That is why the Royals are demonized: Reasons behind British Royal demonization - Who can know what's really going on with Harry and Meghan? One thing is certain: The British tabloid press is not an objective observer - but you won't read that in the newspapers themselves.

If you want to understand the "true" story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, you have to think in three dimensions.

On the one hand, it is about the story of a couple who, for completely understandable reasons, want a different life: a fresh start, a different role, less observation, peace of mind. It is all very reasonable and hardly noticeable.

But there is, of course, the second level: The two are inescapable royals. We are hardly dealing with an abdication here; the constitutional effects if the sixth in the line of succession to Canada are manageable. But whether you are a pope or a prince, it is undoubtedly complicated if you want to acquire a private identity as such that is uncoupled from this fate or birthright.

On the third level are the storytellers. Almost everything we think we know about this couple has been filtered by journalists. It is particularly difficult to assess the reliability of most royal reporting because it is a world with no open or known sources. So to believe what we are told, we have to trust that there are currently legions of "advisors", "palace insiders", "friends" and "important court officials" who keep their favorite reporters up to date on WhatsApp with the latest gossip keep up to date. In fact, everything already existed. Maybe it's still like that, maybe not. We do not know it.

Reasons behind British Royal demonization

In addition, this third level is compromised by the fact that none of the key players who filter this story for us is an uninvolved observer. The couple's top three British newspaper groups, the most obsessed with Harry and Meghan, are sued by the couple for various violations of privacy and copyright. So, as every sensible person realizes, we are dealing with a blatant conflict of interest, which for the most part remains unmentioned.

For a number of years - hardly ever reported - two British courts have literally been involved in literally hundreds of lawsuits for telephone hacking by MGN Ltd and News Group, the owners of the "Daily Mirror" and "Sun" (as well as the "News of the." World ").

The two publishers loosen incredible amounts to prevent one of the cases from actually being brought to trial in public. Because the British Newspaper Association lobbied so violently until the continuation of the Leveson Inquiry Committee * that should shed light on these cases, we can only guess what is actually going on.

But there are clues. The Mirror Group (now renamed Reach) put a whopping £ 70m back in July 2018 to settle lawsuits and prevent them from actually being tried in court. The BBC reported last year that Murdoch group newspapers had made an incredible £ 400 million in damages payments and calculated that the total bill of both media companies could end up being £ 1 billion.

Last October, Prince Harry also put his name on the list of people claiming their phones were hacked by "Sun" and "Mirror".

To understand why, reluctantly, this is a sensation, you need to know the patient work of two judges, Anthony Mann and (his predecessor) Geoffrey Vos, in the anonymous Rolls building in London, seat of the Lord Chancellor's Court.

Public court documents include detailed allegations against Rupert Murdoch's son, James, and News UK's reinstated chief executive, Rebekah Brooks. They are said to have obscured the true extent of the offense in individual newspapers in the group. The Sun's official stance is to deny any illegal activity while spending huge sums of money so that this stance is never put to the test.

The Mirror Group has a similar reluctance when it comes to the activities of previous decision-makers. Piers Morgan, former editor of the "Daily Mirror" and one of the royal couple's fiercest critics, has no time or opportunity to let his readers or viewers know why his name so often appears in the details of the phone hacking cases it deals with Judge man deals.

Morgan may be completely innocent. But you would think that someone who spends so much time pouring poison over another, who is in turn a prosecutor in a case that also affects their own behavior, would point out this conflict of interest - with every single request to speak the topic.
It is worth using the mind

And then there's Meghan's lawsuit against Associated Newspapers for violating privacy, copyright, and data protection. The "Mail on Sunday" claims that there is an "overwhelming and justified public interest" in publishing excerpts from Megan's personal letter to her father. You will see how it works out - but until then it doesn't hurt to portray her as a hard-working hypocrite and reporter. If Morgan is available with the vitriol, so much the better.

So if you're reading about Harry and Meghan, it's really worth using the mind. There is a surface level of the story - not all of it is untrue - and there are many anonymous sources that are reliable and add color and context to the whole. But in the background there are also a lot of concerned newspaper bosses and ex-newspaper bosses who have no interest in treating this couple in a friendly or even balanced manner.

The calculation is irresistibly simple: this pair can be used to print, it attracts billions of readers. So there is little hope that newspaper makers will shut down reporting. But what about decency and fairness, honesty? Just a little bit of it would make it easier for others to understand things better and have more trust.

This text was first published on Sunday, January 19, 2020 in the "Guardian".

* Editor's note: The Leveson Committee - named after its chairman, judge Brian Leveson - was established in 2011 by then Prime Minister David Cameron. He was asked to investigate the practice of the News Of The World newspaper to eavesdrop on cell phone mailboxes from celebrities, politicians, kidnapped children and victims of terrorism in order to exploit them for the headlines. 337 witnesses were heard at the public and internet broadcast sessions, including prominent eavesdropping victims such as Hugh Grant or J.K. Rowling, but also politicians, police officers and of course press representatives, right up to the publisher Rupert Murdoch.

Finally, the Commission published a 2000-page report on November 29, 2012, which recommended, among other things, the establishment of a new, independent press supervisory authority. The Cameron government did not implement this proposal. An actually planned second part of the investigation was initially postponed and finally finally shelved by the Tories in 2017.