|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 24, 2024 21:45:19 GMT -4
A comedy show in which they make fun of the conspiracy theories is not the proof you think it is. This whole debacle had BBC reporters and other prominent people seriously believing and promoting the idea that the royal family sent body doubles of William and Kate to the farm shop to stage a proof of life video. It was temporary insanity that went mainstream. It is now time to just admit that, and stop doubling and tripling down on the insanity. |
|
cancan
Blueblood
Posts: 1,396
Apr 21, 2006 13:01:02 GMT -4
|
Post by cancan on Mar 24, 2024 21:46:20 GMT -4
The news agencies reviewed all recent photos released by the royal family and only found one other photo that was significantly edited, and it was the photo of the Queen and grandchildren taken by Kate, edited in the exact same manner as the Mother's Day photo. Your assessment of "most people" is based on which corners of the internet you frequent. There are many people for whom Chris Evans's marriage doesn't pass the smell test, or who think Meghan and Harry presented a doll at a photo call and said it was Archie. "Doesn't pass the smell test" is the rallying cry for conspiracy theorists, along with "we just want transparency" and "why the coverup?" Thinking Meghan and Harry are highly self-regarding and full of shit is not a conspiracy theory. Yes, thinking Meghan and Harry are full of shit is not a conspiracy theory, just like thinking the Royal Family is lying when they say Kate edited the photo is also not a conspiracy theory. It's not just corners of the internet. Here's a Daily Show clip where they call BS on the photo editing claim: youtu.be/w6fyfZ0r_u0?si=mcHq4XwanlhYkKeh&t=86If one believes that Catherine has been *taking* publicly released photos for years, why does it strain credulity to believe that she is also *editing* the same photos? This wasn’t someone just playing around with the saturation and hue or airbrushing stray hairs. It looks to be a composite photo, spliced together from different photos. Her team had to have known that whatever they put out was going to be scrutinized, and it stretches credulity that they would let an amateur photographer take a stab at manipulating a high-profile photo to the degree that the Mother’s Day photo was altered. You’re welcome to believe she edited it, just as I don’t believe she did. Regardless, no one here has any insider knowledge on what actually happened and can’t say for certain what did or did not occur. It’s speculation on both sides. Do you believe that the KP team "lets" William and Catherine do things? I don't. I think William and Catherine call the shots. Similarly, do you believe Harry and Meghan's team "lets" them do things? |
|
wineoclock
Footman
Posts: 8 
|
Post by wineoclock on Mar 24, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -4
A comedy show in which they make fun of the conspiracy theories is not the proof you think it is. It doesn't get much more mainstream than the Daily Show, and their jokes are in line with their audience's beliefs. It's telling that they were comfortable calling BS on Kate editing the photo and that the audience reaction was positive. Do you believe that the KP team "lets" William and Catherine do things? I don't. I think William and Catherine call the shots. If Kate and William called all the shots during this debacle, then it's proof that they should either hire better people to advise them or learn to listen to the advice their comms/PR people give them. |
|
cancan
Blueblood
Posts: 1,396
Apr 21, 2006 13:01:02 GMT -4
|
Post by cancan on Mar 24, 2024 22:30:37 GMT -4
A comedy show in which they make fun of the conspiracy theories is not the proof you think it is. It doesn't get much more mainstream than the Daily Show, and their jokes are in line with their audience's beliefs. It's telling that they were comfortable calling BS on Kate editing the photo and that the audience reaction was positive. Do you believe that the KP team "lets" William and Catherine do things? I don't. I think William and Catherine call the shots. If Kate and William called all the shots during this debacle, then it's proof that they should either hire better people to advise them or learn to listen to the advice their comms/PR people give them. "Debacle" is a pretty strong word for a mother choosing to protect her family's privacy during a medical crisis. I have no issue with any aspect of how Catherine handled it. |
|
dragonflie
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,034
Member is Online
Mar 14, 2005 2:10:14 GMT -4
|
Post by dragonflie on Mar 24, 2024 22:32:47 GMT -4
Even if she didn't take the photos herself; again- who cares??
Like 1000 other famous people, celebs, dignitaries, etc don't also have their photos done by some outside team, who 100% retouches, edits, changes them? Is that really the scandal of the century. Hell- most people I know, regular non-famous simpletons like me- have had at one point or another a photo session done with family that was retouched, edited, backgrounds added. Should I have also notified all my family and friends that -I am soooo sorry for the manipulation. My husband has not beaten me or killed me- I just wanted to add some cute puppies and balloons to the photo background. And yes, I am not famous- but that also means I only have photo session like that a couple times in my life. Royals, famous ppl, expected to look and be a certain way all the time- I would expect that to be the norm for all their photos. and... ?? I still just don't get how that is... well... anything??
|
|
wineoclock
Footman
Posts: 8
|
Post by wineoclock on Mar 24, 2024 22:47:51 GMT -4
It doesn't get much more mainstream than the Daily Show, and their jokes are in line with their audience's beliefs. It's telling that they were comfortable calling BS on Kate editing the photo and that the audience reaction was positive. If Kate and William called all the shots during this debacle, then it's proof that they should either hire better people to advise them or learn to listen to the advice their comms/PR people give them. "Debacle" is a pretty strong word for a mother choosing to protect her family's privacy during a medical crisis. I have no issue with any aspect of how Catherine handled it. "Debacle" as in the complete PR mismanagement on KP's part. Even if she didn't take the photos herself; again- who cares?? Like 1000 other famous people, celebs, dignitaries, etc don't also have their photos done by some outside team, who 100% retouches, edits, changes them? Is that really the scandal of the century. Hell- most people I know, regular non-famous simpletons like me- have had at one point or another a photo session done with family that was retouched, edited, backgrounds added. Should I have also notified all my family and friends that -I am soooo sorry for the manipulation. My husband has not beaten me or killed me- I just wanted to add some cute puppies and balloons to the photo background. And yes, I am not famous- but that also means I only have photo session like that a couple times in my life. Royals, famous ppl, expected to look and be a certain way all the time- I would expect that to be the norm for all their photos. and... ?? I still just don't get how that is... well... anything?? |
|
dragonflie
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,034
Member is Online
Mar 14, 2005 2:10:14 GMT -4
|
Post by dragonflie on Mar 24, 2024 22:59:42 GMT -4
Except the Peter Souza example is equating relevant issues like current political campaigns with a family photo. We will have to agree to disagree here. I just do not see a photo of a family that may have an added smile of removed hair frizz as relevant news. ESPECIALLY as an excuse to bully a woman- who asked for medical privacy and time to recover- into revealing a serious diagnosis. But yes- the issue here is the edited photo. Ok then.
|
|
technicolor
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 337
Nov 22, 2010 9:41:42 GMT -4
|
Post by technicolor on Mar 25, 2024 0:42:18 GMT -4
This is playing out a bit like the discourse after Diana's death tbh. In that case, the Palace bungled the response, but the frenzy of blaming the RF was also tied to both the media and the gossip-hungry public frantically denying their own role in how Diana was treated in the press for years. And then the mass reaction after her death was arguably also totally without compassion for her loved ones, particularly her sons, where the public demanded that they be paraded in their grief. Both Harry and William have talked about how traumatizing that was for them.
I'd say KP didn't predict how the public would react to their very restrained announcement and were slow-footed to react. But yeah, the media and the part of the public funneling various nasty conspiracy theories absolutely are responsible for their nonsense here. The badly edited photo was released as a response for conspiracy theories already underway, not the other way around. Kimmel, I think, recognized that this was taking on Britney Spears like dimensions of glee towards an ill person and called for a stop to it, many others were caught up in the mob mentality and feeding frenzy.
Gossip is inherently morally dubious. It just is. I like to do it as well sometimes, because it can be a fun way to waste time. And often it is relatively harmless, but sometimes it's not. It's wildly and irresponsibly speculating about the lives of total strangers. Spears is an example where arguably all the media frenzy fed into her already existing problems. This thing with Kate now was also an unholy alliance of irresponsible media and entitled audience. I'd argue that the obnoxious way some corners try to link gossip to social justice is done as some misguided way to give this dubious activity a false sheen of legitimacy.
|
|
wineoclock
Footman
Posts: 8
|
Post by wineoclock on Mar 25, 2024 8:00:41 GMT -4
Except the Peter Souza example is equating relevant issues like current political campaigns with a family photo. We will have to agree to disagree here. I just do not see a photo of a family that may have an added smile of removed hair frizz as relevant news. ESPECIALLY as an excuse to bully a woman- who asked for medical privacy and time to recover- into revealing a serious diagnosis. But yes- the issue here is the edited photo. Ok then. From the Peter Souza post: “Every publication like the New York Times, and every news organization like the Associated Press, have strict policies on using Photoshop to process images. Basically, the accepted practices allow a news photograph to be tweaked by adjusting the color balance; the density (make the raw file lighter or darker); and shadows and highlights. What’s not acceptable is to remove, add, or change elements in the photograph. That would be altering the content. For example, if there’s a telephone pole sticking out of a person’s head, you wouldn’t be allowed to remove it. Or if someone mashes multiple family pictures together into one, that wouldn’t be acceptable. (Why, though, did it take AP nearly 2 hours to make this determination with the photo earlier this week?).” It’s not just that a family photo was edited. It’s that an institution consisting of unelected heads of state released a photo so doctored that news agencies issued a kill notice. It calls into question their credibility. That’s significant. Gossip is inherently morally dubious. It just is. I like to do it as well sometimes, because it can be a fun way to waste time. And often it is relatively harmless, but sometimes it's not. It's wildly and irresponsibly speculating about the lives of total strangers. Spears is an example where arguably all the media frenzy fed into her already existing problems. This thing with Kate now was also an unholy alliance of irresponsible media and entitled audience. I'd argue that the obnoxious way some corners try to link gossip to social justice is done as some misguided way to give this dubious activity a false sheen of legitimacy. I definitely see your point about gossip being morally dubious, and I’m not going to argue that it’s not, but it is something that people are always going to do about public figures. Quelling the gossip is something a good PR strategy should be focused on, but KP’s PR inflamed speculation and made “Where is Kate?” a global news story. Their PR was bad and made no sense, and naturally people wondered what the hell was actually happening and speculation ensued. |
|
luckylexie
Blueblood
Sophie Stink Eye Stan
Posts: 1,077
Mar 25, 2005 11:12:51 GMT -4
|
Post by luckylexie on Mar 25, 2024 8:49:14 GMT -4
FFS, it was a family photo. Jesus H. Christ, the woman is battling cancer and maybe she lightened the bags under her eyes and shit? I forgive her her vanity. She’s one of the most scrutinized women in the world. We’re not talking about deep deception on a political and state security level.
I’m sure this will be the end of Kate fiddling with her photos. KP’s comms team, given their extremely lacklustre performance in the last weeks, has hopefully learned to ask the right questions of their bosses (Kate + Will + their respective private secretaries) when directed to distribute Kate’s photos going forward (if that even happens anymore). I work in the public sector and alongside the machine that pushes out communications for high-ranking officials. There is a pecking order. A motto we adhere to is fearless advice, loyal implementation. I suspect there’s more than a bit of that environment in the royal household.
|
|
