Prince Harry is deeply unpopular in the UK, according to an APR specialist who spoke to Newsweek. His fight against the British media is more likely to elicit sympathy for the media due to long-standing claims of phone hacking, some dating back to the 1990s.
The Duke of Sussex is suing three British newspaper publishers. He stated in January on ITV that this campaign is his life's work, but he might face a large financial burden if he loses, potentially running into millions of dollars.
However, data gathered by YouGov in April indicates that Harry is disliked by 63% of Brits and loved by only 29%, giving him a net approval rating of -34. Meghan Markle, on the other hand, has a net approval rating of -41, with only 24% in favor of her and 65% disapproving, according to Edward Quorum James, CEO of the public relations firm go up to Newsweek.
James believes that if there is a significant public reaction against the British press, it will have an impact and British leaders will feel compelled to intervene. However, he argues that Harry and Meghan, especially Harry, are not the right people to bring about change in the media environment. They are extremely disliked in the UK, which is the straightforward explanation for their lack of support. In order to make a change of that scale against such opponents, you need to lead them, and Harry's actions are more likely to garner sympathy from the British press, if anything.
While this may not be correct, it is a harsh truth. A sizable portion of the British population will oppose Harry's actions if they witness them, similar to what happened with Trump in America. Prince Harry stated in a witness statement before the high court that he became suspicious that his friends were turning against him due to alleged phone hacking by journalists at Mirror Group Newspapers. He expressed his mistrust and paranoia, which affected his childhood, as he learned about the magnitude of the illegal acts committed by journalists and top executives.
The initial phone hacking scandal rocked the British media and led to the indictment of journalists, as well as the collapse of Rupert Murdoch's News of the World tabloid. A public examination known as the Leveson Inquiry issued recommendations in 2012, but press reform proponents argue that they weren't fully adopted. Harry's legal actions seem to have not sparked the same uproar or frenzy about press reform as the previous scandal did.
Harry's case primarily focuses on ensuring his name is added to the list of those whose phones were hacked by the Mirror Group and demonstrating cooperation among high-level executives. His targets include individuals like Piers Morgan, who denies ever hacking a phone or instructing staff members to do so during his tenure as editor of the Daily Mirror. The Mirror Group claims there is no proof that any of its journalists hacked the Duke and has only acknowledged one case of illegal information gathering.
James Coram argues that by criticizing the media, Harry is potentially doing serious harm to an important message and cause: the need to stop massive invasions of privacy and find a better balance between the public's right to know and an individual's right to live a private life.
These days, there are just so many people who want Harry and Meghan to lose. It also exhibits a certain amount of naivete. He should understand this. It appears to me that they are still displaying some of the same blatant disrespect for the public's perception of them and consequently the actual capabilities they have been displaying over the past six months.
An angry insider said, "Harry, you disrespect family, past school matrons, and ex-girlfriends by revealing personal information about them without their consent. You falsely accuse the people of the UK, your family, and the media of being racist against your wife when there is overwhelming proof to the contrary.
You tell half-truths or allow people to draw false conclusions from what you say about your relatives. You mock and/or put down the work to which your grandparents devoted their lives. You disrespect the military by using military charities to take money for yourself. You endanger and disrespect them by dehumanizing and enumerating the number of people you killed in battle. You use association with charities to make money for yourself."
It's not that Harry's case will generate sympathy for the tabloids. The argument is that Harry's case is not going to generate the additional criticism of the tabloids that he hopes for because he is so unpopular. People are going to focus on how ridiculous and entitled he is rather than what is still problematic about the tabloids.
Basically, Harry's crusade against the tabloids is perceived not as a campaign against abuses, but as a campaign against freedom of the press. Because he has relatively little objective proof of recent abuses and violation of privacy by the press, he confuses criticism with the violation of privacy.
The idea is that Harry's unpopularity may affect the way his campaign against abuses by the press is perceived. In this connection, people who don't like or trust Harry may be more likely to see his goal to address abuses by the press as an attempt to limit the freedom of the press.
But obviously, Harry testifying is not about freedom of the press broadly speaking. Any case about what the press may or may not do is about freedom of the press. However, in this case, the limits of what the press may or may not do have already been determined, so the case is about whether or not the press in this case crossed the line.
This case is only one of several that Harry has become involved in to expose and/or punish the press for violating his privacy over the years. It will be interesting to see how the rest of his campaign goes.
