I follow Peter Hunt on Twitter (you can see his handle here). He’s a former BBC presenter and sort of a self-styled royal critic. He’s a royalist, don’t get me wrong, but he also criticizes the way the Windsors do business. For years, he’s made some good points about the Sussexit and how horrible the Windsors were to Prince Harry in particular. One of Hunt’s special interests is how the British media is far too obsequious to the Windsors, how access-journalism has ruined everything, and how the media should do their jobs and act as a check on the monarchy’s power. Well, guess who has many thoughts about the Mother’s Day Frankenphoto Fiasco? Hunt was appalled that after years of bowing, scraping and supplicating to the Windsors, the British media didn’t have the balls to question the photo and it took the international media calling out the palace clownshow for anyone to mildly criticize this horrible system. Hunt shared even more thoughts:

The media should use the Kensington Palace photo editing row as an “opportunity” to insist it has full editorial control over royal footage, a former BBC royal correspondent has said. Peter Hunt, now a royal commentator, said parts of the media had “a bar that was perhaps too low” when it came to examining material handed out by the palace.

Earlier this week, Phil Chetwynd of AFP said the palace was no longer a “trusted source”, adding that the photographs more usually subject to a “kill notice” were issued by North Korean or Iranian news agencies. Mr Hunt, speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, said broadcasters including the BBC should follow suit in insisting filmed material is not controlled by the palace, proving to viewers that it can be trusted.

Mr Hunt said: “It’s a new world for the royals and a new world for the media. That senior person from AFP mentioned the British monarchy in the same breath as the so-called axis of evil, which isn’t a good look when he says that they previously killed pictures only from the North Korean and Iranian news agency. It shows that they and maybe others had a bar which was perhaps too low when it came to photos from this sort of source.”

Mr Hunt said he had raised concerns in 2016 about footage of the Royal family and projects including the Heads Together mental health campaign being filmed by others and handed out.

“The BBC has made considerable focus on this issue of transparency,” he said. “The BBC constantly talks about transparency being an essential element in ensuring audiences feel they can trust BBC journalism.” He suggested the corporation could make use of the existing “royal cameraman” paid for by the BBC, ITV and Sky. “This would be an opportunity for the BBC to make clear to its audiences that the material that individual provides is material that they control. That it’s not edited by the palace, not controlled by the palace. They can make clear that the sound that’s picked up by the cameraman is not interfered with in any way as well. It’s an opportunity for broadcasters to follow suit.”

[From The Telegraph]

I appreciate that Hunt is bringing this up, if for no other reason than the issue puts a spotlight on the fact that no British media outlet has followed the lead set by Reuters, AFP, AP and Getty. The Sun, The Times, the Mail, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the BBC – none of them have pledged to examine and verify the authenticity of photos and videos provided by the Windsors. You know why that is too, it’s not that the Telegraph or the Mail has some kind of implicit trust in everything they’re handed from the palace. It’s that every British outlet (save for the Guardian, arguably) sees itself less as a member of the Fourth Estate and more as a helpful propaganda arm of the British monarchy and Tory Party. Why examine a palace-issued photo when you can use it in your royalist propaganda?

Photos courtesy of Kensington Palace.