are two very different things.
To say that because someone becomes 'famous' means that they forfeit the basic human right of privacy is a nonsense, and it should be not accepted for a moment, much less encouraged.
To repeat my point - what an individual chooses to share with the world is their choice, what is shared without their consent is not their choice, and that is an invasion of privacy.
The indication of seriousness is given by use of the word 'invasion' - that is simply not acceptable for anyone, 'famous' or not.
I don't believe it does, no.
The media likes to excuse its worst excesses by confusing what is in the public interest with what interests the public, and they are two very different things.
To say that because someone becomes 'famous' means that they forfeit the basic human right of privacy is a nonsense, and it should be not accepted for a moment, much less encouraged.
To repeat my point - what an individual chooses to share with the world is their choice, what is shared without their consent is not their choice, and that is an invasion of privacy.
The indication of seriousness is given by use of the word 'invasion' - that is simply not acceptable for anyone, 'famous' or not.
//Just go away and be the private citizens you said you wanted to be please, pretty please.//
Hardly their fault that the gutter press choose to plaster them over their pages? If they hadn't formally announced the incoming second sprog, the papers would've been full of is she/isn't she bs and people would've criticised them for trying to keep it hush. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Hardly their fault that the gutter press choose to plaster them over their pages? If they hadn't formally announced the incoming second sprog, the papers would've been full of is she/isn't she bs and people would've criticised them for trying to keep it hush. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
smurfchops - // I have noticed the press sometimes still call her Markle so let them be Harry and Megan Markle. Sorted. //
Once again there is a blurring of lines between what the couple choose to be known as, which is their choice, and what the media labels them as, which is not.
Ask Victoria Beckham if she expects to be addressed as 'Victoria Beckham, 'Mrs Beckham', 'Victoria', and so on ...
or 'Posh Spice', her label given to her by a music journalist, and attached to her ever since as her public personna.
Which do you think is on her passport, the deeds to her house, the contact for her children's school, and which she answers to?
Hint - I'm tipping it's not 'Posh Spice', and why would it be?
People are entitled to a private life, public interest does not and never should mean the same as public ownership.
Once again there is a blurring of lines between what the couple choose to be known as, which is their choice, and what the media labels them as, which is not.
Ask Victoria Beckham if she expects to be addressed as 'Victoria Beckham, 'Mrs Beckham', 'Victoria', and so on ...
or 'Posh Spice', her label given to her by a music journalist, and attached to her ever since as her public personna.
Which do you think is on her passport, the deeds to her house, the contact for her children's school, and which she answers to?
Hint - I'm tipping it's not 'Posh Spice', and why would it be?
People are entitled to a private life, public interest does not and never should mean the same as public ownership.
Mamya - // The Media in all its forms knows what gets people talking, as evidenced here, that is their mission. //
Absolutely - but again it speaks to the difference between what is in the public interest and what interests the public.
One is journalism, the other is muck-raking, and the lines grow more blurred every day ...
Absolutely - but again it speaks to the difference between what is in the public interest and what interests the public.
One is journalism, the other is muck-raking, and the lines grow more blurred every day ...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.