Media coverage of Prince Phillips passing.

[ClichéGuevara]

I must admit to a long-held suspicion about folks who get personal about the royals - and sometimes thank my lucky stars that the individuals aren't themselves "ruling" over me even in a constitutional sense.
And I say that as a republican.
It was by the way I thought a cute pic of the queen and a chilled looking philip, hat on knee, on the scottish grass - it may have been released for PR reasons, but I have little doubt that the pic and the spirit in which it was taken was genuine.

There's bound to be exceptions, but as a generalisation, those against the Royals on the grounds of the so called privilege, are often the same people advocating for a redistribution of wealth, and they tend to also believe in open borders, so that redistribution would need to be global. I haven't seen too many practicing what they preach on that one.

It usually results in some justification that distills down to 'they should redistribute everybody's wealth but mine.'

 

[Deleted User]

I think your post Shep (with no disrespect) highlights a key difference sometimes between your word view and that of many others on here.
We can all live in our bubble as this stuff floats by and accept what we see at face value, and even if we don't we can accept that directly these things don't particularly affect my world.
Others (and this is hard to explain) see the same information and feel a need to challenge it as to whether it is true, and even if it is whether there are other narratives to share and be considered, because ultimately all information, debates and conversations have an impact, maybe not to them directly, today or tomorrow, but will impact others, the society and views that surround us. This is a debate about the media. OK it's regarding a 99 y/o bloke in the media eye who's died. The way the popular media reports this is of interest. Because the popular media informs much of what people believe and as we have seen with many items on CC NACA the popular media has an agenda which impacts the health and wealth of the nation.
Nobody in the media seems to care that trillions of pounds have been siphoned offshore as a result of Brexit. It doesn't impact me directly does it...or maybe it does?
We have a population fed with misinformation, lies, jingoism, sleaze and history tells us that this never ends well for the average guy, and when it finally hits home it's too late.
So yes, these things matter, they are symptoms of a bigger malaise and some of us feel the need to clarify and inform as it might just help us/our families/or some ordinary Joe in the future.
So while we are happy that some live in a world where these things are seemingly of little import, please don't feel the need to criticise those who are trying to make things a little clearer, better, more honest and more bearable for all and every conversation counts....

I criticise (in your words) people's views I find hard to understand no more than anyone else on here would criticise views they disagree with, the virus and people's thoughts on what is acceptable behaviour is a perfect example, so as long as I'm courteous I think I have as much right as anyone else on here to voice my opinion.

The main difference is I'm one of a few that will disagree on the whole with general opinion on this forum.

 

[winjim]

I have been to one party with royalty in attendance, there was a fair amount of wealth redistribution in the form of free booze...

 

[Mugshot]

I have been to one party with royalty in attendance, there was a fair amount of wealth redistribution in the form of free booze...

I'm happy to be converted.

 

[Adam4868]

I have been to one party with royalty in attendance, there was a fair amount of wealth redistribution in the form of free booze...

I'm sort of hoping you don't mention it was with Andy 🙄

 

[theclaud]

the same people advocating for a redistribution of wealth, and they tend to also believe in open borders,

You almost manage to make that sound like a bad thing.

 

[winjim]

I'm sort of hoping you don't mention it was with Andy 🙄

It wasn't.

 

[Adam4868]

It wasn't.

Definitely keep to that line.

 

[winjim]

Definitely keep to that line.

No sweat.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Us gullible folk are grateful to you as plain seeker and speaker of the truth, but I don't think Phil is your best example.

Rarely can any life have been subject to so much coverage, both during it and after death.

Nor was it all sycophantic, the gaffes, shooting a tiger, etc, were all well covered.

As a last resort, you might have to accept the help he gave to servicemen, charities, businesses, and Duke of Edinburgh Award participants was genuine.

There really isn't a great deal to slag him off about, which is why there isn't a great deal of slagging off going on.

Apart from the terminally green-eyed, who cannot bear that he met more interesting people and had more interesting experiences in a month than they will have in their whole lives.

It's all just so unfair.

It may not be the best example, but it is the subject under discussion. Neither do I deny that he had a lot of positives, but he also had negatives and led very privileged life unavailable to the rest of us. The point is whether the news media presents a fair and balanced analysis and often it does not. I suspect that most people take most news or media of their choice at face value and rarely question it.