Prince Harry is taking on tabloids, but the British media has already been forced to turn the page
In his hacking lawsuit being heard by a British court, Prince Harry aims to deliver another blow to a tabloid industry that has long been accused of widespread privacy violations but has been forced to rein in its excesses in recent years.
So even if Harry, the youngest son of King Charles III, wins his lawsuit against the Mirror Group Newspapers for allegedly hacking into his mobile phone more than a decade ago, analysts wonder how much of an impact a legal victory would have on publications already have been published. to adapt because of hefty legal settlements, prison sentences for their journalists and the threat of regulation.
The prince, who took the stand on Tuesday, has been at war with the raucous, licentious press for years. And since Britain’s phone hacking scandal broke, it has forced a News Corporation publication to close, sent several prominent journalists to prison, racked up hundreds of millions of pounds in legal fees and victims’ compensation, and led Parliament to seriously consider the regulate industry.
At the same time, Britain’s once mighty tabloids have been weakened by a digital revolution that has transformed the global media landscape by cutting revenue, even as the public’s appetite for celebrity news has not abated.
“Things have changed — they haven’t necessarily gotten better in every way, but they’ve certainly moved forward,” says David Yelland, a former editor of The Sun and founder of Kitchen Table Partners, a communications firm. “Tabloid journalism doesn’t exist in the form it did.”
Mr Yelland said it wasn’t that “there isn’t an invasion of privacy now – well, particularly around the use of social media images.” But he added that problematic media content is now more likely to stem from commentary than from material pulled from someone’s garbage cans or by paying investigators to access celebrity bank statements.
Lawyers for Harry, also known as the Duke of Sussex, accuse the Mirror Group Newspapers of using private investigators to illegally gather information about him for stories that featured prominently between 1996 and 2011. They say the private investigators participated in intercepting voice mail and employed photographers who used unlawful means to uncover the whereabouts of Harry and his associates.
Harry is one of four plaintiffs, including two actors who appeared in the popular British television series ‘Coronation Street’. The case has centered on allegations that the papers hacked Harry’s cell phone, as well as that of his brother, Prince William; assistants; and an ex-girlfriend throughout the early 2000s.
Andrew Green, the Mirror Group’s lead lawyer, argued in court on Monday “that there is simply no evidence that the Duke of Sussex has ever been hacked”.
Phone hacking, the interception of voicemail messages without permission, is illegal in Britain. But the first decade of this century saw widespread abuses by the tabloid media, including obtaining private information such as phone bills or medical records through deception, known as “blagging.”
The royal family was the main target, and in 2006-2007 the royal editor of The News of the World, Clive Goodman and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, were convicted of intercepting voicemail messages from royal aides.
prof. Timothy Luckhurst, principal of South College at Durham University and the founder of the Center for Journalism at the University of Kent, said the crucial change in media came after the surprise revelation that The News of the World, a Rupert newspaper Murdoch, had hacked into the phone of a missing child, Milly Dowler, who was later found dead.
The case sparked an investigation named after the judge who led it, Brian Leveson, and in 2011 resulted in the News Corporation closing the case. 168 year old newspaper.
“The Leveson Inquiry involved a very intensive examination and critique of elements of the popular press in the UK, and it led to recommendations which, if accepted, would have led to the state’s first involvement in the regulation of the press in the United Kingdom since the abolition of press licenses in the 17th century,” said Professor Luckhurst.
British policymakers had long struggled with how to curb tabloid excesses.
But the idea that Parliament would regulate the very people whose job it was to hold legislators accountable proved a threat big enough to compel journalists. The idea of regulation was eventually rejected over fears of press freedom being trampled underfoot, Professor Luckhurst said, “but the press understood at the time that self-regulation would have to produce substantial behavioral improvements to sustain.”
“What Prince Harry is doing by going to court against Mirror Group Newspapers,” he added, “is essentially denouncing behavior that was largely carried out – if at all – before the Leveson Inquiry had its impact. “
Perhaps the most striking example of phone hacking was the case of Andy Coulson, a former editor of The News of the World, who stepped down in 2007 to become Downing Street adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron. After the hacking case resurfaced in 2011, Mr. Coulson not only got that job, but he was also convicted for his role in the scandal.
Mr. Murdoch’s realm was reportedly paid a total of more than £1 billion in legal and other fees as well as compensation for victims of journalistic malpractice. According to a recent lawsuit from Harry, Prince William was among those who accepted a substantial payment to avoid going to court.
The British tabloids have since adapted their approach rather than retreating, still providing celebrity news and gossip, but without overtly breaking the law.
For example, the news media has been dominated in recent days by reports of the firing of former television presenter Phillip Schofield, who has admitted to lying about a relationship with a younger male colleague while married.
“The fact that these stories are legalized and reported through interviews and conversations with people who are genuine sources is a change in behaviour, but it does not suggest that there has been any change in the tastes of the British public. said Professor Luckhurst.
Social media has proven to be a valuable tool for journalists to keep up with celebrity news. Mr Yelland, the former editor of The Sun, said many tabloid journalists spend hours sifting through the accounts of everyone connected to the rich and famous only to pounce on some ill-advised Facebook or Twitter post.
Some critics say that despite a shift in tactics, the tabloids are still inexplicable and powerful as ever — and they want tougher action.
“What they may have lost in print circulation, they made up for in social media influence and influence over politicians,” said Brian Cathcart, a former executive of Hacked Off, a group campaigning for press accountability.
“They animate and lead the mob day after day and hour after hour,” he said, “making rational politics impossible, but they always serve the interests of their cynical and cruel owners.”
But for Prince Harry, a legal victory is just as likely to fuel as to end his feud with the British tabloids, experts say.
“If you go for them all the time, they will go for you,” said Mr. Yelland. “The problem with the British press for Harry and Meghan is not an invasion of privacy; it’s commentary, it’s the way their coverage is configured.
“And if you have a generation of editors who hate them, they can do whatever they want on a daily basis – even if Harry and Meghan win the case.”