A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

I am in the UK, that is how I know that the rags influence goes as far as daytime TV such as Jeremy Vine, Loose Women, Lorraine etc.

I also find this statement unusual but I can't really work out why.

The tabloid papers influence is absolutely far reaching here but in much more important ways than reaching the audience of those television shows. What is the significance of the TV shows?

@Samcro Do you want to start the next thread? Everyone seems agreed that we like your title.

[quote WurraBurra]It took me a while to work out what BM was, as I'm used to the Royal Family being referred to as RF.

So does it stand for British Media then?

TMZ is vile. I would never quote it, nor Perez Hilton, as a reputable source.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/columnists/tim-walker/the-couch-surfer-together-tmz-and-perez-hilton-are-a-microcosm-of-the-modern-media-1732588.html%3famp[/quote]
I guessed that BM was British Monarchy, but you may be correct, maybe it is British Media. Who knows.

Those shows are all 'talk shows' debating issues of the day. So they'll take cues on those from what's in the papers.

So TZM and ET are "bottom feeders?" I think we've been told not to quote them.

We've all got a particular interest in this couple. I take that back!

I am meant to be cleaning now, yet here I am.

I don’t think the BM work in cahoots so if one of the RR found a different angle to report and get the scoop, they would. But they all seem to be in agreement that Harry and Meghan haven’t behaved very well.

I also find this statement unusual but I can't really work out why.

Those programmes are all about froth and opinion, often (in my view) poorly informed opinion at that. It's disposable entertainment and the hosts are not held accountable for some of the stranger things said by their guests and those who phone in - as long as they publicly distance themselves from it. That's why you see them, on occasion, quickly apologise and move the discussion on,

Newspapers, on the other hand, are held to a high standard in law to make sure that they can verify what they say. Newspapers that pride themselves on being investigative invest a huge amount of money on their legal departments to make sure a story will stand up in court before it ever gets anywhere near being printed.

Hence the interest in the current court case...

So, should HMHQ tell us who they regard as "bottom feeders" so we can avoid referring to them?

HMHQ?

It was Jeremy KYLE who's show got cancelled right?

I thought Jeremy Vine was more mainstream but I have just Googled him.

My knowledge of daytime telly is thin. I don't think I have seen any of those shows. More of a Cash in the Attic person!

Those programmes are all about froth and opinion, often (in my view) poorly informed opinion at that. It's disposable entertainment

Doesn't mean they aren't influential though. And nothing is disposable anymore when clips of it can be put on YouTube.

And nothing is disposable anymore when clips of it can be put on YouTube.

True.

I think tbh that we should quote from who we like, since MN have not provided a list of forbidden sources, and if something is unacceptable they can delete and tell us. I don't intend to self censor on their behalf when there's no clear guidance.

Dare I say it but TMZ has broken stories. I am just not aware they've done it here to the same degree.

I have never quoted Perez Hilton before. I quoted TMZ in this instance as they are known to be the sort of Rottweilers of the gossip and will go out of their way to find whatever footage. My point was even they did not put in all sorts of lies on there like the DM and S*n like like to do. ET is like Hello and other soft news agents, with no specific targeted agenda.

The UK rags like DM etc. are not held up to high standards. They are protected by IPSO - ie self regulating. They can get away with anything. The head of IPSO said it himself, they can print lies if they want. I posted that video on one of these threads. We also went through quite a lot of length to show with pics and testimony how the DM lies.

@MeghanSussex

HMHQ?

Yeah, daytime TV. The ladies I volunteer with like to put JV, and ITV in the background. That is how I know that Lorraine is pretty much babysitting that Russel guy from one of the H&M banned papers to come tell everyone how bad they are. They also tend not to report on any of the well received speeches that H&M make.

I am in the UK, that is how I know that the rags influence goes as far as daytime TV such as Jeremy Vine, Loose Women, Lorraine etc.
I watch Jeremy Vine everyday. He often has tabloid journalists as his panellists. Dan Wootton The Sun, Dawn Neesom used to be editor of The Daily Star, Carole Malone used to write for TNTW and The Mirror.
They're all very critical of Meghan and Harry.
Dan Wootton used to be the showbiz correspondent on Lorraine
Jane Moore is a panellist on LW and writes for The Sun and isn't a fan of the duo either. So I understand what Mummy is saying.

That must be tedious for you.

A thread about H&M every one welcome.

Although a latecomer to the thread, I just want to say that that's a fabulous idea, Samcro, and I look forward to you starting the new thread.

That must be tedious for you.

Sorry, that was to Mummy.

BG, Murky Meg, Taz and others are absolute bottom feeders. I don't think they every have one story that is true.

DM and the S*n are what you call 'mainstream bottom feeders'. By that I mean the kind that will confuse you with meaningful stories like politics, NHS, state of education, PM etc. So you get snared into the comfort that you are actually reading news, while twisting stories at the same time. In other words, they are not like those magazines that tell you that M&H are divorced and he is in Africa, while M is dating Matt Cardle. Who ? I know, I actually saw this passing a gossip mag once.

@MeghanSussex

That must be tedious for you.

Sorry, that was to Mummy.

hahaha, the ladies watch it, but don't take them seriously, they are often having a laugh.

I see what you mean Mummy. The thing is, the UK has some of the strictest libel laws anywhere which is why people come here to sue. I believe the papers do consider what they are printing because they know this and they employ robust internal counsel to make sure what goes in is just on the right side of defensible in court.

But I agree with you in the sense that many stories presented as 'articles' are not 'articles' but should be called 'analysis' or some such and they really aren't always. Correction: Seems most of the papers today are filled with 'analysis' as opposed to reporting and each paper has its steer. I can understand the frustration with the DM if you feel that the stories on HaM are not making clear they're editorialising in many of them.