The relationship between royalty and the media has always been a fraught one. Since the time of Charles II, when it was deemed necessary to have an act of parliament to restrain the press from printing sedition and lies, to the present day when technology has made the lives of public figures available for scrutiny 24/7, the royals have always been in the firing line.
In recent years, the relationship between the Palace and the press has become even more complicated – symbiotic, even. Despite the fabled “never complain, never explain” public strategy that was successfully employed by the late Queen Elizabeth, it seems that in private, complaints and explanations are utilised to keep the popular media onside. One source claims that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been targeted especially, because as “Spare”, Harry could be utilised to deflect attention away from more prominent royals.
Today, following a long-drawn-out court case, both Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Tom Watson, the former deputy Labour leader who supported the Leveson Inquiry, have received “a full and unreserved apology” and accepted a settlement from News Group Newspapers (NGN) after suing them for “unlawful activities” carried out by two of its publications, The Sun and the (now defunct) News of the World. Earlier co-litigants, Sienna Miller and Hugh Grant have previously settled out of court.
The royal soap opera
So, is this just another episode in what seems to be the royal soap-opera? The answer is ‘no’. There are much wider and longer-term implications to this decision. On the surface, it looks like the Duke of Sussex has scored a point in a family feud and a victory against the Murdoch empire: in reality, this will have an impact on the way our mainstream media operates from now on.
‘Freedom of Expression’ is one of the articles of the ECHR – and rightly so. Recent events in the USA highlight the threats to a free press. We need – and deserve – to have public figures exposed to our scrutiny. ‘Public interest’ (not to be confused with things that might just interest the public) is central to our democracy. As a result of this, our media is able to report on stories and events that many prominent people would prefer to remain hidden.
‘No one stands above the law’
However, it’s not an excuse for a free-for-all. Incidents like the hacking of a dead girl’s phone, or the vilification of the prince’s fellow litigant, Tom Watson, go beyond what most of us would regard as acceptable limits. We need to be able to trust what we are told and we should be able to rely on the media to tell us the truth. What this case has now demonstrated, is that lies, intrusion and cover-ups are no longer acceptable. The prince’s lawyer, David Sherbourne, summarised his comments on the case by saying: “Today the lies are laid bare. Today, the cover-ups are exposed. And today proves that no one stands above the law. The time for accountability has arrived.”
So what now for the press? Can the mainstream, billionaire-owned media row back from this? The fact that NGN have had to offer “a full and unreserved apology” to the plaintiffs (in addition to the enormous sums of money in costs and compensation) suggests that they have received a heavy, albeit not fatal, blow. Public trust in the UK media was already at an all-time low before this ruling; it’s likely to fall even further as a result.
However, out of the Pandora’s Box that this trial has opened, hope still remains. Public interest news, indie publishers and citizen journalism are growing at a considerable rate. The shameful story of the prince and the press may be exactly what is needed to usher in a new era of journalism.
