BBC The Princes and the Press

[coniferforest]

Did anyone watch this last night? About William and Harry and their different approaches to the press. Last night was part 1 of 2.

@BringBackThinEyebrows

I've seen a few comments on here describing Thomas Markle as an abuser. What's the timeline of these allegations and where is the evidence?

You mean the father who goes constantly goes on TV making interviews blackmailing his daughter that he will do one every month till she speaks to him?

Admits that he was just part of messing up her wedding.

Says it's time for daddy to get paid when he does the interviews calling his daughter all sorts of names and labels - said daughter has does respond, even via 'sources'.

That's not abuse that is using chat shows to attack your relatives. Not sure the Sussexes could seriously complain about that tbh..

@rubicscubicle you are mounting quite an aggressive, sustained and effective defence of MM on this thread! Obvs you’re not obliged to answer, but can I ask why? On MN you normally see such strength of feeling when posters have personal experience of whatever the thread is about. You can tell from what they write that they’re vested for their own reasons. Does this apply similarly to you wrt MM?

I don’t normally concern myself with random individuals on the internet. But it’s interesting to me to try to understand why so many posters are so defensive of her. Also, why so many posters seem to have it in for her! I wonder whether there’s personal interest, whether media manipulation (either way) really is working, and - per my first post on this thread - which of the drivers that keeps people vested in Meghan Markle really gets to people.

Like I say, no obligation to reply. It’s just my personal interest in learning what makes people tick.

That report is not breaking down anything.
Nor does it not prove that the press got a fat zero as you say.

I just posted that the media were getting underhand help from the government, therefore taxpayers money in some form. They came begging for money.

Do you work for the british press or something?

If Meghan was not his daughter MN would not have any sympathy for TM at all.

[quote givethatbabyaname]@rubicscubicle you are mounting quite an aggressive, sustained and effective defence of MM on this thread! Obvs you’re not obliged to answer, but can I ask why? On MN you normally see such strength of feeling when posters have personal experience of whatever the thread is about. You can tell from what they write that they’re vested for their own reasons. Does this apply similarly to you wrt MM?

I don’t normally concern myself with random individuals on the internet. But it’s interesting to me to try to understand why so many posters are so defensive of her. Also, why so many posters seem to have it in for her! I wonder whether there’s personal interest, whether media manipulation (either way) really is working, and - per my first post on this thread - which of the drivers that keeps people vested in Meghan Markle really gets to people.

Like I say, no obligation to reply. It’s just my personal interest in learning what makes people tick.[/quote]
Have you asked this question to the people who are vigorously against her?

From what I gather, you have been here to write against Meghan.

Also using choice words like 'aggressive', 'sustained' etc. specifically to me, when others have been against the same way is rather odd.

If Meghan was not his daughter MN would not have any sympathy for TM at all

EXACTLY

Just look on the stately homes threads

Also using choice words like 'aggressive', 'sustained' etc. specifically to me, when others have been against the same way is rather odd

And this. I've been called that plus more endlessly.

Let's ask about the agressive and sustained attacks on MM by those on the hundreds (probably about 600) threads.

@rubicscubicle

Not that I would trust them as a reliable source anyway given their clear political agenda.

Not your political agenda you mean.

Byline, does not rely on advertising and clicks. They are the most honest newsagent you will find out there.

No, not because their agenda is not mine. In some areas it is, in some it isn't. I don't care about that. What I do care about is that so many of their stories are clearly there to serve their political agenda. I would rate the Guardian, which has a similar political agenda (and which I regularly read online), as a much more reliable source.

I do find it strange how vociferous and aggressive many criticisms of Meghan are.
When there are far less aggressive criticisms of Andrew for example.
It seems crazy priorities to me.

@rubicscubicle I haven’t, but only because I haven’t devoted enough time to this thread to see who’s said what. Since I came onto this thread, I’ve just seen your name most frequently as a staunch supporter. I’ve come across Rousette before, and last summer asked her the same question. She kindly answered quite openly, and I appreciated her reply. She has consistently stood up against the bullying of MM. Not sure she has any gray love for the woman herself, but I may be wrong

I’m not pro or against Meghan Markle. My interest is more in the media’s agenda; how journalists, editors and content providers work their readers, and to what end. MM is at the celebrity gossip end of things, it’s no brainache to use her as an example. If I were to opine on her as I have come across her, I’d say she’s probably quite skilled at getting what she wants (not a bad thing!) but that her methods don’t tally with the image she likes to portray and therefore she opens herself to accusations of hypocrisy and being self-serving. I don’t for a second buy into any of the humanitarian BS, as I don’t with any member of the RF. But she has been very vocal about how she wants to serve and do good works, so I consider it open for discussion. Beyond this, I think she must be batshit crazy to marry into the RF, but you can’t help who you fall for (and she and Harry do strike me as being a couple very much into each other).

I think a man who takes money to sell his daughter's story is pretty low and quite immoral,

It is possible to dislike both TM and MM - I do and the reason is I think they both have very similar personalities and behaviour traits.

Both seem to have no issue in using the media when it suits them and to use who or what is at their disposal to earn money regardless of who gets hurt, even if it means they hurt each other in the process.

@PreparationPreparationPrep

If Meghan was not his daughter MN would not have any sympathy for TM at all.

I don't have sympathy per se I can just see how it all unravelled and if I could see it why tf couldn't they? A father doesn't want to watch a TV show to hear his future son in law proclaim breezily 'oh I haven't met her df', it's just rude and of course he got his back up, probably felt pushed out then his health issues meant he couldn't travel.

I'll say it again TM going on trashy shows to criticise the Sussexes is crap. Ditto the Sussexes going on trashy shows to criticise the RF. It's all an unedifying circus.

@givethatbabyaname all the RF members talk about doing good. Personally I think Meghan's work with women's empowerment seems more a close fit to her real interests, than William warbling on about climate change.

Exactly @StormzyinaTCup

@Roussette

It's laughable that people are holding TM as a fine figure of a father. If MM had posted on Stately Homes with just a fraction of what he's done, they would say 'go NC'.

How could she go and visit him in hospital when she didn't even know about the op? As soon as she read it in the papers, she contacted him. He ignored her. She asked which hospital he was at. He ignored her. And so on...

But hey ho he gets a lot of support on here. Bizarre.

You do realise that the texts Meghan put into evidence in the first instance were selective? She did not include her fathers’s responses (they existed, and were before the Court of Appeal). She also did not include the text from Harry that was so nasty the Judge declined to read it aloud in court. As ever, her case was built only on what she wanted people to see, and may not have been quite accurate.

@givethatbabyaname

Here you go pretending to be objective and in the same post denigrating MM.

For you info, she has been championing humanitarian causes long before she met Harry.

I realise a lot Serenster believe me.

@Serenster

Please do link, because I was following the case and I have no idea what you are talking about, and I think you are desperately making things up at this point.

She also did not include the text from Harry that was so nasty the Judge declined to read it aloud in court

I hate to do this because I get it all the time... but can you link to anything saying that Harry sent a nasty text?
Happy to accept any outcome on this.

I did not find it odd to affirm what took place.

It's not odd. It's how you would communicate with someone who is acting in a baffling and avoidant way.

I would rate the Guardian, which has a similar political agenda (and which I regularly read online), as a much more reliable source.

One thing I do know is that Byline does not lie. They depend on the public, and would end if they did that (unlike the DM who can get away with the most outrageous lies). I do not know The Guardian to lie either, and they will state if the news comes from another source.

The difference between the two is that the guardian has the resources and money to cover all sorts of genres and parts of news and Byline does not. In a way a bit like hacked off. So they are doing the next best thing in their industry which is to expose the lying, greedy newspapers for what they are. It's niche, but if they had money, they would cover all sorts of stories.

How you would have handled the situation.
How you would done a, b and c
How you would have texted something different

None of that matters, because it wasn't you.

The tabloid press and Daily Fail will take any situation and any decision and will infer the person did it for terrible, horrible reasons. They will cut out anything that suggests there were legitimate reasons for why the person did what they did.
They don't know the reasons for why things happened the way they did, anymore than we do.
They do it for 1 reason and for 1 reason only.
To make money

They do it all the time.

The purposefully construct these stories so that you will say
if I was in that situation, I would do it this way. And because Meghan didn't do it the way I would have, she is a terrible person.

How they do it, is very easy to do. It doesn't take much skill.
Think about any situation or any decision you have recently been in or made, and it is very easy to write a Daily Mail spin on it.

It's very easy to spin it to make you look like you made a bad decision, or your a liar or manipulative.

Oh so true @minou123

@rubicscubicle

Here you go pretending to be objective and in the same post denigrating MM.

What do you mean? Is it not possible to have an objectively negative opinion of someone, including MM?

I can quite objectively say that Donald Trump is a racist supremacist with fascist tendencies. Objective, and denigrating.

I can quite objectively say what I said about MM and denigrate her.

I think you’ve revealed your hand, rather. Thank you!