|
Post by margarita on May 10, 2011 6:40:02 GMT -5
Many of us notice two remarkable things when it comes to Charlene Wittstock and the media. 1) With only some exceptions papers seem to reprint the Press-releases of the Palace, print interviews with Stahl herself (BUNTE) to praise Charlene and that wedding or copy more or less what other papers say (CW blond, Grace, former olympian that's why perfect Princess ect.) Well - they have a right to have that opinion and print it. However I guess I'm not the only one who misses serious journalism about Monaco's Flagship and the circumstances of that wedding, journalists who do own research, check facts privided by sources (such as the "did CW qualify for Bejing" question) and try to paint a picture of CW and this wedding-image-campain that is as close to reality and objective as possible. 2) Some of us are witnesses of forums being closed because posters did not have a 100% positive opinion on CW as New Flagship or posts being removed from forums and posters banned - obviously for that reason only. That is why I'd like to start a thread to collect as much information as possible about these phenomenons. Maybe someone might need these facts later to write a book or a thesis about journalism or politics... 1) Passive low quality journalism: "Lazy journalists", "not objective journalists" or redactions: - interviews with the pr-wedding-team-staff printed and sold as "the true story" to build peoples opinion, -wrong information stated by media. ect. belong in this category. (Anything else ) Please feel free to "save" examples/ infos here whenever you "stumple" about it. 2) Active attempts against freedom of the word: Forums closed, articles not printed ect. I will provide the first example to 2) Some of us know TRF and won't be surprised to read this. However I would like to make this information public and save it for further reference: 10/05/2011: "Zonk Administrator Newsletter Editor, Picture of the Month Representative - Britain Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere in, United States Posts: 7,460 Okay...enough. This constant harping and bashing Charlene is getting very tiresome and will not be tolerated. Any questions need to be directed towards a Monaco Moderator and/or TRF Administrator via PM. Anything posted in the threads will be deleted without notice." Note: "constant harping and bashing" here - one or two posters with different opinions on CW vs. dozens of praising posters." It would fill too many pages to provide posts of the last days on TRF here. But I think that statement says much. AdminNote: Changed title of thread to better reflect opinions expressed in the thread
|
|
|
Post by Elektra on May 10, 2011 7:34:43 GMT -5
Maybe those boards are controlled by a/some PR agencies. They have to cater to the wishes of their customers and not to the posters. There do exist a lot of ways to put pressure on forums like that.
|
|
|
Post by countess on May 10, 2011 10:32:29 GMT -5
i'm convinced many of the for >>>>profit forums are in "business" with the royals. i'm sure many of the moderators take kickback or "gifts" from the different palaces. i don't visit those forums because you're putting money in their pocket everytime you click. it's clear that many have an agenda and it's a shame journalists don't try harder to do a good job.
we've seen many "articles" put out over the past months by "journalists" that are taking the palace party line and getting paid for it, not only is it unethical, it's lazy and in the end will catch up to them when they find a good editor. the non dynamic duo is a perfect example, so many stories contain the same lies and misinformation, it's a dishonor to their profession. IMO most of these are done by hacks, has been and never will be's. i've read several clever articles by talented writers that were given an assignment and knew they had to cover the story "slanted" but manage to put the truth between the lines.
my favorite is the coathanger comment, absolutely priceless!!!!
|
|
|
Post by creativemind on May 10, 2011 10:50:01 GMT -5
at the start of the pr thread -- which is down a little further ... i posted this article. i think it really gets to the crux of a lot of the terrible press that comes out of and related to monaco ... i outlined certain points but the article is there for full reading. www.royalopinions.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=couple&action=display&thread=93&page=1 it's my opinion the other boards are in bed with the royal houses. they don't care about truth just ass kissing and lining their pockets. the threats will always be there but at the end of the day aside from accusing someone of a crime [i.e. prince x is a murderer -- while he's never been convicted as such] -- there's much leeway on the internet. not that lawsuits can't happen but it's rare.
|
|
|
Post by emmeline on May 10, 2011 10:53:51 GMT -5
Yes, i'm pretty sure that they have some sort of agreement with Royal Houses. Apparently, pr people check the site and, if there's everything ok, the forum don't get closed. Sad reality.
Also, as we know, there are many people, "friends", acquaintances (sp?) or/and family of Charlene and others probably, surroundin those forums.
|
|
|
Post by margarita on May 10, 2011 11:06:43 GMT -5
Hi everyone! Thanks for the replies, opinions and infos One good news (at least concerning TRF): While some of my posts were deleted (without stating a reason in pm) some quite critical posts from today remained Maybe they can read my thoughts because I really thought to sue TRF for limiting freedom of the word. If someone writes embarrassing things about a person I would understand the policy of deleting posts. But if facts are considered as embarrassing and posts deleted ... it's another talk. I didn't follow other royal houses but can easily imagine that other Princesses or "nearly" Princesses are criticiced as well. Am I insane ... or is CW put into a special position when it comes to create a virtual image of her ? That's what I really would like to know to everyone here I'm sooo happy RO exists - thanks again MyaDia for creating this forum and for all your effort. I have no problem with pro vs. con CW or whatever. But I am concerned when only one view is permitted...
|
|
|
Post by grimnir on May 10, 2011 11:55:00 GMT -5
Am I insane ... or is CW put into a special position when it comes to create a virtual image of her ? I'd like to know that too. IMO there is something fishy going here, either a total lack of interest or else some sort of conspiracy. The last halfway decent articles I've read were a)the Paris Match article about Nicole (6 years ago!), b) the PM one with the interview with CW in SA just after the olympics and c) the one in Bunte when they went to visit her granny (both 5 years ago). Those were the last ones with any sort of depth to them. And I'm not sure about any of these articles anymore either because they may just as well have been pr-pieces and copied by the interviewer. Everything thereafter was all boasting, lies, hints, hot air and attention seeking. I would love to know who and what are behind this, how far the tentacles of the mysterious pr-team reach, to what purpose and which master they serve. Oh, and I would like to see some investigative journalism: go and do some digging. Where did cw stay these 6 years, what did she do all day, what does she do now all day, what did she do between 2000 and 2006 when she became the paid escort, how did she earn her money, where did she live, why did her previous engagement fall through, where did she go to school, how long did she go to school, what grades did she get, what was that mysterious illness and who was her "saviour" then, why is her swimming career so patchy, why did she stop in 2000, why did she stop in what should have been the prime of her career, why did she need all those baby sitters, why doesn't she go to a shrink, why did all the sources of information dry up: coincidence or orchestrated, need any more questions? I wish I had the means, contacts and skills to find this out, I'd love to go after this, if only the satisfy my own curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by Elektra on May 10, 2011 12:24:29 GMT -5
Well I guess there is only so much one can write about a coat hanger who once swam. Monaco is making the most out of that by creating an air of secrecy and nobility around her. She is released from her "secret garden" for some events or photo shoots. The outcome of those we see in the tabloids accompanied by some invented stories. Is she even needed for more? I guess not otherwise we would have heard about it by now.
|
|
an
Full Member
Posts: 100
|
Post by an on May 10, 2011 19:10:19 GMT -5
i'm convinced many of the for >>>>profit forums are in "business" with the royals. i'm sure many of the moderators take kickback or "gifts" from the different palaces. i don't visit those forums because you're putting money in their pocket everytime you click. it's clear that many have an agenda and it's a shame journalists don't try harder to do a good job. You mean the administrators, right? Just by ads and pubs or ?...
|
|
an
Full Member
Posts: 100
|
Post by an on May 10, 2011 19:26:47 GMT -5
Also, as we know, there are many people, "friends", acquaintances (sp?) or/and family of Charlene and others probably, surroundin those forums. The activity seems to have dropped considerably lately, don't you think so? And it is not because she has already got the ring. Wondering what is coming next...
|
|
|
Post by countess on May 10, 2011 19:53:08 GMT -5
i'm convinced many of the for >>>>profit forums are in "business" with the royals. i'm sure many of the moderators take kickback or "gifts" from the different palaces. i don't visit those forums because you're putting money in their pocket everytime you click. it's clear that many have an agenda and it's a shame journalists don't try harder to do a good job. You mean the administrators, right? Just by ads and pubs or ?... no many of the for profits owner get a few pennies a post which runs into considerable money in the long run. they also can get payoffs from the ads, traffic and "brand" mentions. the bigger the forum the bigger the agenda. JMO i know in blogging it's considered unethical to push products without disclaimer, the big forums have no such ethics or guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by margarita on May 11, 2011 1:36:09 GMT -5
Grimnir: "I would love to know who and what are behind this, how far the tentacles of the mysterious pr-team reach, to what purpose and which master they serve. " me too. I guess it's a mixture: 1) lazy journalists: what does it take to write about CW? A paparazzo pic with CW in designer cloth - a comparison with Grace - some press release info about the planned wedding = content? - zero. 2) There is definitly not much to write about a "coat hanger who once swam"? (Elektra - ;D LOL you hit the nail...) 3) Media are not really interested in Monaco and/ or assume that readers who buy a paper with a Monaco-title are not very intelligent or clever - so cheap fairy tale soap bubbles are enough??? (So: considering 1) 2) and 3) ... if someone want's to manipulate the media here it's quite easy.) My guess: Someone worked hard to create a good image of CW outside Monaco - to strenghten her position in Monaco. And then go and push Albert into that marriage explaining that this will boost Monaco's image ("look at all these titles and forum post's!!! People love her! To marry her will boost Monaco!") We discussed a BUNTE title in November (?) 2010 on RD with the statement: Charlene more and more powerful. Charlene won against all her insider-enemies in Monaco's establishment. How? Because they had to learn that she is adored in foreign countries! And that's what Monaco needs - a good image of Monaco thanks to CW. In November 2010 CW was announced Monaco's new flagship... for the reason of WHAT??? The question is WHO adores her in foreign countries? People like us? There might be an armada of people who love Charlene after reading low-quality articles with nearly no content, however ... do they have a say when it comes to Monaco? ... do they have the money and influence to change Monaco's situation? ... are they the kind of people Monaco needs? Doesn't Monaco rather need well situated and/ or educated people who are able to WORK? Unfortunatly they question informations+analize what they see and read by nature + don't buy the faux tale.... And stop donating or coming to MC because they are rather -sorry- pissed off by the whole Charlene thing. If the media-image-abroad-to-build-up-CW-in-MC-thing was really the strategy .... then it explains the eagernes of some person(s) to create this image and let's only speculate about measures to achieve this and prevent the truth from being said . Maybe that't what we smell as "fishy"? (Could SOMEONE WHO READS THIS and has access please tell Albert that people with more than two brain cells RUN AWAY from Monaco and see him as nothing but a laughing stock thanks to his "flagship" and the mastermind behind this marriage and story?) ps: I have never sued anyone in my life so far. But something about this CW-campain is very fishy. When a royal forum that is located in Europe doesn't seem to tolerate FACTS that speak against the CW-perfect-Princess-media-image, when RD put the MC section behind the wall and then closed it ect. ... that's stuff to go public. And that's what CW&Co don't need right now, do they?
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on May 11, 2011 5:45:32 GMT -5
Margarita, I really feel your frustrations; you are saying things that I have stated over and over again. I want to say this about other forums. - they have a right to set the tone and rules of their board. They have the right to decide what kind of information is posted on their board. Most of these sites are fan sites with members who go there to mostly see photos of their favorite royal women in their nice expensive clothes and jewelry. If you notice, there are few articles and interviews discussed on these types of forums, so their impression of these royals are mostly based on looks and appearances. Some of us participated on The Royal Fantasies board when Charlene photos first hit the public and you won't believe the harassment we had to deal with before most of us stopped posting there (or some were banned). They have a policy against insulting or bashing royals, thus in actuality their policy precludes any negative information being told about their favorite royals because they automatically deem any negative information - even if true - as insulting or bashing. Also, I have noticed that their forum is riddled with false information, mainly because these people barely read anything outside of a caption for a photo. Most of us here have more information to form our (mainly negative) opinion of Charlene. I doubt if more than two people on the entire TRF actually red Charlene's Tatler interview (besides looking at her photos) or read or listened to any parts of her Jenny Crwys-Williams interview. Charlene revealed a lot of information about her true shallow nasty work-shy character in these interviews - but most of the posters on the The Royal Fantasies board just look at her photos. Here's a post I made at TRF just a month after Charlene's appearance in Turin there responding to this phenomenon. Here's another post I made in the 2nd month afterward. I was trying to find the post that I made where I compiled all the glorifying character attributes (sweet, kind, angelic, etc.) that posters made of Charlene immediately after seeing her photo - and not knowing anything else about her. Frustrated with constantly being attacked, I tried to explain the difference between those of us who formed our opinion of Charlene based on her behavior as opposed to those who form their opinions solely on her looks - in this post (I have a follow-up post further down because the dimwits on fantasies board have a difficult time understanding this phenomenon of judging people on other traits besides their looks). In addition, Charlene has family members and friends that post and protect her on these boards. So, you will NEVER be able to say anything of substance negative about her except not liking an outfit. Charlene followed Albert and other royals on these forums so she knows the power of a photo and she has modeled her behavior based on sugar board mentality - you are good if you look good. It is a losing battle trying to convert these people. They post at these fantasies because that's what they want - to live out fantasies. Likewise, we attract a certain type of poster - definitely more astute, more read, and intelligent (sorry, but TRF is suffering from a serious "brain drain"). Can you imagine the loony French fanatic enjoying herself posting here? Last, I don't think the adms/owner of TRF works for any palace. They are contacted by the media and authors peddling books because they are normally viewed as the largest royalty fan site. They maintain that status because they do not delete any member under any circumstances, so their membership number is purposely very misleading. I do know and have been told that they have been contacted by several individuals representing royals about negative information posted on their board - in particular Charlene, which shouldn't be hard to believe since Charlene's friends have threaten to sue boards Monaco FreeForums while many of us here weer posting there. All this to say, you are not going to change anyone's opinion about Charlene on The royal Fantasies board and you are not going to change their policies. But, I do believe in time the truth will reveal itself - and we will be vindicated!
|
|
|
Post by hibou on May 11, 2011 7:35:04 GMT -5
There is a saying "It all comes out in the wash", so eventually the truth will surface, but I'm wondering who will care to even read it. It will have to be quite sensational to get people's attention. I place my bets on Albert being the one to get's caught in a compromising position. He likes his "affairs" too much to stop. I do not believe at this point he is capable of changing his behavior. So too me, it's just a question of time. JMO
|
|
|
Post by margarita on May 11, 2011 8:28:02 GMT -5
MyaDia, thank you so much for your long answer and explanations! The first forum I joined was RD - so I didn't knew much the "history" of the others. “Most of these sites are fan sites with members who go there to mostly see photos of their favorite royal women in their nice expensive clothes and jewelry.” 8-)Well, that's ok and they can have their own rules. BUT THEY SHOULD DECLARE it and write right at the front page "this is a fan page to exchange (only positive or neutral) views about fashion and everything that is skin deep. Nothing more." And they should not tolerate positive comments about anything that is more than skin deep either. Otherwise some naive people like me or journalists or PR-people might think there is a "real" discussion going on. BTW: Once the posters on certain forums know that only positive opinions are tolerated there - they should know that this is a parallel universe and reality won't get better from praising anyone there. In some way I find it entertaining to read TRF: sounds like some scaredy cats assure each other permanently that all will be fine - because they know that facts are rather against them. “I do know and have been told that they have been contacted by several individuals representing royals about negative information posted on their board - in particular Charlene, which shouldn't be hard to believe since Charlene's friends have threaten to sue boards Monaco FreeForums while many of us here were posting there.” That was/ is my feeling. Threaten to sue the Monaco FreeForums??? OMG.
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on May 11, 2011 9:26:09 GMT -5
Margarita, if you go to their rules under posting it states among other items: - Insulting comments about other posters and royals are not permitted. Criticism is acceptable; insults and flames are not. We expect our members to treat each other with respect.
- Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated. Just these two rules alone gives them the right to keep only positive comments posted on their sites - and it is their right. also, they can deem almost any information as coming from non-credible sources. Funny you called it a parallel universe because that is EXACTLY what my pseudo name for the site was before I just called it The Royal Fantasies. In their parallel universe they can believe that they are a discussion board. They can define the difference between criticism and insults as they deem fit, just as they can define speculation to refer to only negative information that they do not like (it's perfectly fine to speculate about something positive which is what they mostly do). Again, their board and their rules and no one has a RIGHT to post on their board.
|
|
|
Post by creativemind on May 11, 2011 9:42:48 GMT -5
it really shows how stupid and naive the people who are run the boards -- really, good luck suing a "forum" ... you know how moronic that would look in court, frivolous. and really, in what country, the u.s. -- if that's where the board originates, cause that shit wouldn't fly here. aside from plotting someone's death, the internet, legally, is unchartered territory. there are cases but it's rare. Royal Fantasies Fanpage, Sugar Suckers, Kool-Aid Club, just call your boards what they are. Memo to Charlene's flunkies -- the world is already starting to see what an idiot Conlene is, what a sucker FatAl The Blob is and how irrevelant Monaco has become. So what are you going to do? Threaten to sue world opinion about your ignorant, plastic surgery bimbo-faced, tramp [MY OPINION] Get ready 'cause once she's married -- it's really on. They're going to see how stupid she really is, Albert is, oh, and she's not going to give a rats ass about any of you.
|
|
|
Post by margarita on May 11, 2011 10:31:06 GMT -5
MyaDia - "the parallel universe" was really just a guess - funny, indeed. Of course forums have the right to have own rules and I don't even dream to question or change that. But they should not write: "Criticism is acceptable." when it's not. That's my problem. Maybe I'm a bit thin-skinned when it comes to such things because I grew up in a socialist/communist system. My mother was put under pressure back then when she discovered that the director (member of socialist party) of the company she worked for malversated public money. After she reported about that it was not he who had to justify himself but she suffered serious consequences. She -who always refused to join the Party -criticized a Party member and was accused to be an "enemy of the people". When five (!) men of the local Party controll comission interrogated her she quoted the Statute of the Party ;D "to criticize the misbehaviour of party-members is not only accepted but even a duty - no matter who the criticized person is and which functions she has." She didn't give up to fight for justice -because she wanted to beware the country from collaps and saw the abbys ahead. ...until one fine day someone reminded her that she and my father have a child (=me) and if she doesn't want to run the risk not to reach home after work she should stop right now. Sorry for sharing this sad story here. On the one hand it is very individual, related to a system that already collapsed and it seems to be off-topic as this forum is about Monaco and actual or future events. On the other hand I think it's important to watch out, cherish and defend the freedom we have. Regardless of time and the country or system we live in. Déjà-vu
|
|
|
Post by hibou on May 12, 2011 11:30:10 GMT -5
There is a recent lawsuit that is attempting to force a forum to reveal who their posters are in order to sue individual posters for defamation. It hasn't gone to court yet. The article mentions that it would be difficult in the US to force a forum to expose it's members. I am tracking this to see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Elektra on May 12, 2011 11:49:14 GMT -5
talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?p=7237241forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/star-must-identify-anonymous-posters-to-website-judge-rules.77578/I found two websites refering to the same case. Obviously, it can be done. On the other hand. I do not think we have anything to fear. Do we really spread lies or can our posts be considered defamation?I do not think so. In most cases we refer with proper quotes to articles and photos. The rest is opinion or criticial review of photos and articles. Especially when we review photos and articles that were done with the consent of the palace and its squatters. It is like doing a criticial review of a book or a painting at college. But those books and paintings have usually more depths.
|
|