Interesting articles regarding the tightly controlled media presence on this trip including from the BBC. The only reported allowed was from Harper Bazaar in the US.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdkljn78ko.amp

“The couple and government only allowed their own videographers and photographers into most of the events which they say was to make sure events were represented “accurately.”
Footage was released daily, with no sound.”

“The BBC chose not to rely on this material alone, as we could not be present to verify what was said and described, but we were able to attend the summit and watch some events from the side-lines.”

DAILY BEAST
From Tom Sykes of the Daily Beady regarding the Dish Soap story not in the Harpers Bazaar coverage but picked up by the Daily Mail

https://archive.md/7xHOb

DAILY MAIL
No sound on all videos and reporter excluded from WhatsApp groups if they wrote anything negative.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13759533/videos-Sussexes-faux-royal-tour-Columbia-not-sound.html

If Harry and Meghan want to be taken seriously should they have controlled the media so much? They could have invited several reporters from the US from NYtimes, USA Today etc to cover it given their dislike for British press so don’t know why they went with one reporter from a fashion magazine.

Posted by Miam4

12 comments
  1. Good questions. I was curious why it took so long to see photos from their trip. They seemed to be released in batches. I heard they had their own photographer present and immediately thought, “Well why aren’t there better photos if they’re paying for it?!”

  2. With the amount of online hate and media bullying I don’t blame them for wanting to control who can photograph them.

    Honestly they will be picked apart for anything they do so I don’t think inviting more media is going to make them be taken any more seriously.

  3. They’re not royals anymore so this wasn’t an official trip- they can do whatever they want.

    They’re being criticized here by the same media who has ripped them to pieces in the past. If they had allowed more media presence, they would be trashed for that too. I guess when you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t you reach a point where you just do what YOU want.

  4. For a couple who claim to want to fight misinformation this does the complete opposite. By you not allowing multiple different outlets to report on a trip you’re basically creating a one side story. I understand they get criticized a lot. But only allowing people who will right in your favor seems to be misinforming people as well.

  5. It now makes a lot of sense why the tour hasn’t been receiving coverage in e.g. the NYT and the London Times; I’ve only been seeing (and enjoying!) outfit posts here on Reddit.

    On one hand, they’re no longer under any obligations to the royal rota, or to any media organization. It’s sort of smart to take advantage and maintain complete control their image. They have the insurance that only positive things come out of this tour and there’s no risk of anyone writing anything negative.

    On the other hand they’re missing out on a broader reach of publicity for the organizations they’re visiting, and selecting one (biased) news source to cover the tour is taking a page out of the North Korea playbook lol.

    I’d like to have been able to read about the tour in the Times, but I understand why they’ve done this. And they look really good on this tour so I see why they’re taking this approach.

  6. IMO, this type of behavior is why these two come off performative, self-interested and completely inauthentic. They desperately need to control the narrative.

  7. I think this just shows the focus on the trip was on Meghan’s outfits and not substance or they would release more info / sound / access to the sessions of actual substance. Media can’t report on what you don’t let them see

  8. The cool thing is they’re not employed by the US government and they’re not employed by the royal family and they are their own bosses. They can do whatever they want. I don’t see the problem with it. They have good reason not to trust the media whether British or American.

  9. This is pretty much why the whole HIHO wouldn’t work. But they’re no longer representatives of the UK or “working” royals so they can do whatever they want.

    But I do question what it means to have a “successful” trip in this context when you’ve controlled the coverage entirely that it’s a manufactured success. By design the trip was a success the minute they landed as the only sound bites and images you’re getting are those approved by the Sussexes and their team.

  10. If they had allowed more press you would be on here claiming they were attention seeking.

    The fact remains that both have been victims of the press, they are self funded. They are going to remain picky about access. Since y’all are going to whine either way why not choose the safer option?

  11. Nothing they do will be without criticism. Just the fact they breathe people will be pissed about.

    They are doing their best to live their lives, help a bit, keep their kids safe, and cut ties with an amoral monarchy.

    wtf else should we expect from them?

  12. They criticize how the RF controls media but they do exactly the same… hypocrites

Leave a Reply