NYT op-ed: Prince Harry’s memoir is about exposing corrupt media practices

A Columbia University professor named Zeynep Tufekci has written a great op-ed called “Prince Harry Is Right, and It’s Not Just a Matter of Royal Gossip.” That’s what we’ve been saying this whole time! People, journalists, trade papers and American newspapers have taken this position that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s story is just “royal gossip” and somehow vapid, superficial and unimportant. When really, the heart of this entire story is about big, important things like racism, power, money, colonialism and republicanism broadly. In a more specific sense, the Sussexes have shed a light on the British media acting as a protection racket, and consistently failing to speak truth to power or to act in the traditional role of the fourth estate in society. I’m not going to post much from Tufekci’s piece, because long-time readers of this blog are already well aware of the examples used and the history of all of this bullsh-t. But here are a few notable highlights:

Don’t dismiss Harry: People like me, uninterested in celebrities, shouldn’t dismiss the brouhaha around Harry’s memoir as mere celebrity tittle-tattle. He has made credible, even documented claims that his own family refused to stand up against their ugly, sustained attacks against Meghan. In other words, it appears that Britain’s most revered institution, funded by tens of millions in taxpayer funds annually, plays ball with one of its most revolting institutions.

Charles & Camilla’s cozy relationships to the British tabloids: Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan are just two players in a swamp of commentators and tabloids that are intimately tied to the royals they cover. Just before Queen Elizabeth II died, Charles hosted the editor of The Sun, something the editor said was a regular occurrence. She wrote that he was always “jovial and cheery” with her. And Charles and Camilla recently hired The Daily Mail’s longtime deputy editor as their communications secretary. What could Charles and Camilla think they are conveying by maintaining a camaraderie with a tabloid press that has behaved so noxiously to members of their own family, with articles that have been so ugly, and even racist?

Complaining & explaining: When a plastic surgeon claimed on his Instagram account that Harry’s sister-in-law Kate was receiving Botox, Kensington Palace officials issued an official condemnation and denial. They reportedly got at least one tabloid to take down a story claiming Kate was wearing hair extensions. William and Kate issued a strong statement and threatened legal action against the magazine Tatler after it called Kate “perilously thin.” “Swathes of passages” the palace had reportedly objected to were deleted from the story.

Of course the palaces are leaking sh-t constantly: The British journalist Andrew Marr, a confessed fan of Queen Elizabeth II, says Harry’s claims are important. After all, Marr said it well: “Either well-known journalists are making a lot of stuff up, just sitting at their laptops at the kitchen table inventing the detail of feuds and private ­confrontations, or a particularly confidence-rotting form of anonymous briefing has been taking place.”

Harry’s goal: My impression from his memoir is that Harry wants to make a crusade of applying sunlight to corrupt media practices and his family’s participation in them. If he succeeds in fighting the vile forces that he feels contributed to his mother’s death and imperiled his newfound love, he might bring a greater sense of decency in Britain, and maybe even curtail the power of the worst practices in media. Good luck to him.

[From The NY Times]

Love the mention of the infamous Tatler Debacle, where post-Sussexit Kate and her people organized a Tatler cover story about how she’s a Top CEO who cries over children’s tights, and then Tatler layered in all of this hilariously petty sh-t about how the Middletons are crass and tacky and Kate is lazy as hell. Good times. I think Tufekci is also correct about Harry’s goal – many have said that Harry should be a republican, that he should want to dismantle the monarchy. But Harry wants to take down the British media and the people who collude with the media, and that includes his f–king family.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

87 Responses to “NYT op-ed: Prince Harry’s memoir is about exposing corrupt media practices”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. HamsterJam says:

    FINALLY! The “Paper of Record” makes an effort at real analysis instead of parroting the British Media.

    • MoBiMom says:


    • Andy Dufresne says:


    • ABritGuest says:

      Yes finally! Press types aren’t going to like Harry & Meghan calling out the press because journalists rally around each other like no other. And NYT like others probably don’t want to tread on the toes of the king & his heir & their spouses who have been at the heart of the Harry & Meghan drama. This protectionist position is why I feel that the articles around Harry & Meghan have really lacked proper analysis & theres been more calls for them to essentially be quiet & not speak truth to power. Like how come media types really interrogated Harry’s statement on Oprah that the press control by fear & if you give them access you get better press?

      So this was a fantastic departure from that & actually pointed to journalists own words about palace/press briefings. It was brilliant! So good to see instead of just parroting what the rota journalists are saying (the palace doesn’t brief them) now despite all evidence to the contrary. It was great to see examples of trivial issues the palace has commented on in contrast to palace silence in the face of the violent misogynoir towards Meghan.

      Excellent piece and no doubt the author is going to face a lot of trolling from royalists & perhaps the uk press

      • Swaz says:

        This is how I feel about it too, but why do you think they don’t want to tread on the toes of Charles and William when these journalists write articles about world leaders all the time.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Swaz good point. It’s not just the RRs – there seems to be a general reluctance in both the UK and the US press to actually analyze the royal family and their actual scandals and misdeeds and grifting. but the media in the US was/is all over Trump and really any politician and their misdoings. Is there a feeling that bc the royal family is a “family” they should be treated with more respect? Is it just out of respect for the late Queen? Is there such an obsession with access to the family that it precludes real reporting?

        It seems like everyone tip toes around the BRF and I’m not entirely sure why. Does everyone want an OBE or whatever that much?

      • ABritGuest says:

        It’s a good question. I’m not surprised by the British press or press where the British monarch is still head of state being reluctant to scrutinise for obvious reasons. Or press in countries where they still have monarchies.

        But other foreign press eg the US being reluctant to scrutinise the BRF is interesting. I’m curious how other monarchies & their scandals are covered by US media & if they are critical or if they are reverential.

        Maybe it’s because the BRF is a permanent (for now) fixture of government & British public life unlike politicians who are in power for a fixed term usually so the media is hands off to maintain some access. Maybe it’s the impact of the queens legacy & things like the crown making people think the BRF is a beloved & benevolent institution. But it’s interesting

      • Korra says:

        Its hilarious how the NYT feels the need to approach the BRF with kid gloves while making their disdain for the Biden administration very obvious. I guess ABritGuess has a point – RE the longevity over the BRF making press wary to get on their bad side.

      • TheVolvesSeidr says:

        @Swaz & @Becks1 could it be that the RF is actually paying cash to the members of the press? How hard would it be to pull that off? An actual paying contract? How else can you explain the reluctance of the press to go after the RF?

      • Yvette says:

        @ABritGuest … “So this was a fantastic departure from that & actually pointed to journalists own words about palace/press briefings.”

        Yes! She even included a quote from Dan Wootton about how Royal Family members and their staff leak information to the British media. It’s an awesome article. I was surprised by just how many commenters thanked Zeynep Tufekci for writing such an informed article with documentation. Some said “Spare” had changed their perception of Harry and Meghan and they’re just now fully understanding exactly how badly the Sussexes were treated.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Zeynep’s article is very close to an article that a lot of us wanted Ronan Farrow to write.imo He still can and it would be a great complement to this one. There is something very diabolical about the BM media coverage of Meghan/H&M. A lot of people have discussed this.

        This isn’t an article written by a fan or a royalist. A professional educated observer wrote this. Someone who has no skin in the game for their profession. Nada.

        I’m sure she’ll be trolled. I’d wager she has zero f*cks to give about being trolled. My impression is that she is someone who doesn’t care whether you like or hate her. Agree or disagree with her. The line would be…don’t misrepresent what I said or wrote. I will come after you harder. Good luck.

    • Tacky says:

      Harry is most definitely not a republican. He believes in the monarchy and would still be part of it if C&C and W&K weren’t a-holes.

    • Mary Pester says:

      Yes, yes yes there is a god. At last ONE SENSIBLE PERSON, has actually realised what Harry has been trying to say FOR YEARS. Maybe he can speak to the British media to make them see sence. Oh, silly me, to get the British media to see sense they would have to go through the Palace press office!!

  2. Maxine Branch says:

    Loved how this author had all the receipts in one place to give precise examples for each point she addressed. Silence from that gutter media because she nailed them. Also, while many of us are skeptical about some NYTs articles, this is one article I totally agree with and the audience who still follows them will get a good example of the fight Harry is waging against the corrupt media in the UK.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I’ve noticed the Royal rota’s silence about this article. They’re usually very vocal when a US publication talks about Harry and Meghan but not this time.

      • Brit says:

        @ Amy Bee. I actually think some of them are secretly happy Harry exposed this. The UK media are not going to keep getting blamed for this mess. Some of them will gladly fall on the sword for this family, why I don’t know but you have some who are cowards and will throw them under the bus in a heartbeat for their bottom line. That’s why you don’t get in bed with these people. You have to keep leaking, backstabbing, kissing butts etc to keep these people happy.

      • SarahLee says:

        @Brit, I’ve thought the same. The UK media/tabloids should be happy about this exposure. If the “invisible contract” blows up, they will be unleashed and can really go after the royals if they want to do so.

    • Jais says:

      The receipts are glorious. Loved how she quoted Robert Jobsen when he said on an Australian news show, “they can deny it until they’re blue in the face but there’s been an awful lot of leaking, particular from Kensington palace.” You know he wishes he’d never said that bc he’s def one that later was like leaking, what?, there’s no leaking! But as soon as Harry says there’s leaking, they’re the ones actually blue in the face denying the leaking. Such a turnaround and evidence of the rota’s lying and protectionism.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Agree. There is a valid reason Harry referred to certain areas of the BM as The Cartel.

      I went back and read Lainey’s discussion of it from January 2020.

      Excellent NYT article.

    • Emily_C says:

      All of Zeynep Tufekci’s articles are good, wherever they’re published. I wish she had her own site — I would pay a subscription fee for her.

    • Nic919 says:

      Leveson part 2 needs to happen now. The UK media is no different than what goes on in Russia and China when it comes to the BRF and conservative politicians. The British people are under the false impression that they have a free media. They do not.

      There are issues in American media, especially the corporatization but there are still enough distinct voices to not have it be one bloc of racism and stupidity.

  3. Amy Bee says:

    The Tatler debacle was so delicious because it blew up in William and Kate’s faces. But it was a clear indication of the Royal Family’s collusion with the press. Not only in it’s attempt to further malign Meghan and to build up Kate but in the Palace’s response to the article. They got Tatler to delete most of it and then leaked to the MoS that they got Tatler to delete it.

    • Becks1 says:

      Agree with you that it was delicious in how it blew up, but that it was also an indication of the collusion with the press.

      However, my favorite part was the way all these RRs – I think Eden, Fitzwilliams, and Emily Andrews at least – all wrote articles about the Tatler article, detailing which parts were deleted because they were so “distasteful” LOLOL. Like the RRs wanted to make sure that everyone knew about those deleted parts.

      • Nic919 says:

        Emily was posting the edits made with obvious glee. A bit of revenge for the lawyers letters I am sure.

    • Ginger says:

      The Tatler article is proof that Kate was behind the cry gate story. I know they blamed Camilla but Kate and Camilla could have worked together on that story to go after Meghan (because it’s clear they didn’t like her from the start) all of the negative stories about Kate were taken out of that article but not the cry gate story (that we know is false)

      • Chloe says:

        @ginger: i think you are right. I find it very coincidental that willy and kate had dinner with charles and cam just when harry and meghan were on tour. A tour that was going swimmingly. Sounds to me more like a meeting. I think william ended up telling what happened with the bridesmaids fitting and Camilla came up with the plan, and got the full approval and go ahead of the Cambridges

        I keep saying that if protecting kate was the main goal they might as well could have said that there was no fight at all. But this was specifically made out to make meghan the villain

      • Becks1 says:

        It definitely was not just a dinner but was an emergency summit meeting to discuss what to do about the Sussex problem, particularly Meghan. We’ve said that it was clear something changed after the Oceania tour and maybe it was the pregnancy, maybe it was too successful, etc. But that was when the Great Smear Campaign kicked into high gear. We’ve spent years speculating who leaked which story and who was behind what etc.

        It’s clear to me now that they were all behind it (which we knew), but what’s more, they were behind it together. It was very coordinated. If Camilla was the one to call Tominey, it was to give W&K plausible deniability for that story getting out there. It wasn’t just a “yeah lets all tell lies about Meghan!” free for all. It was much more planned out than that.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Oh without a doubt that so-called dinner was a meeting to discuss strategies for getting rid of Meghan. William and Kate gave the crying story to Camilla to leak and I think Harry knows that.

    • Roan Inish says:

      Is there a copy of that Tatler article before the demanded edits were made- or even a link? I would love to read that!!

      • Nic919 says:

        The Tatler article was covered here when it all went down and so you can find what changes were made.

  4. PNW says:

    Genuinely important message to counteract the dangerous and damaging echo chambers out there. The media is complicit because it’s profitable, and no one should be reading the hate pieces without asking, and understanding, why they’re being written.

    • Liz Version 700 says:

      Agree 100%. It is so very dangerous, but apparently putting a young family in danger for peofit is considered acceptable. It makes me ill

  5. Brit says:

    I love how the Rota have been secretly throwing the royals under the bus even if they tried to play it off. They were protecting themselves but letting the monarchy know they were not going to get solely blamed for this. Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan were the loudest and lost the most as a result. Now you got Clarkson “apologizing” in an email, practically begging for people to not cancel him and Piers publicly begging for an interview to help his dismal ratings on a show no one watches because he bet on the wrong horse and let his obsession take over when he was an anchor on a bigger show. Harry and Meghan are incredible to take this on. All they did was say no, put up boundaries and now the press has literally lost its collective minds.

  6. Brassy Rebel says:

    I loved how Tufekci drew everyone into the conversation by tweeting, “I don’t usually talk about royals, but this is more than just the royals!” And Liz Garbus tweeted, “This is what H&M is about!” Tufekci replied, ‘I know. It was very good. I mentioned it as one of the things being dismissed as ‘tittle tattle’. Shouldn’t be.”

    One tweet enables access to the article without the paywall.

  7. Becks1 says:


    YES. This is what so many of us have been saying on here for ages now, but especially over the past 6 weeks (since the docuseries came out.)

    This part:
    ” After all, Marr said it well: “Either well-known journalists are making a lot of stuff up, just sitting at their laptops at the kitchen table inventing the detail of feuds and private ­confrontations, or a particularly confidence-rotting form of anonymous briefing has been taking place.”

    YES YES YES. That’s why the RRs sound so dumb when they deny that there is briefing from the palaces. Either there is briefing, and anonymous sources, and all of that – or they are just making shit up as they go along. And if they are just making it up, then the palace should be able to condemn the stories for being false. But the palace can’t condemn stories that it has sanctioned and leaked to the press.

    Its so nice to read an article like this that actually understands what Harry is saying.

    • C-Shell says:

      Exactly. Only one of these things can be true at a time, although either can be true from time to time, and we’ve been posting about this ad nauseum. Finally it’s gaining traction! CIII is going to regret that he and the RF have not just perpetuated but FUELED this unholy, symbiotic alliance.

    • Jais says:

      This article was just a long time coming. And it’s glorious. So many receipts. It’s really put some of the reporters in a tough place. And I love that for them.

    • Petra (Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

      The one thing well-known journalists are not going to do is take all of the blame. Knowing human nature, people will eventually start talking to save their own butts.

    • Green Desert says:

      Exactly. Great analysis from Tufekci of what Harry is actually saying, the points he and Meghan have been trying to make. I watched the docuseries and read Spare. I’m an H and M fan, but it is unfathomable to me that even people who are not fans still do not get the point. The corrupt media practices and the disgusting, outdated, symbiotic relationship between the BRF and the media deserve all the analysis. As Harry said in his book, studies show that a certain type of person is prone to buying into the type of media salaciousness and hate he’s trying to shine a light on. Hope to see more analysis like Tufekci’s.

    • Underhill says:

      You can tell whether or not people have read the book. If they have read the book, they talk about the gutter press and its relationship with the RF, and if they have not read it, they echo the lies and spin of the gutter press. Harry said that Rupert Murdoch has a great deal to answer for and I truly wish that was the focus of the conversation.

  8. IForget says:

    It’s terrifying that our unelected heads of state, funded by my taxes, have this much blatent and overt influence on the media, and somehow the enemy is Harry for plainly laying out this press manipulation. It’s bizarre how many people from all ends of the political spectrum generally believe politicians to be corrupt and the system being fraudlent, and yet, the royal family aren’t included in that belief. This article is correct; muddying the waters by calling Harry and Meghan celebrities deliberately obfuscates the issue, which is the media.

    It feels hopeless here in the UK sometimes. All the power to Harry and Meghan.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      If I were British, I would be “incandescent with rage” at how the monarchy and the media are corrupting democracy to the point that it’s not democracy anymore.

      • IForget says:

        I’m fuming. I’m always fuming. I moved here 9 years ago and it’s getting worse all the time. I was shocked at the tabloids when I moved here. I’m exhausted. To echo what others have said, today it’s Harry and Meghan, tomorrow it’s another vulnerable member of society, however, they won’t have the resources to fight them the way H&M do.

      • Shawna says:

        The UK isn’t a democracy, though. The issue is if the monarchy exceeds its constitutional rights or fails to perform its constitutional duties.

      • Rose Fox says:

        I talked to my Dad this morning (60+) and while he had tremendous respect for the Queen he didn’t watch the funeral. He’s also started avoiding British Media cause he finds it parochial and Fox News-ish. Dad is pretty tuned in and has seen this through the lense of how the cover politicians but if their media as a whole develops a global credibility problem then brand Britain has a problem. Interesting times we live in. Truly it all needs reform.

  9. equality says:

    Another example of how H&M’s supporters are intelligent, articulate and educated while the RR are simply the opposite.

  10. C-Shell says:

    I’d love to read the whole op-ed, but the NYT and I have been on the outs since I cancelled them for the last time (they kept auto-renewing me and I ripped them a new one), and i can’t get past their paywall. Melissa Murray has an op-ed about H&M (she’s a notable Squaddie) on the NYT, too, another one I’d love to read.

    Anyway, I love that big blue checks are not just coming out as supporting Harry and Meghan, but demonstrating that their strategy to release the docuseries and memoir back to back is having a significant effect and turning the tide more and more.

  11. ThatsNotOkay says:

    H&M said it themselves in the docuseries: if they cannot take on the media, what hope is there for anyone else with fewer resources? So people should be cheering them on if they’re not the kind of person who likes having his/her mind warped and twisted. People acting like they’d enjoy being POWs and brainwashed. It’s a weird time, witnessing how actively and lustfully gullible people want to be. In the States as well. The fourth estate must be held to higher standards or it’s democracy that is most at risk.

  12. lleepar says:

    I first came across @zeynep’s Twitter account years ago when the Turkish government moved to suppress independent reporting and consolidate the president’s control. @zeynep, who is Turkish, had sterling insider contacts who kept her (and her social media followers) informed about the collusion and corruption between government and the large media corporations.

    For her to wade into H&M’s issues with the Brit media is significant.

    • Jais says:

      Thank you for that background info on the writer. She went there and laid it all out and it’s shocking that it’s taken so long for someone to just connect all the dots. I’m def going to be following her writing now , even on other topics.

      • lleepar says:

        You’re welcome. I should add that during the times of Turkish upheaval and @zeynep’s reporting, she traveled back to Turkey once or twice — causing concern among her followers for her safety.

        She knows about speaking truth to power. So when I saw her column on Harry’s book, I saw it as courage recognizing courage.

  13. B says:

    Harry should fight the good fight. Hugh Grant and many others have spoken about the press abuse in the UK and Murdoch’s influence on the government. Meghan, Hugh, and Harry have all said: today its me, tomorrow it could be you. They have said this because the press does not confine its invasion of privacy and illegalities to the political, rich and famous. They prey on the families of dead soldiers, victims of violence, and the most vulnerable of society just for a good story.

    Harry is fighting and fortunately he’s not fighting alone. He’s joining people who have been doing this work for years and is using his platform to shine a spotlight on these corrupt practices.

  14. Shawna says:

    Zeynep Tufeki is one of the most important scholars of social media and online activism. She’s super legit. It’s impressive she’s writing about this. Harry should be proud!

    • QuiteContrary says:

      Zeynep Tufekci is brilliant. I was so happy she took this subject on. If the British media isn’t responding to her excellent column, that’s probably because they’re intimidated. She doesn’t suffer fools.

  15. Elaine says:

    I think the other thing that people miss about Harry and republicanism is that you literally can’t have a public conversation about the monarchy with the current state of media. Take down the media, it’ll be possible to talk about the useless Windsors and giving them the old heave ho.

  16. Noor says:

    The British public is poorly serve by the British media if they suppress this type of article . They rather report on what the ex butler said so long as it is negative on Harry and Meghan.

  17. alexc says:

    Zeynep always writes great editorials, she’s thoughtful, compassionate and always seems to be on the side of the righteous/oppressed/underdogs. Not sure why she writes for the NYT lol.

  18. Soni says:

    I read the article yesterday and figured Kaiser would cover it. It was the article that needed to be written. And many of the comments were right on point as well. We need more journalists willing to report on the facts and connect the dots. It’s not about H&M, it’s about corruption in the media and royalty.

  19. Anna says:

    I can’t help but think the reason Harry doesn’t claim to be a republican is because of the lack of nuance people would treat that stance, i.e: he’s only saying it because he got “exiled” by the Firm.

    Granted, it could just be that he doesn’t believe he could be a republican given how much of his life he’s dedicated to queen and country.

  20. KP says:

    This is what everyone who is a fan of Harry and Meghan should be sharing all over social media instead of nasty headlines from the UK.
    It’s absolutely spot on and what we all have been waiting for!!! I hope more journalists read this and have their aha moments.

    • Laura D says:

      I re-tweeted to all my 58 followers as soon as I read the article! I also made sure my response to the article was copied to The Guardian telling them this is the type of journalism I expect from them. This morning there was a tweet letting us know that the store only had 30 copies so the real headline should have been that the book sold out in Montecito. And yes I let The Guardian know the complete story. Honestly, I’m still angry that The Guardian got involved this low-rent tabloid “journalism.”

  21. Mabs A'Mabbin says:


  22. katherine says:

    I really look up to Zeynep’s writing. She is definitely on the right side of history, I remember her writing about masks for the general public way back in March 2020, when the wider public was still discouraged from wearing masks. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/business/media/how-zeynep-tufekci-keeps-getting-the-big-things-right.html

    We know all the facts in her piece already, of course, but it’s great seeing her compile it all together in one place on NYTimes. Especially seeing her point out the fact that if the UK press can work hand-in-hand with the royal family to outwardly lie about Meghan, there’s nothing stopping them straight up lying about wider, more important issues like Brexit, the NHS, etc. I would love to see a follow-up article or more of Zeynep’s reporting about the wider structural impacts of having such a corrupt media. It’s telling that in the NYTimes comments Zeynep said she had a much longer article that got edited down. Also, to see a respected US journalist call the UK tabloids for what it is is a real wake-up call.

    • katherine says:

      Also, how sad is it that this is a journalist who’s written extensively about COVID, Trump, Arab Springs… but it’s the pro-royal Twitter accounts that are surprising her right now? Shows how extensive the pro-royal propaganda and bots really are. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1618597650093473792

      • lleepar says:

        I had the same reaction to the royalists swarming @zeynep as I did them swarming Shannon Watts — who had been in the social media trenches for years with the NRA and the MAGAts. The royalists must have looked like buzzing gnats by comparison.

        This is not @zeynep’s first rodeo by a long shot. Actually, the royalists would do themselves a favor by sitting this one out. They REALLY do not want to provoke any significant engagement with her loyal followers. They’d be hopelessly overmatched, and would be doing the monarchy no favors.

  23. Petra (Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

    This article is the result of 3 years of hard work. Hard work by Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan fighting the misinformation and disinformation the BM, RR, BRF, and the Firm has been pushing out since Prince Harry’s birth to the current day. It’s sad that it took the release of Spare for more accredited people like Zeynep Tufekci to start paying attention (their attention is most welcome.) Now, that the lid has been blown open by Prince Harry memoir I hope investigative journalists take up the baton and start properly investigating who is paying the bots for the targeted harassment of Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan.

    To those people who always second-guess the Sussexes on what their goals are in doing the Oprah interview, Netflix doc-series, and Prince memoir now you know. Zeynep Tefekci as summarized ‘Harry’s goal’ for you, “Harry wants to make a crusade of applying sunlight to corrupt media practices and his family’s participation in them.” And I believe this is Duchess Meghan’s goal too.

  24. Looty says:

    I often say Kaiser’s royal coverage keeps my head from exploding (from frustration with the propoganda elsewhere). Now I can add “Zeynep Tufekci’s Op Ed is keeping my head from exploding too”.

  25. Thelma says:

    It’s a brilliant and well-documented piece!

  26. L4Frimaire says:

    This was a good piece, elicited a lot of responses. Glad the palace /press relationship is getting academic and international scrutiny. What I like about this and other commentary that have shown up regarding veterans mental health and family dysfunction, is that the conversation shifts beyond the Sussexes and picking apart what they said, but looking at the broader context and the impact on our institutions. One thing I really liked that she mentioned in the Op-Ed was that ( paraphrasing) is that one should be allowed to criticize the monarchy the same way we criticize our congress or presidency. They are a publicly funded institution and these corrupt practices or press collusion need real scrutiny. Harry and Meghan were right. They can’t fight the press on their own and it’s taken a real toll, but having his book and their documentary open it up and move it beyond them will be a good thing.

  27. sammi says:

    Have you seen the Andrew Marr you tube which is worth seeing as he seems to have been genuinely unaware of the royal links to leaking and spreading stories and comes down hard with his disgust of that practise and says he thinks many others will also be finished with the Royals if Harry is proved correct. He classes himself as a ‘real’ news reporter and not interested in all the drama/gossip but found the Tom Bradley interview compelling and newsworthy .

  28. anna says:

    very glad this was written and hope it gets very wide readership

  29. Jumpingthesnark says:

    Zenep Tufecki is straight up brilliant. Reccomend reading everything she had published. So good!

  30. Emily_C says:

    Zeynep Tufekci is REALLY good. I encourage — actually, beg — people to click her name and see the rest of her articles. She’s been writing a lot about ME/CFS and other health issues.

  31. aquarius64 says:

    I think the US and other media are not going in on the Windsors because the coronation is coming up. Those outlets want access for coverage. But the media is going to have a tougher time doing fluff pieces when Virginia Guiffre drops her memoir and does press. The last thing the US media wants to look like is it’s in the tank for the Crown.

  32. JJ says:

    Glad the NYT printed this. I would love to see more of the American media, the talk shows and papers, actually doing their due diligence and looking at the H&M situation and reporting on it instead of parroting the BM crap. I think it started with Anderson Cooper and Michael Strahan pushing back when the palace wanted to see the interview before it aired, and their companies said, “This isn’t England. We don’t do that sh-t”. On the other hand, the English guy, (Bradbury?) seemed like all of his questions came from KP. “Well William would say this” or “Wouldn’t William say that”? I get playing devil’s advocate but he sounded screechy and personally bothered that Harry wrote a book but he didn’t seem to read much of it at all. The Americans were objective (as journalists should be) and Bradbury was unable to stay differentiated and seemed hella triggered.

  33. blunt talker says:

    I really agree that the UK mdia is not a free press-free only when the topics are agreeable to the monarchy-the monarchy being in bed with the corrupt UK media has made some of their decisions tough to deal with-getting up and yelling fire in the theatre when there is not one is what the journalists in the UK are doing-they are not truly reporters just people who do as they are told by the monarchy and powerful people like Murdock.-keeping their own people ignorant of the outside world and lagging common sense or critical thinking.

  34. After looking at the photos it occurred to me that Harry who was not allowed to wear his uniform was the only one walking who actually served on the front lines of war whereas the others were honorary. SMH

  35. Mary Pester says:

    A very telling statement was made by the late Princess Margaret. She said “if they cannot control you, they control how other people see you”, and she was right, just like Diana, when she said of the Royal family “that which they can’t control, they seek to destroy”, Harry saw what was coming and got the hell out of there. Time is proving him right, I just hope it’s not to much time before the British brain washed sheep realise what our press /Royal family are up to