Royals and American media coverage

[ButteryPuffin]

Saw this cover posted on Twitter and noted that it seems the tabloids do indeed exist in the US (amazing, huh?). This is pretty much what you'd expect from the source, and I think it's pretty deplorable, but I am interested to see how the American media in general cover the presence of the former royals who've now arrived to make their home there. Of course we can discuss their coverage of other Royals too and related topics. All welcome.

Link to cover story - please note I'm not endorsing it, I'm just sharing it:
66.media.tumblr.com/79912301ec9c6e0f2cbf902a7a42a540/da60395e577b1897-aa/s540x810/61af854a1eed0d02b6bfa026133d16f8bdb87f41.jpg

Don’t let that deter you, it hasn’t others

Your Parliament should have read the Canadian Supreme Court decision in Reference Re Secession of Québec and the subsequent Clarity Act. The latter provides a super majority is required for something as monumental as separation.

It really isn’t xenophobic to worry about the impact of unlimited immigration into low skilled jobs and upon small towns.
It is if you persist in blaming foreigners and the EU despite the fact that low skilled immigration isn't the issue in your region, and the EU isn't responsible for allowing unlimited low skilled immigration.

It is xenophobic to believe that immigration is the cause of unemployment in the neglected regions of the UK. That is the result of years of UK government policy.

None of the immigration that people are complaining about had to happen. It could all have been curtailed regardless of EU membership. The UK wasn't a party to Schengen.

People were lied to about the cause of low skilled immigration because it was realised that they wanted to believe it was a bad thing and the way to stop it was to vote Leave. Low skilled immigration was identified as a hot button issue, and the Leave campaign ran with it.

Was low skilled immigration the problem to which the simple answer was Brexit?
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/low-skilled-immigration-uk-economy-brexit-eu-freedom-of-movement-business-theresa-may-a8564641.html

What was stopping British people from getting low skilled jobs? The economy was not struggling in the run up to Brexit.
www.statista.com/statistics/279898/unemployment-rate-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
Is it lack of education?
Lack of geographical mobility because housing availability and affordability is a problem?

Also - who or what do you mean when you use the term 'the London left'?
People who understand the labour market?
Economists?
People who underestimate the strength of the xenophobia?

Anyway, back to Megxit...

Yes please!

Winterlife
Proof, yet again, that you understand nothing of the nature of totalitarian systems.

That's pretty funny, considering how I earn my bread.

So basically, you are saying that people are too stupid to be entitled to a free press.

So here's what I posted...
I have pointed out the ridiculousness of your statements to the effect that people are capable of judging the merits of what they are reading. They demonstrably are not. And that is why the likes of the Daily Mail are dangerous and not an asset to society.
The idea that valuing a free press means you have to make decency, civility, and respect for truth move over and let tabloid culture muscle in, because apparently every contribution to the public square is evidence of its health and vital to its continued existence, is preposterous.

The DM and its ilk have no allegiance to or interest in civil society or its democratic institutions. They are in business to generate income. Their business model relies on appealing to the basest human instincts. Take away the soft porn and nobody would buy the DM unless their local supermarket had no bog roll.

Well it's Charles & Camilla's wedding anniversary, and William & Kate have done a virtual thing with key workers' kids.

Expect incoming from HaM!!

PineapplePower Thu 09-Apr-20 05:49:41

Amateur hour. Harry and Meghan did not buy the domain of their foundation name (and several permutations thereof) before their announcement.

Who is advising them, honestly?

They were pushed into a limited announcement by the Telegraph scoop based on information that was illegally obtained from their patent application.

So anything The Telegraph would have printed would have been speculation, at best.
They would have easily had enough, judging from your description and from reports in various outlets on what they had, to form a very good idea of what the foundation would be about and what the patent was intended to protect. It's not rocket science, and many of their assumptions would have been spot on given previous incarnations of H& M's website and interests, H's charity interests and personal comments over the years, and M's own blog and interests, and also given that there are several former members of their staff at large with insights they may have been happy to share.

And - newsflash! - "speculation at best" is what the vast majority of 'coverage' of Meghan Markle consists of in the UK.

I don’t care how you make your living, from your posts, you don’t understand the nature of totalitarian systems, although you appear to endorse some of their methods.

Whether a tabloid is “good” for society is not the same as suggesting people shouldn’t be free to read said tabloid.

I wonder if some differences of opinion on this thread (to be encouraged) are the result of mathanxiety's belief that people in any given society are generally not to be trusted to make the morally right decision or informed judgement because of the possibility of evil. However, population intelligence levels tend to follow a normal distribution. This means that the majority of people in any given population are of similar intelligence and capacity, perfectly able to make a perfectly intelligent judgement. The uncomfortable, and, even devastating issue for us all at some point in our lives is deciding how to come to terms with the realisation that intelligent people, who know what they are doing, can behave in unfathomably cruel ways.

I think a stellar example of the difference between totalitarian systems is how China handled the corona virus compared to UK/US....

As I posted, @mathanxiety, no patent is involved. Read about the difference among patents, trademarks, and trade names.

I’ve read the trademark application. It’s very general in nature, and doesn’t disclose exactly what archewell will do. The Telegraph’s description, and, therefore, that of all subsequent reports (which quote The Telegraph) comes from M&H, or their spokesmen.

@BarleylemonPenguin, I believe evil will always exist, but that the majority of people, even living in evil societies, are good.

I don’t happen to believe the DM is evil. I don’t even believe most racists or xenophobes are evil. Most racist or xenophobic views can be overcome with education.

They were pushed into a limited announcement by the Telegraph scoop based on information that was illegally obtained from their patent application

It takes literal seconds to buy matching and near matching domain names. They should have had all their ducks in a row before any announcement or indeed starting any paperwork. This is very unprofessional and a huge embarrassment for them.

But extremely entertaining 😂

And Extremely diverting in these difficult times.

Also it's happened to them before. You'd think they would be even more aware.

harryandmeghansussex.com/

A url isn't a patent. You could buy hundreds of domain names with no connection to any of the business or service areas they refer to.

The patent application wouldn't have to disclose exactly what the foundation would do for a half way intelligent team of journos to come up with reasonably accurate speculation, particularly if former staff members have been taken out to lunch a few times and as I said, given the content of previous incarnations of their websites and a list of their interests and previous experience.

Whether a tabloid is “good” for society is not the same as suggesting people shouldn’t be free to read said tabloid
Finally! I hoped you would get it eventually. Saves me any more tedious explanations. Saves us all, in fact.

Lol @ your comment on my understanding of totalitarianism and your sniffy remark on how I make my living.

Press are not able to easily manipulate

Oh it didnt post. So now my comment makes no sense.

Oh well as you were

A url isn't a patent.

Nope and a patent isn’t a trade mark or a trade name.... and yet here we are.

PineapplePower

They should have had all their ducks in a row before any announcement or indeed starting any paperwork.

Quite.
Does this suggest they don't read MN?

They were pushed into a limited announcement by the Telegraph scoop based on information that was illegally obtained from their patent application

@mathanxiety as Winterlife has said, it's not a patent application.

This has nothing to do with patents. If you look at The Telegraph article, it does not contain the word patent. That is because, to put it simplistically, they are not creating an invention.

They were applying to register a trademark.

Patents, trademarks and copyright are all forms of intellectual property, but they have distinctly different meanings.

This website explains it. United States Patent and Trademark Office

BarleylemonPenguin Thu 09-Apr-20 08:16:52

More the fact that theories on the free press, the free world, and how people behave in the political arena don't take into account the presence and influence of money as a motivator.

www.dmgt.com/~/media/Files/D/DMGT/dmgt-ar16-dmgmedia.pdf
How does the concept of news as a brand square with the notion of a free press necessary for the functioning of a healthy democracy?
How do the concepts of scaled audiences or news consumers square with creating and maintaining a functioning democracy?

I've crossed posts with a lot of other posts, including another one from you @mathanxiety going about patent applications again. Do you not even consider that what other people are saying may be correct?

Look at the the website I posted the link to. In the 'patents basics' section you'll find this definition of the three types of patents.

There are three types of patents:

1. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
2. Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and
3. Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.

What do you think Harry and Meghan are applying to patent? A new type of plant called 'Archewell'?

I think it's a form of AI, Dandy. That is the actual scoop.