Britain’s brutal tabloid news ecosystem
By Myah Taylor and Hannah Ortega
For several decades, British tabloids — often characterized by sensationalism and emphasis on celebrity culture — have been known for shaping public opinion and adopting a vicious nature toward public figures, particularly members of the British Royal Family. Since becoming romantically involved with Prince Harry in 2016 and eventually marrying him in May 2018, Meghan Markle has been the subject of particularly negative tabloid coverage — something Harry has known his entire life. After several years of public scrutiny from select media outlets, Harry and Meghan made the decision to step back as “senior” members of the British Royal Family in January. Then in April, the couple announced it would be cutting ties with the British tabloids altogether in a statement to The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mirror, and Daily Mail. “Media have every right to report on and indeed have an opinion on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, good or bad,” the letter said. “But it can’t be based on a lie” (Landler, 2020).
While Harry and Meghan’s struggle against the tabloid press may seem like a mere fight on the surface, it is not so. The couple’s situation has come to represent a deeper war waging within British society between tradition and the unconventional, as well as a universal struggle between public figures and the media. Tabloid media, much like the Royal Family itself, tasks itself with preserving British norms and standards while also striving to remain a powerful institution within UK society. However, in its attempts to achieve these goals, British tabloid media has sacrificed traditional journalism ethics in favor of spreading misinformation and allowing bias to color its journalists’ reporting. Harry and Meghan are a special case, not only because their union is unique, but also because they have raised questions about the legitimacy of the Royal Family and the cutthroat tabloid institution that preys on it.
Part II: Background
Although not nearly as established as the powers that be — those directly related to the crown — the British tabloid media has become a long-tenured institution in the UK. Tabloid journalism in Britain began in 1903 when Daily Mail founder Alfred Harmsworth launched The Daily Mirror, the first modern tabloid newspaper. The Mirror differed from traditional mediums, such as the Mail in its initial broadsheet format, in its use of more photographs and emphasis on crime stories, celebrity gossip, and other topics with mass appeal. Its success (selling 1 million copies each day by 1909) led to the rise of similar publications. Tabloids began dominating the British press beginning in the late 20th century (around the era of Princess Diana) and continued to do so in the early 21st century (Prince Charles and Camilla). By the 2010’s, Britain’s five national tabloid papers, including Daily Mail and The Mirror, combined for a circulation of approximately 10 million. Writing for the Encyclopedia Britannica, David Gossel notes how such publications continued to gain traction and influence public opinion despite their fixation on entertainment rather than hard news or issues in government,
Tabloid popularity, coupled with its century-old history, has not only made the medium influential, but bankable for the public and media outlets alike. The Mirror Online, for example, features a page entitled “Sell Your Story” where citizens can submit stories, tips, photos, or videos for up to “hundreds of pounds or several thousand if it leads to a front page exclusive in the Sunday Mirror.” The site further states that, “the more prominent the story, the more we will pay.” In an article for TIME, Kate Samuelson wrote that photos of Harry’s mother, the late Princess Diana, sold for up to £500,000 ($656,000) even at their grainiest. Diana’s tabloid popularity would earn her the nickname “The Princess of Sales” (2017). The for-profit nature of such publications provides further context as to why the British tabloids are so reckless in their newsgathering and why particular individuals are more likely to be targeted. The case with Meghan is really quite simple: commentators say articles about her sell well.
Driven by a highly-competitive market for stories, British tabloids go to great lengths to obtain profitable content at the expense of subjects’ safety and privacy. In a tragic example of tabloid abuse, Princess Diana spent the last moments of her life being chased down the streets of Paris by relentless paparazzi seeking a photo opportunity. More recently, the Mail on Sunday published a private letter from Meghan to her father, Thomas, which led her to claim “copyright and misuse of private information.” And one paper, News of the World, actually hacked into royals’ phones, Bradford Plumer wrote in an article for The New Republic (2011). Plumer suggests that competition between tabloids and papers is partially to blame for such reckless, cutthroat behavior. With money being a driving force behind tabloid journalism, the intensity and desperation of its “newsgathering” can be better understood.
Part III: Analysis
In a chapter in the anthology Tabloid Tales: Global Debate Over Media Standards, titled “Thirty Years of Competition in the British Tabloid Press,” its author Dick Rooney further supports the idea of competition fueling the irresponsible tabloid industry. Rooney says, “Non-serious newspapers had, and continue to have, the largest market among national daily newspapers” (p. 93). Then, in a comparison between tabloids The Sun and The Mirror, Rooney states that both tabloids favor stories about the private sphere over the public sphere, and “the personal lives of people became an interesting point of editorial competition” (p. 106). This preference for the private connects directly to inquiries concerning royal life, as the family keeps a tight leash on what it can do or say in public. The tabloids surely see this strict border around the Royals as begging to be knocked down and the interior as filled with profitable stories.
The ethics and press laws (or lack thereof) governing British tabloids allow various publications to pursue stories, and ultimately profit, on their own terms. Largely self-regulated and unconcerned with libel or accuracy, British tabloids circumvent stern press laws and use the legislation to their advantage in their pursuit of scandalous stories pertaining to the Royals and other notable figures. Plumer argues that Britain’s stringent libel laws may actually enable bad, unethical journalism because tabloid publications can target those who make libel claims with threats and the like. On the flipside, according to Plumer, the strict laws can also be used to silence journalists who are seeking legitimate truth through lawsuits and other methods.
While tabloids have been able to toy with libel laws, public figures have also been able to manipulate the press to their own advantages. But the rise of “fake news” has further complicated this power dynamic. Coined during the 2016 Presidential Election, “fake news” became a term describing the misinformation and disinformation circulating on the Internet, specifically on social media sites such as Facebook. Ironically, British tabloids have been profiting off of such content for decades. In the digital age it’s become more important for publishers and consumers to be mindful of “fake news,” as it can be used as a tool to cause harm or even alter the course of an election. But many public figures, including President Trump, have weaponized the phrase to attack legitimate journalists who they may not agree with. Journalism at its core, as an institution, is not “fake news.” But some who hold power may conflate the two. During the infamous lawsuit between former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan and Gawker Media, it was revealed that Pay-Pal co-founder Peter Thiel — angry at the site for outing him as gay before he was ready — used his billions to fund Hogan’s campaign in order to take the publication down. Was Gawker’s “reporting” of Thiel’s sexuality public information? Were its journalists in the wrong, or did Thiel abuse his power? Now, similar questions can be raised about Harry and Meghan, as they cut ties with major British tabloid media outlets. Are Harry and Meghan justified in their split with the media? Or is the couple, like Thiel, abusing its platform to deny the tabloid press of information many publications believe the public is entitled to? Whichever the answer is, “they are poking the bear, and you don’t poke the bear” journalist and royal biographer Penny Junor said in an article written by Mark Landler for the New York Times (2020). As journalism tries to stay afloat in the age of “fake news” and declining public trust in the institution, tabloids may find new ways to target and surveil the couple. The war is just beginning.
Sensationalism is a sizable attribute of British tabloids, one that easily lends itself to libel and inaccurate information. Sensationalism also calls into question the issue of bullshit, especially when compared to lies. Bullshit, as defined by On Bullshit author Harry G. Frankfurt, is an “indifference to how things really are” or an ignorance and carelessness concerning the truth (p. 34). Lies, on the other hand, are told when the truth is known but ignored. If tabloids write sensational articles about the Royals that reject a truth they know about, that is clearly a terrible act and a way of spreading disinformation. However, if tabloids write sensational articles without knowing the truth or caring about it, Frankfurt argues this is much more dangerous to the public. It is difficult to know when a tabloid is bullshitting or lying, and most readers probably cannot tell the difference between these two. But in discovering the intent behind an article, one could see how a tabloid values and implements journalistic ethics as well as the competitive mentality that makes tabloids publish questionable articles.
Inclination toward scandal and mistruth within the tabloid industry, driven by opportunity for revenue, has not disappeared with the rise of the Internet. Tabloids have adapted such stories about the Royals to the digital age as print media continues to decline with outlets now selling clicks rather than physical copies. Word play and shocking headlines are no longer solely reserved to newstands but can now be found on social media feeds where users can spread content themselves (via likes, retweets and shares) and engage in comment sections. Further, the tabloid obsession with the Royals has also translated well to the web. Various news sites, and now even personal blogs, dedicate entire sections to the family. Additionally, public discussion of the Royals and their activities can now manifest in hashtags and trends that add further intensity to the spotlight on their lives. For example, when Harry and Meghan announced their decision to step down as senior members of the Royal Family, the tabloid media’s word play and the power of social media culminated in the popular hashtag “#Megxit.” This shift to the digital world could prove troubling, as the Pew Research Center reported that “58% (of people in the UK) are familiar with the news sources they find on social media, but around three-in-ten do not pay attention to the sources there.” Sensationalist articles often found in tabloids could be more easily believed and passed around on social media if people are not taking the time to check the sources of information.
Much like the tabloids that cover them, the Royal Family has also capitalized on tools now available in the digital era. Online platforms have helped give the Royals their own voices in the fray of stories surrounding them. For example, Harry’s earliest plees with the tabloids regarding their treatment of Meghan were published on The Royals’ official website through a press secretary. Later on, Harry took matters into his own hands, penning a scathing critique of the tabloids himself when he felt they had gone too far. In January, the couple published the statement announcing their “step back” from royal life on their personal site Sussex Official and on various social media accounts with the namesake. Harry and Meghan’s circumventing of traditional media is not unique to their situation. President Trump famously uses his Twitter account to negate media claims and control his own narratives. Other public figures do the same. It is worth wondering if tabloids and Royals now compete with each other over power in the digital sphere, especially in the political sense. As the book Tabloid Britain: Constructing a Community Through Language by Martin Conboy suggests, “the popular press became an institution of political control” (2006). With digital tools at their fingertips, the Royals now have the capacity to fight tabloids over control of public opinion. This new power is especially relevant in the case concerning perspectives on Meghan, who wants to combat the bias and mistruths spread about her, particularly regarding her background, motives, and personality. The polarization surrounding #Megxit can better be understood in this context as well. Should the public believe the Royals who speak through their own online platforms, or should it believe the information coming from an institution that has been around for a century?
Polarization inspired by #Megxit calls into question the extent to which the British citizenry is entitled to information regarding the lives of public figures, specifically the Royals. As one UK editor said in a Vanity Fair article by Joe Pompeo, “We pay for you [the Royals] and you just have to suck it up” (2019). Funding the lavish lifestyles of the Royals, many UK taxpayers may feel they have the right to knowledge of Harry and Meghan’s private lives, as the two are public servants. In the United States, similar questions have been raised regarding the general public’s level of access to information on government officials and celebrities. This ethical dilemma characterized Hulk Hogan’s aformentioned lawsuit against Gawker Media in October 2012 after Gawker published a sex tape featuring Hogan and Heather Clem, the then-wife of radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge. Gawker argued that publishing the video was justified, as Hogan is a public figure, but Hogan felt otherwise. Later on, around the time of the 2016 presidential election and the months and years that have followed, extensive investigation into Donald Trump’s personal life and business practices have taken place at the public’s demand. Fed up with the aggressive British tabloids, Harry and Meghan have pleaded for some semblance of a private life. But “senior members” of the Royal family or not, are they entitled to this privilege? Or does dealing with the press, no matter how vicious or careless, simply come with the territory of being a public figure?
With knowledge of the motives driving British tabloids and the general UK media ecosystem, important questions still remain. Why do particular stories sell well? And why is there significant interest in Meghan specifically? Esteemed in tradition like the Royals themselves, tabloids are conservative institutions, in the sense that they point out deviations from the status quo, focusing more attention on cultural “outsiders.” This phenomenon might explain why Meghan has received more press than her sister-in-law Kate Middleton. Markle, the outsider in this case, is a biracial, American divorcee who used to act for a living, making her, as author Kaitlyn Greenidge said in a New York Times opinion piece, “either a beautiful symbol of a hoped-for pan-racial harmony or a treacherous, ill-mannered black woman who somehow tricked a blameless white man into marrying her” (2019). Similarly, Princess Diana and Prince Charles’ second wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles, fit the outsider criteria, resulting in more negative press coverage. While Diana was a member of the nobility, she was not royalty before marrying Charles. Additionally, during her tenure as Princess of Wales, Diana pushed boundaries, advocating for HIV patients (a very taboo disease at the time) and dating a Muslim man. The “People’s Princess” was an icon, but she was also something of a rebel. Meanwhile, Parker-Bowles was Charles’ mistress during his first marriage, and like Meghan, is a divorcee.
While Harry and Meghan’s battle with the tabloids is not the first, theirs has come to define the present-day influence of tabloids in British society. Stories about the couple circulate widely and bring in readers who are both in staunch opposition and loyal support of them and their actions, and the stories also have the ability to sway the public’s opinions on the Royals. This influence is only furthered by the fact that most British citizens, as well as countless people around the world, usually forgo fact checking or gathering information from various sources to see all perspectives. This is due in large part to a lack of media literacy and the tendency of people to find information that suits their bias without looking for other points of view. But the situation with Harry and Meghan is also about the power dynamic between the rich and influential and journalistic institutions. As the world delves deeper into the digital frontier this tense relationship will grow more complicated. While Harry and Meghan’s strained relationship with the press is seemingly past the point of no return, much can be learned from their case. Journalists must value and seek truth first and foremost. Only then might public trust be restored in the institution, and only then might those in positions of power, such as Markle and Harry, welcome its existence and cooperate with its members.
References
Conboy, M. (2006). Tabloid Britain: Constructing a community through language. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=xna-goUCEqAC&dq=tabloid&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
Facts on News Media & Political Polarization in the UK. (2018, May 17). Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/fact-sheet/news-media-and-political-attitudes-in-the-united-kingdom/.
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gossel, D. (2017, February 23). Tabloid journalism. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/tabloid-journalism.
Greenidge, K. (2019, March 28). Meghan Markle and My Tabloid Obsession. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/opinion/meghan-markle-and-my-tabloid-obsession.html?searchResultPosition=9.
Landler, M. (2020, April 20). Harry and Meghan Cut Off U.K. Tabloids. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/world/europe/harry-meghan-uk-tabloids.html.
Plumer, B. (2011, July 7). Do Britain’s Strict Press Laws Actually Encourage Bad Behavior? Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/91590/news-of-the-world-murdoch-daily-mail-libel.
Pompeo, J. (2019, October 4). Inside Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s War With the Tabloids. Retrieved from https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/increasingly-bitter-war-between-meghan-markle-and-the-british-tabloids.
Samuelson, K. (2017, August 27). How Princess Diana’s Death Changed the British Media. Retrieved from https://time.com/4914324/princess-diana-anniversary-paparazzi-tabloid-media/.
