Prince Harry Wins Decision In Favor of Defamation Lawsuit Proceeding Against ‘Mail on Sunday’ – Duke of Sussex STILL Whining About Security
Prince Harry, like his mom Princess Di, attracts a lot of attention from the mainstream media. Despite hounding his mother right up to her death, they don’t let up on her youngest son. Bad news about royals brings in readers and income. So, he got really fed up and sued a major news outlet for libel. Now, he won a decision in his favor.
Prince Harry – A Money-Spinner With All His Drama
Even before the press became really critical of Meghan Markle and her brand new husband, the couple literally minted cash for news outlets including bloggers. So, when things started to go wrong, interest rose.
Media outlets are not there for charity and they need to earn an income. However, there’s always more than one way to report, In fact, any writer who knows their salt can slant a story either way through the power of words. Prince Harry believed that a story by the Mail on Sunday was defamatory, so he hit back with his lawsuit.
Prince Harry Has A Suit Against Associated Newspapers Limited
Cosmopolitan reported that on a decision about “the original article [which] carried a controversial headline, It read: “Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret… then — just minutes after the story broke — his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.”
The legal team for Prince Harry argued that there was some inflammatory information in the article and in the title. From their point of view, it “falsely suggested the prince had ‘lied.”Additionally, it also seemed to suggest that it manipulated “public opinion.” Naturally, the publisher for The Mail On Sunday denied that. Well, the royal dad of two got a good outcome.
Fact Or False Reporting?
The lawsuit by Prince Harry highlights the fact that a lot of fake news goes around. Whilst actual false statements can’t be written, sometimes writers need to think very carefully about how far they can swing a story without overstepping things. In this case, the defendant argued that they merely used the info that emerged via his own PR team.
In response, Judge Justice Nicklin said, “It may be possible to ‘spin’ facts in a way that does not mislead, but the allegation being made in the article was very much that the object was to mislead the public.”
It’s not the end of the hearing though, as the defense needs to still put forward its case. Additionally, it might result in them being required to name their source.
Reference Source: Yahoo