Anyone believed that the British media would accurately portray Prince Harry's testimony at court against Mirror Group Newspapers? Of course not. The British media establishment has shown us enough to know that they are all in it together. Harry's willingness to take on not just one newspaper but the entire media system is remarkable. Even so, I had hoped that the American media would cover the events more thoroughly and fairly. This... has not happened. The New York Times published an analysis of Harry's court testimony and, wouldn't you believe it, they rely more on the "Wow, Harry is damaging his reputation in Britain!" GMAFB. Mark Landler's and Megan Specia’s reporting for NYT:

Harry's declining popularity: Harry is now mostly supporting himself and the litigation was expensive and time-consuming. When he filed the lawsuits, he didn't expect that they would last so long, according to people who know him. The fact that he has been fighting the tabloids for so long hasn't helped his image. His popularity in Britain has already been damaged by his bitter break with his father and brother William.

Peter Hunt: "He's taking action because of alleged illegality and alleged abuse," said Peter Hunt. Peter Hunt is a former BBC royal correspondent. Harry has taken a bold step in reclaiming his narrative after leaving Britain. Harry's tell-all memoir "Spare" and a Netflix document with Meghan will leave him little to say on the witness stand, according to Mr. Hunt.

Royal watchers claim Harry polarizes: Some royal observers said that it was a sign Harry's reputation as a polarizer in Britain, when the media coverage prior to the trial centered on whether or not testifying on his behalf would reduce his stature instead of the journalism issues involved. Former BBC correspondent Mr. Hunt said that "the kernel of what Harry is trying to achieve is being watered-down." He said that "it's almost like phone hacking has become a commodity." However, he added, "if you're the victim, it wasn't a commodity."

From The NYT

Harry's "image" was hurt after he revealed that his brother physically assaulted him in his home. This says more about Britain than Harry. Harry's "image", which was damaged after he claimed that his brother had physically assaulted Harry in his own home, says more about Britain. I am fascinated by the Windsors' behavior, as they act like the tabloids were an extension of their royal family. And the tabloids also speak as though they are part of that family. What an unholy union. It's disgusting to see the New York Times again promoting the worst people in the UK and their most absurd arguments.

Avalon Red and Backgrid provided the photos.