{"title":"“手上沾满鲜血”vs“愚蠢的恶作剧”:英国媒体对王室致命骗局的回应","authors":"Teri Finneman, Ryan J. Thomas","doi":"10.1080/00947679.2023.2251357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study builds upon historical scholarship of the royal family and the British press to examine a critical incident in 2012 involving future queen Kate Middleton. After radio deejays hoaxed a hospital where Middleton was a patient, a nurse inadvertently involved with the prank died by suicide, creating a global sensation. This study examines how the British press and public reacted to this breach of media ethics. Although some in the press condemned the incident, victim-blaming illustrated an evasion of responsibility when it comes to media and the royal family. The public, via letters to the editor, tended to take a firmer stance and were more apt to contextualize the hoax against a history of invasive media coverage. Overall, this study suggests the British press remains wedded to historical strategies of distancing and victim-blaming, providing little optimism about how the relationship between the press and the royal family might change.","PeriodicalId":38759,"journal":{"name":"Journalism history","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Blood on their Hands” vs. “A Foolish Prank”: The British Press’s Response to a Deadly Hoax on the Royal Family\",\"authors\":\"Teri Finneman, Ryan J. Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00947679.2023.2251357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study builds upon historical scholarship of the royal family and the British press to examine a critical incident in 2012 involving future queen Kate Middleton. After radio deejays hoaxed a hospital where Middleton was a patient, a nurse inadvertently involved with the prank died by suicide, creating a global sensation. This study examines how the British press and public reacted to this breach of media ethics. Although some in the press condemned the incident, victim-blaming illustrated an evasion of responsibility when it comes to media and the royal family. The public, via letters to the editor, tended to take a firmer stance and were more apt to contextualize the hoax against a history of invasive media coverage. Overall, this study suggests the British press remains wedded to historical strategies of distancing and victim-blaming, providing little optimism about how the relationship between the press and the royal family might change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journalism history\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journalism history\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947679.2023.2251357\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism history","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947679.2023.2251357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
“Blood on their Hands” vs. “A Foolish Prank”: The British Press’s Response to a Deadly Hoax on the Royal Family
ABSTRACT This study builds upon historical scholarship of the royal family and the British press to examine a critical incident in 2012 involving future queen Kate Middleton. After radio deejays hoaxed a hospital where Middleton was a patient, a nurse inadvertently involved with the prank died by suicide, creating a global sensation. This study examines how the British press and public reacted to this breach of media ethics. Although some in the press condemned the incident, victim-blaming illustrated an evasion of responsibility when it comes to media and the royal family. The public, via letters to the editor, tended to take a firmer stance and were more apt to contextualize the hoax against a history of invasive media coverage. Overall, this study suggests the British press remains wedded to historical strategies of distancing and victim-blaming, providing little optimism about how the relationship between the press and the royal family might change.