What’s the publication’s traditional stance?
When reading a news source, it’s pretty typical to notice whether they’re more liberal or conservative, despite their attempts at objectivity. It’s important to consider the network it belongs to, as well as who its owner might be connected to, i.e., Jeff Bezos owning The Washington Post & any reports on Amazon might be worth a little additional digging. And, though I’m not very well-versed in British politics, I do know that there are royalists and republicans and they’re catering to their readership. Unless you’re the Daily Mail, in which you just throw every thing out there and see what sticks… even if it’s garbage (which sadly sticks pretty well).
what’s happening in the news cycle?
Is it late Summer when the royals are out of the public eye? Then the press is probably dredging up random, questionable pieces to push like “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Reportedly Haven’t Told Prince George That He Will Be King” wherein there could be a grain of truth, but who’s to say.
However, a great example of shifting the narrative comes today with Meghan’s appearance at the British Fashion Awards happening right before a big Brexit vote, or even Kate’s wearing trousers last week as a possible show of solidarity with Meghan (to be taken with an extra big grain of salt). Timing is everything.
Who’s the reporter (or the source)?
There are reputable royal reporters who have been on the beat for decades. They have strong relationships with palace insiders as well as the royals themselves. Katie Nicholl of Vanity Fair is known to be a solid source, as well as Dickie Arbiter, former Secretary to Queen Elizabeth, and his daughter, royal correspondent Victoria Arbiter. These are just a few examples, though there are loads more.
I recently read a report that cited a “close friend of the Cambridge’s” as their source, and this set off alarms. William & Kate are pros at keeping the press at bay, so I suspect it wasn’t a close friend of the Camrbridge’s, but maybe a friend of a friend of a friend. However, I wouldn’t balk at a source being a “close friend of the Sussexes'”, as they seem far more open and less experienced with the whole gossip protocol.
But most importantly, it should be noted that bloggers, just as myself, really are just working with all the information we’ve pieced together, a bit of a detective work and a lot of red string being pinned across stories as such — this is is not to say our research isn’t true nor reputable, just that I sit in an office in Hamburg and sadly do not have insider scoop to the name of Meghan & Harry’s upcoming baby! But I will happily speculate and write a dissertation on what my predictions are!
Which leaves me at a perfect stopping point for the this piece, but I do hope to write my own synopsis of what I think is going down with the ‘Fab Four’ in the next few days… as a cliffhanger: I think there’s a little bit of truth, and a whole lot of fit throwing.
I’ve been following the shenanigans with interest and it takes me back to the days of Diana and Fergie. However, when staff are said to be passing on information then there are problems that weren’t there before and that’s a bigger problem than friends of friends being a source of (mis)information (I think you mean baulk rather than bowk).
Ha thanks for that correction! I wrote it in haste & meant to go back & change it. 😉 But you’re right, staff passing information is HIGHLY problematic.
LOL – Glad you didn’t mind but I learnt a new word (bowk) as well so thank you. PCs/Macs have a great way of autocorrecting without anyone knowing.
I do think there are major problems at KP. There’s been nary a whisper over the past few years of arguments etc and the gossip is coming from so many different directions that there has to be much more than a grain of truth to it all. If you can’t treat staff right then you’re on a hiding to nothing and you’ll barely recover from the damage.