Now even US media turns on Prince Harry with New York Times branding his remarks ‘repetitive and tiresome’
- The paper’s former London correspondent Sarah Lyall yesterday wrote a piece
- It was headlined ‘Has Prince Harry’s Confessional Tour Run Its Course?’
- Asked whether the ‘tide seems to be turning’ in US attitudes towards Sussexes
- It comes after the paper developed a reputation for being critical of Royal Family
It has recently developed a reputation for being critical of the British Establishment.
So it may come as a surprise to learn that even the Left-wing US newspaper The New York Times has run an article suggesting that Americans may be tiring of Prince Harry’s complaints.
The paper’s former London correspondent Sarah Lyall yesterday wrote a piece headlined ‘Has Prince Harry’s Confessional Tour Run Its Course?’, asking whether the ‘tide seems to be turning’ in US attitudes towards the Sussexes. She said people in the US had a ‘soft spot for royals in exile’, but added that ‘there are only so many revelations the public can stomach’.
She asked if their ‘troubles’ had become ‘so repetitive or even tiresome’ that they had ‘eroded their personal brand’.
Sarah Lyall, The New York Times’ former London correspondent, yesterday wrote a piece headlined ‘Has Prince Harry’s Confessional Tour Run Its Course?’
Miss Lyall wrote: ‘Once they have exhausted the topic of themselves, what is left for them to talk about?’
In 2021, Harry and Meghan did a bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey for the CBS television network.
This was followed by the couple’s six-part Netflix documentary series which was released last month.
Now just weeks later the duke has been doing a series of TV interviews to promote his new memoir, Spare, including on ITV.
The New York Times article admitted that Harry, who was revealing private family details, was presenting a ‘stark contrast’ to William and Kate, who have publicly said ‘exactly nothing about any of this’.
It comes as The New York Times recently developed a reputation for being critical of the British Establishment
It quoted a public relations expert, Jeffrey W. Schneider, who said there had been an ‘overload’ of Prince Harry and Meghan and questioned whether ‘maybe there is a natural limit to that’.
Crisis management expert Howard Bragman told the paper that ‘you can really only tell your story once’ and that their media activity ‘feels a little reality-television-y to me’.
Miss Lyall’s piece noted: ‘Something has changed, judging from the response so far.
‘Even in the United States, which has a soft spot for royals in exile and a generally higher tolerance than Britain does for redemptive stories about overcoming trauma and family dysfunction, there is a sense that there are only so many revelations the public can stomach.’
The New York Times, nicknamed the ‘Old Gray Lady’, has been known for its highly critical stories about Britain in recent years.
In September the paper sparked anger after it ran an article on the day of the Queen’s death, which said the late monarch had ‘helped obscure a bloody history’.
A piece written for the paper by a Harvard academic used the death to attack the ills of British history.
In August last year Andrew Neil, in a piece for the Daily Mail, spoke about how articles in The New York Times ‘regularly depict Britain as a plague-ridden, poverty-stricken hellhole in terminal decline’.
Source: Read Full Article
