This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/13/prince-harry-meghan-markle-ipso-action-needed

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Hounding of Prince Harry’s partner calls for action from Ipso Hounding of Meghan Markle calls for action from Ipso
(about 1 hour later)
You could, of course, write this particular script – because, from Margaret to Diana to Kate to Meghan, it’s groundhog day when the press gets rough with a royal in or out of love. And you can usually add the looming threat of tougher, imposed media regulation, here represented by HMG’s new 10-week consultation period to decide what to do about Leveson.You could, of course, write this particular script – because, from Margaret to Diana to Kate to Meghan, it’s groundhog day when the press gets rough with a royal in or out of love. And you can usually add the looming threat of tougher, imposed media regulation, here represented by HMG’s new 10-week consultation period to decide what to do about Leveson.
Prince Harry pleads, with some passionate eloquence, for he and the TV Suits star Meghan Markle to be left alone to explore a life together. He talks of “nightly legal battles” by Markle’s lawyers to suppress supposedly defamatory stories; of Markle’s mother “having to struggle past photographers” to get to her front door in Los Angeles; of “reporters and photographers trying to gain illegal entry to Meghan’s home”; of “substantial bribes” offered by newspapers to one ex-boyfriend – plus the “bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life”.Prince Harry pleads, with some passionate eloquence, for he and the TV Suits star Meghan Markle to be left alone to explore a life together. He talks of “nightly legal battles” by Markle’s lawyers to suppress supposedly defamatory stories; of Markle’s mother “having to struggle past photographers” to get to her front door in Los Angeles; of “reporters and photographers trying to gain illegal entry to Meghan’s home”; of “substantial bribes” offered by newspapers to one ex-boyfriend – plus the “bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life”.
There’s more about misleading headlines in the Sun, vicious trolling on social media and the like: but readers can make up their own mind on such things, and perhaps devise formulas for taking the spite out of Facebook, Twitter et al (a task beyond on current governmental solution). The real case to answer here is physical intrusion and harassment, both clearly covered by the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s editorial code (and in much the same terms by Ipso’s rival, Impress).There’s more about misleading headlines in the Sun, vicious trolling on social media and the like: but readers can make up their own mind on such things, and perhaps devise formulas for taking the spite out of Facebook, Twitter et al (a task beyond on current governmental solution). The real case to answer here is physical intrusion and harassment, both clearly covered by the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s editorial code (and in much the same terms by Ipso’s rival, Impress).
Fleet Street’s defence runs on familiar grooved lines too. It’s “preposterous to claim that the publicity-hungry Ms Markle is a hapless victim”, says Sarah Vine in the Mail. Just turn to her Instagram page. “Let’s face it, Harry, you may be royalty, but you’re still a celebrity … get yourself a thicker skin,” cries Jane Moore in the Sun. But crucially the Mail in its own editorial column, doesn’t “defend anyone who may have broken the strict code of practice governing the British press”. Which opens a natural line for exploration and resolution.Fleet Street’s defence runs on familiar grooved lines too. It’s “preposterous to claim that the publicity-hungry Ms Markle is a hapless victim”, says Sarah Vine in the Mail. Just turn to her Instagram page. “Let’s face it, Harry, you may be royalty, but you’re still a celebrity … get yourself a thicker skin,” cries Jane Moore in the Sun. But crucially the Mail in its own editorial column, doesn’t “defend anyone who may have broken the strict code of practice governing the British press”. Which opens a natural line for exploration and resolution.
Ipso has been a bit thin on its promised self-started inquiries into areas of coverage thus far. It whizzed round a “desist” letter to editors when Markle coverage seemed to get out of hand, but hasn’t expanded those parameters. Yet isn’t this the perfect, 10-week opportunity to probe and report at the double?Ipso has been a bit thin on its promised self-started inquiries into areas of coverage thus far. It whizzed round a “desist” letter to editors when Markle coverage seemed to get out of hand, but hasn’t expanded those parameters. Yet isn’t this the perfect, 10-week opportunity to probe and report at the double?
Harry’s harassment charge sheet may be overblown, and “scattergun” in Mail terms. It may involve US gossip magazines and websites far beyond Ipso reach, and beyond rulings of UK privacy law too. (Although now she’s here, that defence gets thinner). But it would be good to have clear verdicts, with chapter and verse attached, for better or worse.Harry’s harassment charge sheet may be overblown, and “scattergun” in Mail terms. It may involve US gossip magazines and websites far beyond Ipso reach, and beyond rulings of UK privacy law too. (Although now she’s here, that defence gets thinner). But it would be good to have clear verdicts, with chapter and verse attached, for better or worse.
Royal publicity and royal romances have been meat and drink for Fleet Street’s critics over decades. Too intrusive, too shocking for tender would-be regulators who don’t read tabloids anyway? Too callous for tender princes? No peace and no treaty. We’re going to need a new relationship map and set of coverage rules pretty damned quick if Markle weathers this storm. Ten weeks sounds a fair enough time for Ipso to stand up and deliver.Royal publicity and royal romances have been meat and drink for Fleet Street’s critics over decades. Too intrusive, too shocking for tender would-be regulators who don’t read tabloids anyway? Too callous for tender princes? No peace and no treaty. We’re going to need a new relationship map and set of coverage rules pretty damned quick if Markle weathers this storm. Ten weeks sounds a fair enough time for Ipso to stand up and deliver.