Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammi
...it was quite a huge court case, I believe...and specifically accused some ‘royal reporters’ ...wasn’t that the case that closed down one the newspapers, but I could be wrong about that...their ‘sources’ and ‘inside person and person in the know etc’ are not only sometimes morally unethical and misleading completely ...but they’re also going to be slanted in whichever way they choose for their ‘story’ to take place/whatever perspective’ etc....that’s easy to Google if I’m wrong and recall incorrectly ...but no matter with this case from the point I was making...in that ‘the pool’ equally are known not to have a good relationship with Harry...they don’t like being accused and they don’t like being sued either, so they wouldn’t really offer him much media protection of having that pool, type reporting...which they’ve obviously proven ...just about every day in every way...  ... |
Any of the 'pool' who break the rules laid down would be immediately banished though, and no way would they be allowed to continue as part of the pool if they had been found to be involved in phone hacking.
There are rogues in every profession, and for Royal reporters to keep their jobs they can't go around telling blatant lies and misrepresenting the royals, otherwise they will be frozen out from their palace sources.
I have read many reports of how Harry was well liked by the press and photographers, larking around with them and accompanying them to the pub.
Perhaps after the phone hacking that turned sour, it was certainly said by Arthur Edwards, the Sun photographer, (its on utube) who had a particularly good relationship with Harry, that it was after he met Meghan that he became surly and rude as if they were all collectively to blame for any negative reports about her.
I think it was the Millie Dowler case that closed down one of the newspapers, not 100% sure....