of royal correspondents, who regularly pull out great stories. I was always impressed by the PA royal team’s commitment to finding hard news and pushing back against PRs. But this is an almost impossible task for general reporters


covering rota jobs, tasked with standing subserviently as a prince or duke or, God forbid, a duchess, tours a biscuit factory. Stephen Bates covered the royals for The Guardian from 2000 to 2012. He stresses that reporters on rota jobs do strive to find interesting, hard news angles. However, he accepts that there is an understanding that questions will not be asked of the royals. “It’s a convention really,” he says. “I mean, there’s nothing to


stop you asking and it’s not likely that they’re going to answer, frankly. “And you’re not supposed to listen into conversations on


walkabouts – for instance, if they talk to a member of the public, they’re quite sensitive on that. Or at least they used to be because of things like the Duke of Edinburgh’s celebrated gaffes.”


He describes the system as “pretty unique” in journalism. “I mean, even the pope holds press conferences,” he says.


“But, you know, it’s part of a pretty long-standing convention. “The royals don’t allow themselves to comment on anything


that might be conceived of as partisan or remotely political.” Indeed, Prince Charles’ recent comments criticising the UK


government’s asylum policy earned him widespread attacks. Bates argues the media are doing a good job of holding the


royals to account. He says: “When the royals go wrong, I think people pile in. I mean, Prince Andrew has been shoved out of public life. There is criticism.”


Brendan McGinty is a former editor of the Sunday Mail and


now sits on the board of press regulator IPSO and runs a communications firm. He said there is a dichotomy in coverage around the royals. He says: “It’s not as if everybody turns up, writes down what


everybody is wearing, files and goes home. “Obviously there is a bit of that. There is lots and lots of


uncritical coverage. But there is criticism.” He says royal events – such as Harry and Meghan’s star- studded wedding – were often stories people would be “talking about in the pub” and around the dinner table.


“ “I agree with your premise that there’s probably a need for


more critical coverage. Yes, absolutely,” he said. “But I’m saying that as someone who was more than once just sort of sucked in to the sort of intriguing glamour of the occasion at times.” The royal family – who declined to comment for this article – are not elected politicians but they hold immense power, wealth and land in the UK. Like any other power centre, they need to be held to account by the UK media. It is impossible to do this when journalists cannot ask questions of them. The senior royals have made many public appearances since


Andrew was sued over allegations of abusing a teenager. They have answered zero questions about his behaviour, Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight interview aside. Prince Charles has attended scores of events since it was


revealed he corresponded regularly with Jimmy Savile. Yet he has never been probed by the media on the scandal. The reason is the royal family have very effectively built a


The royal family hold immense power, wealth and land in the UK. But journalists cannot ask questions of them


system – the royal rota – that prevents those questions from being asked. And they have done this with the acquiescence of the UK media. As we approach the inevitable dawn of the King Charles era, it is time to reassess this system. At the very least, the routine Q&As or huddles that take place during political events should become equally common during trips by the major royals. But there are practical realities to royal coverage that may


halt such changes. Even the dullest of royal stories get wide pick-up and hit the most-read sections of newspaper websites. McGinty highlights that contradiction at the heart of royal reporting. “For the conventions to be challenged, there would need to be a sort of groundswell of opinion,” he says. “You’d need to think the media wanted that badly enough.” He added: “It’s certainly the case that royal coverage is seen


as saleable and popular. “Is that a situation that suits them or is it a boat they want


to rock?” theJournalist | 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32