Well, Darwin was right, wasn't he?
Survival of the fittest. Only the best (and serious) royal reporters and those who can adapt quickly and well to changing circumstances will survive.
And circumstances
have changed!
The royals produce, increasingly professionally made (and personal) material, for free. Directly to the consumers. I.e. us.
Leaving tabloid reporters as the middlemen, left behind in the dust.
Of course they are whining.
So the tabloid reporters go two ways:
A) Write "click-bait-articles" i.e. articles that are pretty liberal with the facts, to put it mildly! But that only works so far. After a while the readers lose all confidence in the reporters personally, especially those who have an agenda, be that hostile or overly positive. And the readers turn to other, more reliable coverage.
B) Become more serious. But that's time consuming and the number of well-researched articles will as a result of that drop markedly. Sadly editors and paper-owners think in quantity rather than quality.
So yes, there will be fewer tabloid-royal reporters, because most of what they write can be done just as well, and I dare say much better, by an amateur on a blog or forum.
Bloggers don't have the same opportunities as journalists, but they have a worldwide network ready at an instant to help out with local coverage or background info and also eye witness accounts.
And in case of mistakes (unwittingly or otherwise) other royal watchers will point it out on the spot.
In contrast to journalists, bloggers also
needs to maintain credibility. If that credibility is compromised seriously the blogger is history in the eyes of most royal watchers. A blogger or a forum with an agenda soon lose credibility and is after a while reduced to an echo-chamber used by a few like-minded. (See the anti-X royal blogs out there.)
Also in contrast to journalists, bloggers and their assistants are often genuine experts in the field they cover. And a group of amateur-experts can cover an area much wider than a royal reporter who is pressed for time and who
has to churn out an X number of articles over a given period.
So yes, the tabloid-reporters have reason to fear for the future. Because their days of monopoly are over.
Why should I as an interested royal observer rely on what royal reporters write in one or two major news outlets, when I have so many other sources at my disposal, just by grabbing my phone?
If a royal I'm interested in visit Faraway-town I seek the local coverage, which is often much more comprehensive and more balanced, not to mention factually correct. I check the local Facebook updates.
Many different news sources, including amateurs, bloggers and tweets provides a much better, more diverse and more in depth and reliable coverage than a tabloid reporter, who often has an agenda or will "adapt facts" to suit a story.
But the serious, well researched and time consuming royal reporting will stay alive and well.
There will always be a market for a good interview. For good background documentaries. For seriously researched critical articles. For well-researched coverage of special subjects, like jewelry or palaces. And for well-made historical books or documentaries.
All that still sell like warm pastry.
But the tabloid-royal reporter needs to shape up, go private or go extinct.
And they will only be missed by those with a twisted sense of humor...