Media Release & Permissions Form - Usda Forest Service: Fill & Download for Free

Having made a mess of control, the USA was way open to this.40% in Europe, and another third in the USA, at 5th May. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)I made the point at the time: China Mocking the USA over Covid-19.Chinese state media releases animated propaganda video mocking US coronavirus response - ABC News.

There appear to be a number of sources stating that the Queen was very moved by the film. However, on close investigation of the sources and the language, it is likely that she has not commented on the film either privately or publicly.The principal source appears to be a media release from the Weinstein Company (the distributor) which is a biased resource and the content there seems to have travelled through much other media.For example, Huffington Post carries the story, How Did The Queen Like 'The King's Speech'. I would tend to see this as having legitimacy problems given its sources. I’m generally happy with the quality of reportage in the Huffington Post (at least since about 2015, this is 2011 however), although the article here is based on two sources:- an article in The Sun (among the least credible of British papers with, at that exact time in 2011, a track-record for misconduct)- the media release from the film’s distributor the Weinstein Company (which has had its own share of ethical questions in recent years).Most other ‘credible’ sources such as the BBC (for example Queen 'approves' of King's Speech), have tended to use phrases such as “Her Majesty is understood to have had a private screening of the film and is said to have found it moving”. Or, in an article in The Australian, “The Queen have given her approval to The King's Speech after organising a private screening of the film”. (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/queen-elizabeth-ii-gives-her-royal-approval-to-the-kings-speech/news-story/fde12867e5d0c94f6c45c6c04f8108d9?sv=5b7ab01c19fb668de962e14c175bdd03)Broadly, this is editorial speak for indicating that sources are unverified and not checked. It is simply conveying material that is not a direct source, an unlikely source, but newsworthy nevertheless because it is being conveyed by others. In using that kind of language, the more credible outlets are acknowledging that the Queen may not have said this.Certain interviews by film cast and crew appear to be repeating the claims (possibly as part of their ‘cheat sheets’ on the film provided by the Distributor), and I think tending to exaggerate and give the appearance of legitimacy to the claim.There may be better sources that indicate a different view with greater credibility and certainty of the source, however there has been no official comment.The language of the media releaseHuffington Post’s reprint of the Weinstein media release presents the following:New York, NY, February 4, 2011 - The Weinstein Company (TWC) is honored to learn that Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth, has enjoyed a private screening of THE KING’S SPEECH, as reported by Duncan Larcombe, Royal Editor, in today’s edition of The Sun. … THE KING’S SPEECH has been seen and admired by many notable public figures, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, who hosted a private screening at his home over the Christmas holidays; Prince Andrew; Lord and Lady William Astor; Lord Edward Spencer-Churchill; and Edwina Sandys, the granddaughter of Winston Churchill (portrayed in the film by Timothy Spall).Screenwriter David Seidler said, “To learn Her Majesty has seen the film, and was moved, in turn moves and humbles me greatly. When, thirty years ago, the Queen Mother asked me to wait and not tell this story during her lifetime, because the memory of these events was still too painful, I realized the depths of the emotions involved. Now this story has been written and filmed with a great deal of love, admiration, and respect for Her Majesty’s father. That Her Majesty has responded favorably to this, is wonderfully gratifying.”From the media release alone, we cannot be certain Seidler actually said this. Media releases that provide quotes (interview style) usually involve the marketing/comms officer making up the quotes — they can be used because they are formally representative of the organisation, but it is not necessarily the case that the quoted person in a media release actually stated those words.Some of the language in relation to the Queen Mother used in the Weinstein media release looks problematic and thereby not credible:(1) It is unlikely the Queen Mother would have stated in any official correspondence with the film’s screenwriter David Seidler that any events at all were “too painful” (thus asking him to wait). This is probably either an exaggeration, or more likely a complete fabrication to give greater legitimacy to the film by making it appear the Queen Mother confided her deep emotion to him. While she very likely and credibly requested the film not be completed in her lifetime (via her staff), it is very unlikely the QM would have discussed her past, personal and private history in such emotive terms or indeed attempted to give any reason at all.(2) That the Queen would have indicated she was “moved” by the film again appears to be unusally emotive language from a member of the royal family. She has generally refrained from commenting on portraits of herself, and can find no references to her discussing other films about the royal family.(3) Finally, we may not necessarily be sure of the legitimacy of the media release itself. Note the incorrect use of the labels and titles for the Queen in its opening (Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth) etc. and the inconsistency in styling her as Majesty later on. Either not credible or very poorly research/written by the comms employee at the Weinstein Company.A reasonable assessment of the media release would suggest it is not a reliable source for the view that the Queen was very moved by the film.Film accuracyFinally, it is worth noting that there are certain historical inaccuracies in the film, such as the extent of time the King was under therapy with Logue (it was about a year of intensive work and then occasional visits afterwards) or, indeed, the extent of his stammer (which was certainly not a debilitating stutter in private and small crowds but a fairly ordinarily stutter when addressing huge masses), etc.Given these, I would be surprised if the Queen found it appropriate to comment.Nevertheless, the British royal family tend not to be critical of historical inaccuracies of this kind (mostly because it is not their style to get involves some tawdry slanging match on Twitter).

Those aren’t Obama’s books. A Google image search reveals that this picture was taken while Obama was visiting the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory. He is autographing a book that he wrote the foreword to (Mandela’s Conversations with Myself)Media release: visit to Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory by President Obama