A typical example of "Royal" so-called journalism in the tabloid press (inc Times & Telegraph) with not a single attributed source dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…. It relies on ... (deep breath) ...
* one "palace insider"
* one "insider" (presumably inside a shed, not a palace)
..1/4
* one "palace insider"
* one "insider" (presumably inside a shed, not a palace)
..1/4
and...
* one "source close to Prince William" (the rest being distant we must assume)
* one "Royal source" (the others being merely common)
* two "sources" (plural)
* two "a source"
* one well-placed source.. and
* one the "the Mail on Sunday" understands (a psychic source)
2/4
* one "source close to Prince William" (the rest being distant we must assume)
* one "Royal source" (the others being merely common)
* two "sources" (plural)
* two "a source"
* one well-placed source.. and
* one the "the Mail on Sunday" understands (a psychic source)
2/4
.. Yet despite this the only attributed source (Gayle King, who spoke for the Sussexes) is criticised in same story for giving a running commentary! Peak irony was "A Palace spokesman declined to comment, but a source said the public should not expect 'a running commentary'"..3/4
Problem is that these stories sometimes covered on ITV and BBC, because their Royal reporters (who don't do this themselves) feel they need to comment on them. These stories are either made up or signs of cowardly & incestuous palace-press rel'ship - just as Harry described 4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
