“Please take this moment to study, really study, the journalists working for the BBC, ITV and Ch4. Do they seem like fearless, independent, objective observers of the world, or more like fawning courtiers? This is the moment when the mask slips. Drink it in deeply.”
Former Guardian journalist, Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook), tweeted the above shortly after the death of the Queen. The airwaves and big media news pages were already awash with comically one-dimensional coverage.
Would a truly free press greet the death of someone appointed head of state by birth-right, granted ludicrous titles like “Her Majesty” and wealth the rest of us can only dream of (some of it used to pay a seven-figure settlement in a sex case brought against her son), with on-their-knees adulation? In the 21st century?
Apparently so. We survey the most servile of the early big media coverage of the Queen’s demise…
TO the BBC, There is no other news
Have you ever seen the BBC homepage like this? In the hours after the Queen’s death literally no other stories were deemed worthy of a visible headline. Apparently the death of a single 96-year-old woman trumped the announcement of energy bill caps that could save the lives of hundreds of elderly and vulnerable people (albeit still hugely inadequate and designed to protect oil and gas profits), the publication of a major study on five climate tipping points we are perilously close to triggering and the not-unrelated fact that a great deal of Pakistan is underwater.
Huw Edwards put on a black tie to announce the news – and it’s well worth watching this clip of the initial announcement. If it doesn’t give you medieval vibes nothing will. Like us, you’ll have watched Edwards deliver breaking news countless times, including events like natural disasters, wars and terrorist attacks in which thousands perished. Have you EVER seen him as sombre and on the verge of tears as this?
Clive Myrie helpfully verbalised the assumption underlying all the BBC coverage:
“The long reign of Queen Elizabeth II was marked by her strong sense of duty and her determination to dedicate her life to her throne and to her people,” is the opening line of the “impartial” BBC obituary. The authors can’t even plead ignorance. In the last few years several high-profile stories have broken which show the Queen using her power to the benefit of herself and family: spending (publicly subsidised) wealth to protect Prince Andrew from sex scandal scrutiny and using lobbying to become the only person in the country not bound by a green energy law.
We’ve been arguing on Twitter recently that BBC News should be labelled state-affiliated media. Their coverage of the Queen’s passing adds to the absolute mountain of evidence for this.
A USeful purpose
“Royalty serves a useful purpose: the pomp and ceremony helps underline respect for state authority.”
Peter Slezak
It’s barely worth surveying the response of the Sun, Daily Mail and other tabloids to the death of the Queen. The tabloids have always been desperate for readers to mindlessly worship “Her Maj” and nationalism – as the usual bulwark against independent thought and traitorous notions like the redistribution of wealth and anti-imperialism.
The best thing about the monarchy is that when one idol falls you simply replace them with another:
The Daily Mail couldn’t resist a jibe at Harry and Meghan, who, to some degree, have called the monarchy into question by refusing to comply with certain traditions, expectations and (some would say) prejudices.
The Times, supposedly an intellectual step-up, parroted the false BBC claim of “an unwavering sense of commitment to her people and her country”.
Perhaps of most interest is the response of the leading “left of centre” UK newspaper, The Guardian, to the Queen’s passing. The Guardian love to put out funding pleas saying things like “our journalism is free from influence and vested interests – this makes us different. Our editorial independence and autonomy allows us to provide fearless investigations and analysis of those with political and commercial power. We can give a voice to the oppressed and neglected, and help bring about a brighter, fairer future.”
Was the Guardian’s coverage of the Queen “different”? Did it provide “fearless analysis of those with political and commercial power…a voice to the oppressed and neglected”? Take a look at their leading stories on the night of the Queen’s passing and let us know which, out of the eight, look rife with seditious commentary.
Leading Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, arguably the paper’s most rabid critic (amidst plenty of competition!) of the progressive, anti-royalist Jeremy Corbyn, produced an opinion piece that is worth quoting at length:
“We are all mortal, even those whose blood flows deepest blue“
“Plenty will say the nation has lost its grandmother, that we are a family bereaved of its matriarch – and that comparison is not so wide of the mark“
“She was woven into the cloth of our lives so completely, we had stopped seeing the thread long ago“
“For as long as she was there, the monarchy seemed to make sense – an illogical, irrational kind of sense, but sense all the same“
“The Queen connected us to the defining event in our modern national life (The Second World War), the event from which we still draw pride and purpose… She reminded us of our finest hour.“
“There is grief contained within grief. Today we mourn a monarch. And in that very act, we also mourn for ourselves.”
The paper’s chief satirist, parliamentary sketch writer John Crace, bleated “when we are grieving for the Queen we are allowing ourselves to grieve for ourselves. For the mothers and grandmothers we have lost. Or never even had. For the hopes and dreams that will never be fulfilled. For the family that remains out of reach.”
You can judge for yourself how “fearless” and representative of the “oppressed and neglected” these homages to a multi-millionaire are.
Conclusion
Are we being too hard on the media and their coverage of the death of a public figure who’s been in the limelight for 70+ years? Perhaps they shouldn’t be judged by their response to such an exceptional event. Journalists, after all, can get caught up in the moment and carried away like anyone else.
We refer you to a BBC article from the day before – an article written before any serious concerns about the Queen’s health were raised: George, Charlotte and Louis have first day at Lambrook School.
“The Cambridge “gang” have started a new chapter together, walking hand-in-hand with their parents on the first day at their new school,” the article begins. It is the most blatant piece of press release propaganda passing for a news story we’ve read in a long time – “On the settling-in day, the duke referred to his children as “all the gang”, ushering them up the steps of the private school…As the family walked towards the school entrance in front of two cameras, they could be heard laughing and Prince William was seen stroking Prince Louis’ hair reassuringly.“
The article does note that “This will be a privileged education. Annual fees for all three children will be more than £53,000.”
Remember: before the death of the Queen, before the ascension of Charles, the BBC were already preparing you, the taxpaying public, for the next generation of millionaire Kings, Princes and Princesses.
The media will simultaneously deify and humanise these figures, try to convince you that you should care about them as if they were an extension of your own family. It is the UK state-affiliated and/or billionaire-owned press – no-one else – who will weave these remote, privileged figures into “the fabric of our lives” – all the while claiming virtues like impartiality, independence and a fervent desire to scrutinise power.
Have any thoughts on the big media response to the passing of the Queen? If so, please let us know in the comments below. You can also subscribe to our mailing list and receive a monthly Free Press update direct to your mailbox!
The Free Press? 
Listening to the constant gush from the hacks on radio 4 about Lizzie Windsor made me want to spew. One less parasite. But the rest of the ‘firm’ are waiting to get their snouts in the trough which the British public generously provides for them. Next in line, Chase Me Charlie, is a tax evading adulterer. 36 valets to tie his shoelaces and put the tooth paste on his brush for him.
We always mug up for this bloody gang.
Up the Republic.
Lant 32
LikeLiked by 1 person
You absolutely vile excuse of a human…waste of oxygen! No respect for someone who worked right up until the day she passed, hopefully you won’t make it as far in life!
LikeLike
none of the Windsor tribe work hard. They have an army of equerries, secretaries and valets who do all of the work for them. She was only a mouthpiece who did as she was told. Did it very well I must admit. But, the only thing that she, and the rest of them, are interested is keeping the ‘firm’ as they like to refer to themselves collective snouts in the trough.
It is about time that the country grew up and said goodbye to this soap opera.
Oh, and by the way, my mother worked at Buckingham Palace for a while when she was a girl, after her father dies and she had to give up a scholarship that she worked hard to get to support my grandmother and her brothers. She saw what they were like and detested them. The late queen and her sister she described as nasty spoilt brats..
You know nothing about me. But choose to insult me for expressing an opinion. Hate to be personal but you sound a bit pathetic actually.
LikeLike
Then clearly, your mother was just as disrespectful as you are, apple didn’t fall far from the tree. You don’t personally know the Queen or any member of her family, only what you see in the media, yet you chose to insult her so maybe don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house?! Princess Anne, Prince William and The Queen were very hard working, they served in the forces, along with the other members of the family. You’re the only pathetic parasite around here, coming on to comment purely to speak ill of the dead
LikeLike
as I said, you know nothing about me, or my mother. She worked hard all her life, in a health clinic in Bermondsey, then looking after her family. A caring person, she was loved by all who knew her. My father served in the war. He escaped from a prison camp after being captured in Italy and bravely fought with the partisans there and in Yugoslavia. He was offered decorations but refused them, having no interest in such things. Unlike certain dripping with medals and ribbons Windsors. He had total contempt for them and their ilk. A proud working man all his life. You are contemptible to insult them.
I know nothing about you, nor would I care to. But no doubt a pretty vile and pathetic specimen of the mugs who think that the rays of Bright Phoebus shine from out of the Windsor fundament. Probably a Sun reader too.
So, I’m a parasite! I worked 28 years in the NHS, then worked in an advice centre in South London. I also do volunteer work for shelter. hate to blow my own trumpet, but I like other members of my family work for the benefit of others, unlike those you admire so much.
LikeLike
I have not been surprised by the media response to the death of QEII – it’s exactly what would be expected. The timing and place of her death are uncannily perfect for the establishment. It happened at a time of what should be ‘national’ horror and extreme fear over the condition of the country. That it’s occurring in Scotland at this very time is also perfect because it allows the Royalist and anti-independence faction to bolster its cause magnificently.
LikeLiked by 1 person