Week Three

Two Truths and Two Lies?

Last week, I shared my fascination with the the Royal Couple Harry and Meghan.  The actual news out of the Royal Palace has slowed down, now the media must find a way to keep this subject relevant and newsworthy. Enter the opinion pieces. These pieces are front and center now as the world begins to fill the Royal Family news void with these pieces.

Looking at what was out there, the latest update today was around who could fill the gap left by Megxit as it is commonly called in the media. Vanity Fair weighed in with an article.  In it, they say including that  it is likely Princess Beatrice and Eugene may be tapped to help out with more Royal engagements. While this girls have always been on the peripheral in the Royal news coverage, they were never more than a sidebar. Now with two major players like Harry and Meghan out, the media is turning to them to garner attention. It is clearly all speculation as this time and there are a few things that would tell a reader that including:

the source-Vanity Fair is not seen as a reliable and trusted major news source. While they have published good pieces of journalism and certainly excellent photos.

their sources– all anonymous.

references- while there are many in article reference links, none go beyond quoting themselves. Failure to quote additional outside sources is a clear indication this is simply the thoughts going around Vanity Fair right now.

Some stories call out right in their title that they are opinion pieces, such as this Fox News bit about Princess Diana’s former butler’s opinion. This piece allows him to speak freely about his feelings on Megxit.  A reader could also apply the same criteria as above and see this also fails to meet the standards of unbiased news journalism.

the source– Fox News, a media company that has made its empire by catering to a conservative audience without regard to unbiased reporting.

their sources-a former butler. This guy has written a tell all and done a lot of press. He is a media whore and when you factor in the length of time he has been out of the Royal Family’s affairs (over 20 years) why would they even give him the time on air?

references– again we see a failure to quote outside reputable resources.


Going back a week in media coverage you can see where there was still news being reported. For example the BBC wrote about what is next for Harry and Meghan.  Unlike the Fox News piece above, this article would stand up as a piece of solid unbiased coverage.

the source– BBC is known around the world for their excellent reporting and is a trusted source.

their sources– several are cited including Meghan and Harry themselves. Who better to tell the world what is going on then the couple in question?

references– same as above, several articles are mentioned including outside publications showing why the BBC is a trusted news source.

Going back to when the scandal broke at the start of January i have chosen a piece that may look like opinion but is actually solid news coverage. This article looks at ways Meghan and Harry have modernized the monarchy. All 12 of these ways are clearly explained without using the writer’s own opinion but instead examples and facts.

the source– Business Insider, not known for it’s gossipy or speculative coverage of current events unless its about the latest stock tips.

their sources- meet the test of credible sources who can be named for reference.

references- this article shows that outside sources are critical when examining Harry and Meghan.

It can be hard to tell what is fact and what is opinion in today’s media cycle. Just trust that until the Royal Family themselves can be quoted, it is all speculative.