News
What the royal family doesn't understand about PR in 2024
The Duchess of Cambridge walks around Ballymena, Northern Ireland on February 28, 2019. She has recently disappeared from the public eye after having abdominal surgery.
Charles McQuillan/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Charles McQuillan/Getty Images
The Duchess of Cambridge walks around Ballymena, Northern Ireland on February 28, 2019. She has recently disappeared from the public eye after having abdominal surgery.
Charles McQuillan/Getty Images
Let me get this out of the way right now: I have yet to see anything that has persuaded me that anything is “going on” with Kate Middleton other than what the palace originally said: She had abdominal surgery, the recovery is involved enough that she needs months away from her work, and that’s the story.
But the absolute clown show that has been the palace’s handling of spiraling speculation about her has made the whole thing worse and underscored that whatever command they once had over “controlling the narrative” has deserted them. I’m not sure they have a Kate problem, but I think they have a massive, pressing comms problem. There are several foundational pieces of advice about the current media environment that the palace — “the firm,” as we’ve now heard it called so often — either does not understand or has not accounted for.
You will not stop Reddit and TikTok from speculating, so do not try.
The term “conspiracy theory” is overused at this point. A conspiracy theory involves seemingly disconnected parties working in undisclosed tandem to keep something secret. What’s more relevant to this story is something I would call recreational conjecture.
“She’s dead,” “She’s missing,” “She’s in a coma” and “She’s planning to get a divorce” are the kinds of things that don’t even qualify as rumors, exactly; they are flights of fancy done for entertainment and social interaction. While some ideas like this show up in more traditional media, their multipliers and magnifiers are social spaces like TikTok and Reddit. People in those social spaces who most enthusiastically engage in this do not require supporting evidence for recreational conjecture, nor does factual refutation reliably stop them. Putting out pictures, statements, strategic leaks — there’s no point. There is always a way to take a piece of evidence, put it next to your pet theory, and pound it with a hammer until it seems like it fits together. Trying to keep people from speculating on TikTok is like trying to stop it from raining.
Do not feed amphetamines to a dragon you are hoping will fall asleep.
It is impossible to stop recreational conjecture in its tracks. It is possible, however, not to spur it on. The release of the Mother’s Day photo is the most obvious misstep in this entire debacle. In retrospect, it’s just a mom and her kids — they didn’t say it was a photo from right now. They didn’t say it was meant as some kind of proof of life. But it should have been clear to any clever PR person that it would be taken that way and closely scrutinized.
It’s too late in the game to pretend that a nice photo is just a nice photo. That cycle of speculate-and-post, speculate-and-post-again, thrives on new “evidence.” That means the best thing to say is nothing. Keep repeating: we told you she was having surgery and wouldn’t be working in public until Easter. We told you she was having surgery and wouldn’t be working in public until Easter. We told you … you see what I mean? Yes, the speculation rages, and yes, it’s terrible, and yes, it probably really hurts. But if the reason people are so curious is that they haven’t seen her recently, and if you aren’t going to change that fact, the best you can do is deprive the cycle of oxygen — at least oxygen that comes from you.
People are bored out there.
Look, internet “sleuths” can be a real problem. They have misidentified people as having committed terrible crimes. They have screwed with people’s lives. But there’s another category of people relevant to this story: the bored basics who may not be into sleuthing, but they know what Photoshop disasters look like. They’ve been looking at YouTube videos, Tumblr accounts and the r/PhotoshopFails subreddit for ages. It’s been 35 years since Oprah’s head was depicted on Ann-Margret’s body on the cover of TV Guide. People are onto this stuff, and the current roiling debates about AI have only fed these media-authenticity hobbyists.
It would be one thing if the Mother’s Day photo had taken highly advanced forensic examination for people to determine that it had been substantially manipulated. It did not. This was an easy one. People have time. They’re out there analyzing the reliability of eye shadow swatches. They’re out there examining how people on Instagram make themselves seem rich. If you put a pretty obviously (and clumsily) edited photo out, people will look at it extremely carefully, especially if there is already wild speculation swirling out there. This was very, very, very easy to see coming.
Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C
— The Prince and Princess of Wales (@KensingtonRoyal) March 11, 2024
As a story evolves, your strategy has to evolve, too.
Think of it like this: The more you are already being questioned about hiding the truth, the more definitively anything you release must clarify what the truth is, or else it’s not worth putting it out at all. That’s why the photo of her in the car with William — again a photo of her as far as anyone knows! — will not help and will make everything worse. Does that look like the shape of her face? Sure! Does that look like someone who is recovering from surgery and isn’t ready to be photographed, which is exactly the story they’ve been telling from the beginning? Sure!
Prince William and Kate smile following their marriage at Westminster Abbey on April 29, 2011.
Chris Jackson/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Chris Jackson/Getty Images
Prince William and Kate smile following their marriage at Westminster Abbey on April 29, 2011.
Chris Jackson/Getty Images
However, will a photo of the back of someone’s head slow all this down at this point? Absolutely not! No! I know a lot of people who, like me, initially were inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the most mundane explanation of all this: Surgery can be very taxing, especially abdominal surgery, and the attention on her is so intense that she probably didn’t want to be seen until she felt 100% ready. But the more weird stuff happens, the more some people start to wonder what on earth is going on. When you have shaken people’s faith in anything you say, just stop talking.
Today’s hero is tomorrow’s target.
It can feel like the palace effectively managed the public perception of Harry and Meghan (with some help from Harry and Meghan), and by doing so, like they burnished and boosted William and Kate as better and more worthy royals. But it doesn’t really work that way. If you have two couples and they are placed in parallel (because the men are brothers — Diana’s sons — and because of the splashy weddings), there doesn’t have to be one winner and one loser. Everybody can have a turn in the figurative dunk tank, and it’s going to be just as awful every time. Gossip abhors a vacuum to a degree nature can only aspire to, so it’s a grave mistake to count on gentle treatment just because somebody else received the opposite.
News
Video: Who Is Trying to Replace Planned Parenthood?
new video loaded: Who Is Trying to Replace Planned Parenthood?
By Caroline Kitchener, Melanie Bencosme, Karen Hanley, June Kim and Pierre Kattar
December 22, 2025
News
Weather tracker: Further flood watches issued across California
After prolonged heavy rainfall and devastating flooding across the Pacific north-west in the past few weeks, further flood watches have been issued across California through this week.
With 50-75mm (2-3in) of rainfall already reported across northern California this weekend, a series of atmospheric rivers will continue to bring periods of heavy rain and mountain snow across the northern and central parts of the state, with flood watches extending until Friday.
Cumulative rainfall totals are expected to widely exceed 50mm (2in) across a vast swathe of California by Boxing Day, but with totals around 200-300mm (8-12in) possible for the north-western corner of California and western-facing slopes of the northern Sierra Nevada mountains.
Los Angeles could receive 100-150mm (4-6in) of rainfall between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, which could make it one of the wettest Christmases on record for the city. River and urban flooding are likely – particularly where there is run-off from high ground – with additional risks of mudslides and rockslides in mountain and foothill areas.
Winter storm warnings are also in effect for Yosemite national park, with the potential for 1.8-2.4 metres (6-8ft) of accumulating snow by Boxing Day. Heavy snow alongside strong winds will make travel very difficult over the festive period.
Heavy rain, lightning and strong winds are forecast across large parts of Zimbabwe leading up to Christmas. A level 2 weather warning has been issued by the Meteorological Services Department from Sunday 21 December to Wednesday 24 December. Some areas are expected to see more than 50mm of rainfall within a 24-hour period. The rain will be accompanied by hail, frequent lightning, and strong winds. These conditions have been attributed to the interaction between warm, moist air with low-pressure systems over the western and northern parts of the country.
Australia will see some large variations in temperatures over the festive period. Sydney, which is experiencing temperatures above 40C, is expected to tumble down to about 22C by Christmas Day, about 5C below average for this time of year. Perth is going to see temperatures gradually creep up, reaching a peak of 40C around Christmas Day. This is about 10C above average for this time of year.
News
Lawmakers threaten Attorney General Bondi with contempt over incomplete Epstein files
Attorney General Pam Bondi, accompanied by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (L) and FBI Director Kash Patel (R), speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department on Nov. 19. Some lawmakers said the department’s release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein had too many redactions as well as missing information.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Two lawmakers are threatening a seldom-used congressional sanction against the Department of Justice over what they say is a failure to release all of its files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by a deadline set in law.
Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie spearheaded the effort to force the Epstein files’ release by co-sponsoring the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but both have said the release had too many redactions as well as missing information.

“I think the most expeditious way to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “Basically Ro Khanna and I are talking about and drafting that right now.”
Inherent contempt refers to Congress’ authority to fine or arrest and then bring to trial officers who are obstructing legislative functions. It was last successfully used in the 1930s, according to the American Bar Association.
Khanna, a California Democrat, noted that the House would not need the Senate’s approval to take such action, which he said would result in a fine for Attorney General Pam Bondi.
“I believe we’re going to get bipartisan support in holding her accountable,” he told Face the Nation.
Justice Department defends partial release
The Justice Department on Sunday defended its initial, partial release of documents, some of which were heavily redacted.
“The material that we released on Friday, or the material that we’re going to release over the next a couple of weeks, is exactly what the statute requires us to release,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on NBC’s Meet the Press, referring to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Blanche said the administration has hundreds of lawyers going through the remaining documents to ensure that victims’ information is protected. Still, lawmakers from both parties remain unsatisfied.
“Any evidence or any kind of indication that there’s not a full reveal on this, this will just plague them for months and months more,” said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on ABC’s This Week. “My suggestion would be — give up all the information, release it.”
Blanche told NBC he was not taking the threats of contempt seriously.
“Not even a little bit. Bring it on,” he said, adding that lawmakers who have spoken negatively about Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel “have no idea what they’re talking about.”
Back and forth over Trump photo
The trove of documents released Friday contained little new information about Epstein, prompting accusations that the department wasn’t complying with the law. There was a photograph included in Friday’s release that showed a desk full of photos, including at least one of President Trump. It was among more than a dozen photographs no longer available in the Justice Department’s “Epstein Library” by Saturday, NPR found.

On Sunday, the Justice Department re-uploaded the photo of the desk, and provided an explanation on X.
“The Southern District of New York flagged an image of President Trump for potential further action to protect victims,” the post read. “Out of an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice temporarily removed the image for further review. After the review, it was determined there is no evidence that any Epstein victims are depicted in the photograph, and it has been reposted without any alteration or redaction.”
The Justice Department did not offer an explanation for the other photos whose access had been removed.
Blanche told NBC the Justice Department was not redacting information around Trump or any other individual involved with Epstein. He said the Justice Department had removed photos from the public files “because a judge in New York has ordered us to listen to any victim or victim rights group, if they have any concerns about the material that we’re putting up.

“And so when we hear concerns, whether it’s photographs of women that we do not believe are victims, or we didn’t have information to show that they were victims, but we learned that there are concerns, of course, we’re taking that photograph down and we’re going to address it,” he said.
Earlier Sunday, the Justice Department also posted to X a new version of the 119-page transcript of grand jury proceedings in the case of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The original version had been entirely redacted.
“Here is the document now with minimal redactions. Documents and photos will continue to be reviewed consistent with the law and with an abundance of caution for victims and their families,” the Justice Department wrote in its post.
-
Iowa1 week agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa1 week agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine6 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland1 week agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
South Dakota1 week agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
New Mexico6 days agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago‘Love being a pedo’: Metro Detroit doctor, attorney, therapist accused in web of child porn chats
-
Maine5 days agoFamily in Maine host food pantry for deer | Hand Off