A short thread on bad royal journalism. One of the 'givens' of the reporting on #meganandharry has been that they 'blindsided' the Queen by failing to give her notice of their plans. This allegation seems to have come from unnamed 'palace sources'...
While this was certainly news, it was only a claim made anonymously on behalf of one party in the story. It was not a fact. Fairness demanded that the claim should be put to the Sussexes and only if they confirmed it would it be right for journalists to state it as fact...
It can't be argued that because it came from the palace it was holy writ and must be true. First, it apparently came from unnamed sources unwilling to take responsibility for what they said, and second, on many other occasions the press is happy to question a palace line...
Nor can it be argued that if the Sussexes failed to deny it publicly it must be true. The right thing to do in those circumstances is surely to state the claim, as a claim, and explain that the other party declined comment. Readers could then draw their own conclusions...
So far as I can see the Sussexes have not confirmed it. And yet many papers and commentators have been merrily stating the allegation as unassailable fact, and indeed in their best dowager duchess style condemning the couple for a shocking slight perpetrated upon Her Majesty...
That it was not an unassailable fact, however, was eventually made clear by ITV's Tom Bradby, who apparently has good royal sources and who has told a rather different story, below. You choose who you believe. (ends thread) itv.com/news/2020-01-0…
