Prince Harry's recent ITV documentary, "Tabloids on Trial," aimed to shed light on the unethical tactics employed by British tabloid newspapers in their coverage of the royal family.
However, the documentary seems to have backfired, undermining Harry's credibility rather than convincingly proving his claims against the tabloid media. In the documentary, Harry makes several serious allegations against the British press, including claims that tabloids have planted false stories and hacked his phone to invade his privacy.
He argues that the tabloid's treatment of him and his family amounts to an abuse of power that has had devastating impacts on their mental health and well-being. However, many viewers have been left underwhelmed by the lack of concrete evidence presented to support Harry's most damning accusations.
While Harry describes feeling vulnerable and terrified in the face of tabloid intrusion, specific details to back up these claims appear to be disappointingly lacking. One of Harry's central arguments is that the tabloids have routinely published falsehoods about him and his family. Yet, when pressed to provide examples, the specific false stories he cites do not necessarily seem to be the clear-cut fabrications he makes them out to be.
For instance, Harry points to a 2019 article in The Sun that reported Meghan Markle's personal assistant had quit her job. While Harry insists this was a complete lie, the article itself did not actually claim the assistant was fired but rather that she had quit her position. This distinction may seem minor but highlights how Harry's charges of outright fabrication don't always align with the actual content of the articles in question.
Similarly, Harry takes issue with a 2016 Daily Mail story that stated then-pregnant Meghan had been the victim of a dog attack. However, the article itself did not claim the incident was a dog attack but rather that Meghan had been bitten by a dog—a subtle but important difference. Viewers online have been quick to point out such discrepancies, arguing that Harry is engaging in a pattern of overstating the tabloid's misdeeds and failing to provide the hard evidence necessary to back up his most serious allegations.
This lack of tangible proof extends to Harry's claims of phone hacking as well. While he asserts that his phone was repeatedly hacked by tabloid journalists, he does not offer any substantive documentation or forensic analysis to conclusively demonstrate this. Instead, he relies largely on his personal belief that hacking must have occurred, given the volume of private information that ended up in the tabloids.
To be fair, Harry does cite a 2007 court case in which the News of the World was found guilty of hacking the phone of a royal aide. However, this incident predates Harry's own struggles with the tabloids by over a decade, making it a somewhat tenuous connection.
Overall, the general consensus online seems to be that Harry's documentary has done more to damage his own credibility than to convincingly take down the tabloid industry. Many viewers have been left with the impression that Harry is making sweeping allegations without providing the hard evidence required to back them up. This sentiment is perhaps best encapsulated by media commentator Dan Wootton, who argues that Harry has unwittingly undermined his own case through the documentary.
Wootton notes that while the royal family has undoubtedly faced unfair and unethical treatment from the tabloids over the years, Harry's failure to substantiate his claims plays right into the hands of the newspapers he is trying to vilify. It's a frustrating outcome for those who were hoping the documentary would provide a much-needed reckoning for the British tabloid industry. Instead, the prevailing view appears to be that Harry has simply given the tabloids more ammunition to dismiss his concerns as unfounded whining from a privileged royal.
Only time will tell whether this setback will deter Harry from continuing to fight against tabloid excesses. For now, the overwhelming sentiment seems to be that Harry's attempts to expose the tabloid's misdeeds have ended up backfiring, leaving him looking less like a crusading whistleblower.
