With just days left until the Duke and Duchess of Sussex release their Netflix series, newspapers are turning a documentary about how the media treated the couple into a story about how the couple treats the media.
The release of a second trailer promoting the show on Monday has already prompted suggestions of misleading edits, as several photos and clips in the promotional video for the six-part show, titled Harry and Meghan, were taken out of context.
“There’s a leak, but stories are also being planted… It’s a dirty game,” says Prince Harry in the trailer, as flashes of camera flashes break out across a multitude of archive and stock images.
The Sun – one of the publications highlighted in the trailer – ran the story on its front page under the headline “Sussex, lies and videotape”. While some of the changes are small – a photo of Harry surrounded by paparazzi was cropped from an old picture with his ex Chelsy Davy instead of Meghan – some are rather unusual. Two shots showing a crowd of cameras come from very different stories. One is from outside a Sussex Magistrates’ Court where cameras were waiting to capture glamor model Katie Price, another shows footage of Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen leaving his New York apartment.
Another shot, showing dozens of photographers with long-lens cameras jostling for position, was actually taken outside of a Harry Potter film premiere in 2011. It’s one of the top results for “Paparazzi” on a popular stock agency.
Robert Jobson, royal editor of the Evening Standard, criticized another dramatic shot by a photographer’s lens looking down at the couple with their newborn child Archie. Jobson insisted that, with her consent, it was taken by an accredited press photographer at Archbishop Tutu’s Cape Town residence. He tweeted: “Only three people were in the accredited position. HM [Harry and Meghan] agreed to the position. I was there.”
This photo used by @Netflix and Harry and Meghan suggesting press intrusion is a complete farce. It was drawn from an accredited pool at Archbishop Tutu’s residence in Cape Town. Only 3 people were in the accredited position. H&M agreed with the position. I was there. pic.twitter.com/nvjznlloLF
— Robert Jobson (@theroyaleditor) December 5, 2022
ITV Royal Editor Chris Ship supported Jobson: “The filming of Archie at Archbishop Tutu’s residence was tightly controlled. And the ITN Productions camera filming the Sussexes’ Africa documentary was there with their permission. It wasn’t media scrum. They agreed [ITV news anchor] Tom Bradby in there.”
The question, in part, is whether this still felt like a press intrusion for the couple — even if it was with the consent of their aides at the time. Netflix declined to comment on suggestions that the footage was misleading.
As the show is being produced for Netflix – and not a UK TV network – it is not bound by UK broadcasting standards. Under UK rules, which are overseen by Ofcom, factual broadcasts must not “materially mislead the audience” or risk violating them.
Whether using stock images of camera crowds to illustrate press intrusion would be considered a material breach of these rules is unclear. But British television executives live in fear of repeating the BBC’s 2007 mistake when a misleading trailer appeared to show Queen Elizabeth II storming out of a photoshoot with Annie Liebowitz and an incident that led to the resignation of then-BBC One controller Peter Fincham, led.
It may not help the Sussexes’ coverage that they are currently suing the majority of Britain’s newspaper owners on various grounds, having long ago dropped any pretense that they wish to conform to the traditional rules of royal media engagement. Harry brings phone hacking cases against both News UK (which owns the Sun and Times) and Reach (which owns the Mirror, Express and Daily Star). He is also one of several prominent people making serious allegations against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Chron, Mail on Sunday and Web.
Meghan already won a separate legal battle against the Mail on Sunday after releasing a private letter she sent to her father. Only the parent companies of the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times are not publicly known to be involved in legal disputes with the couple.
On Tuesday, Harry interrupted a separate libel battle against the Mail on Sunday. He says a story they circulated about funding his security team was libelous, but the Mail’s publisher denies the claim on the basis that the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not cause serious reputational damage.
In a sign of the huge sums Harry is willing to spend on these legal cases, the court has heard that the king has already paid £340,000 in legal fees for this single case and is estimating up to £1.2million if the case goes to trial comes. The two sides will continue negotiations to reach an agreement by January 20 next year – by which time all six episodes of Harry and Meghan setting out their views in UK media will have been seen by millions.