News on Meghan and Harry

[Viviennemary]

Since they are in the news more or less daily why not a thread on this. Latest I've read over the last few days is that Meghan is going to produce a film from a book. And later this month she is teaming up with Michelle Obama for project on gender equality. Both sound interesting projects.

What do I know? Am not Canadian etc. But it would be seen as very déclassé, I'd venture, for her to write a "tell-all." The trouble is if she is shown to be a source for the People article, she may be perceived as inclined to ply her wares elsewhere.

What a to-do.

Especially if she is aiming to defend the position that the talking to the press was all fine without Meghan's knowledge!!!

I thought the tweet was a denial that JM is desperately trying to contact M not a denial that she is thinking of writing a book?

callmeadoctor Thing is, there are no parking restrictions in Poundbury - or at least there weren't last year

The general idea was that folk could "park on Main Street" and wander round feeling blessed to be free of the car-choked nastiness of all those other places - so they take full advantage and now it's car-choked anyway

@KatherineParr4

I thought the tweet was a denial that JM is desperately trying to contact M not a denial that she is thinking of writing a book?

It was intentionally vague, so who knows?

Ben Mulroney's career was never in jeopardy. He left etalk, which is a daily late afternoon entertainment program, but is still the host of a daily morning program in Canada.

You're absolutely right of course, I meant protecting themselves from further fall out. I think JM's position is more precarious but even then the Mulroneys have more clout than the Sussexes in the scheme of things.

The tweet was indeed vague, but as someone else has said, if MM & JM are still friends behind the scenes, it’s unlikely that he would have been prompted to comment publicly.

It would have helped if he could have been less succinct and left a clue as to which aspect of the article he meant

I think the fact the article moves from a vague 'falling out' to publishing a tell all (among various other more specific allegations) might have caused him to make the move.

Very hard to know what is going on. It could be any of a number of scenarios going on behind the scenes.

This will get me slammed on here but I know people that have worked for the MoS (I am not a journalist) and in fact they are ruthless about sourcing. A contact was reporting on an incident in a town in England and told not to come back until he'd secured and evaluated evidence from a x number of sources or it was unprintable. These papers have been rightly skewered about HOW they obtain evidence/intelligence or have done so. This doesn't mean they aren't trying to, though, and therefore solely making things up. I know it suits the narrative to believe they are and are there stories that many people feel are not in the public interest and only serve to hurt/harm. But it would be a mistake to write it all off as lies.

I assumed Ben’s tweet was saying the article is false. I can well imagine JM not wanting people to think she is writing a book if she isn’t (or even if she is).

My take (rightly or wrongly) has always been that behind the scenes MM and JM have remained friends but if they haven’t, and JM is hurt by MM ditching her, perhaps she also doesn’t want people to think she is being rejected. I think though that they are still friends behind the scenes and neither JM or MM want MM to be portrayed unkindly as someone who ditched a friend at a time in need and also her goddaughter through no fault of her own. After all if they are still friends, it’ll be in both of their interests to keep MM in a positive light.

@OVienna

I think the fact the article moves from a vague 'falling out' to publishing a tell all (among various other more specific allegations) might have caused him to make the move.

Very hard to know what is going on. It could be any of a number of scenarios going on behind the scenes.

This will get me slammed on here but I know people that have worked for the MoS (I am not a journalist) and in fact they are ruthless about sourcing. A contact was reporting on an incident in a town in England and told not to come back until he'd secured and evaluated evidence from a x number of sources or it was unprintable. These papers have been rightly skewered about HOW they obtain evidence/intelligence or have done so. This doesn't mean they aren't trying to, though, and therefore solely making things up. I know it suits the narrative to believe they are and are there stories that many people feel are not in the public interest and only serve to hurt/harm. But it would be a mistake to write it all off as lies.

I think that often tabloids publish enough truth about something for some people to believe them and it doesn’t mean all their articles are true, but that enough of them have enough truth to them. After all, many will look back and remember a breaking story for what it got right than what was wrong.

If newspapers tell untrue stories about the rich and famous, they would never be out of court. They really would be mad to hack emails! Mad! So they can print opinion and base that loosely around fact. That’s what they do and as long as the fact is fact then they won’t be sued for damages. Most of the time they are not, are they?

Yeah - there's the rub though. Hacking emails, phones etc. Paying sources for info/evidence. Bit of bribery. Pretexting. Would that surprise me? Nope, not a jot.

More relevant to ask HOW they may have obtained the information in some cases.

enough of them have enough truth to them

Yes the Tatler story on Kate is sort of an example of that. Had all the markings of sources who hadn't either spoken to her for years or were very tangentially linked to someone in her 'circle.' The wording was very careful not to be specific about her - very few actual details that they could pinpoint as untrue.

And 'source' can mean someone whose written on the royals for years, for example. A blogger, YouTuber. Never made clear.

Harry's phone hacking case against the Sun hasn't been discussed much on here. I don't know very much about it.

As the noose of governance tightens these papers become more desperate.

To be honest - the Mail probably thought their sourcing for the MM piece was straightforward. "How'd you get the letter?" "TM contacted us. Her mates already gave an interview on it to People." I wonder if they're surprised too.

If an organisation had hacked emails and texts, they would be unwise to publish their findings, surely. But what they could do, is to dig deeper once they know where to look, and then maybe uncover things that can be verified from a different source.

If an organisation had hacked emails and texts, they would be unwise to publish their findings, surely. But what they could do, is to dig deeper once they know where to look, and then maybe uncover things that can be verified from a different source.

This is exactly it. Information obtained from certain types of sources/methods will then be 'legitimised' through other means. This doesn't even need to be something nefariously obtained by the way. It is often that one person may disclose something but then give clues - either where to look in the public domain or what other sources to speak to - to obtain more details that will then ensure that they are not traced as the sole source of the information.

And of course stories that look like investigative pieces get placed - it is not so much that all of the facts are lies but that they are presented in the lense the contributor wants it to be seen.

This is of course not only true for the world of slebs.

Sorry - not true 'only for the world of slebs.

Harry's phone hacking case against the Sun hasn't been discussed much on here. I don't know very much about it.

I believe it’s about hacking that took place over a decade ago, although as I understand it’s also against the Daily Mirror and I’m not sure of the dates for that. I remember Harry (along with William and Kate) being named in the original trial so I’m not sure if this claim is on the back or it or not.

If an organisation had hacked emails and texts, they would be unwise to publish their findings, surely. But what they could do, is to dig deeper once they know where to look, and then maybe uncover things that can be verified from a different source

A very insightful post, Angelina, reminding me of the calls I used to get from the local rag asking about "the meeting this week", "the resignation", etc, all of it carefully phrased to suggest they knew something when if fact they were just fishing

It takes a few turns round the block to recognise the technique, but a technique it certainly is - and not an especially pleasant one

Article from last October about PH joining the group action:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/05/prince-harry-joins-court-case-against-tabloid-hacking-crimes

It was due to start this autumn, but Covid may cause delay

Daily Mail is now definitely trolling MM.

Apparently according to poll 61% of those asked wouldn’t call their child Meghan. Also on the hate list are Boris and Donald.

Gosh they are aren't they! Oh dear.

It doesn't mean much though. I love Gary Barlow but I wouldn't call my son Gary. Doesn't mean I don't like him.

I have been wondering if the injunction is granted whether we will actually hear about it specifically. There might be reporting restrictions placed on it. I guess if we don't hear anything in the next week or two we can assume this to be the case.