Hollywood media v Fleet St - Meghan’s misconception?

[Peverellshire]

Tom Bower wrote ‘For more than ten years Meghan sought publicity from the tabloids. To be mentioned, even at the bottom of the page was her dream’.

Adding, M didn’t understand that Hollywood publicity is about favours, mutual agreements & dishonest journalism. Buckingham palace lacked those levers over Britain’s newspapers’

Was there a misunderstanding that the palace couldn’t control or influence ‘vicious’ & ‘inaccurate social media’ more broadly?

How much of a toxic culture truly was there within the palace re: ‘tit for tat’ leakings?

How could Harry have ever found a woman prepared to commit to him if so? How to counter & rise above? How to stop the over-the-top hounding?

All media relations is about building relationships with trusted journalists, pushing stories that you want to be heard by your audience, and trying to limit the damage from stories you don't.

There is a limit to the extent to which any journalist/editor can be influenced, but that limit is going to be in a different place for a Hollywood gossip mag compared to a British national newspaper.

Tom Bower overstates the difference here. It's one of degree and slightly different things will work with different kinds of journalists. Yes it's easier to try and get more press coverage for yourself, than it is to manage massive press interest in way that helps rather than hinders. But they're not worlds apart.

I think you’re right. American media is much more polarised and controlled by different factions in a way that just isn’t the case here eg I remember US friends complaining that none of the democratic leaning media where covering the Hunter Biden controversies.

The same culture doesn’t exist here. There may be spin, twisting of stories etc but papers don’t ignore things to the same degree.

I think Meghan thought (thinks?) that rf have the ability to tell papers not to print things, which they don’t and should never have.

@withgraceinmyheart it also feels that Meghan thought the ‘palace’ influence extended to social media. Apparently Harry & Meghan scoured the press & online comments looking for negatives effectively.

Why?

Generally tabloid articles were supportive with a few exceptions.

’Hollywood’ is poles apart from the palace protocol. Announcing a pregnancy early at a Hollywood event, is fine, it gets you positive press & generates commercial opportunity, at a royal wedding, not so much.

Meghan possibly is genuinely good hearted, if ambitious, & things sometimes land badly. Her father possibly similar re: well meaning but things sometimes going awry due to his emotions/reactions.

I think the issue with staff bullying and reducing staff to tears had a lot to do with searching out these media stories and confronting them. However tabloids and SM combined was far too extensive for a small communications team to deal with, hence the allegations of bullying as Meghan particularly tried to quash them. Meghans career up until then had been all about image and in particular SM image, like Instagram and her Tig. Her carefully cultivated image was being torn apart in the press and SM and I think this made her angry, upset and distressed, causing her to behave badly.

@purpledalmation I think you’ve absolutely nailed it.

She was fastidious about her image to the point of wanting a longer second toe edited to look better, etc. As ridiculous as this might seem, she’s right, these things do matter as per her cultivated image & brand at time.

Sounds like she was panicked & stressed. Why didn’t she anticipate this & come up with a calm, pragmatic plan? Possibly as it was a bit of a perfect storm with the debacle around her father, a wedding, etc?

Taking it further how could her goals & ambitions ever be realised inside the Royal family & why didn’t she realise in advance She’s extremely smart, sassy, savvy with a admirable work ethic.

I think something people forget is quite how difficult it will have been to secure the role in Suits. People assume it will have been, as she’s a D list actress or whatever they say, it was falling off a log. Not so. Blood, sweat, tears, ridiculous competition, not a minor role. You need a real self belief & bullishness & even ruthlessness & steel core. So much rejection etc.

She will have done serious homework on everything. For that reason I find it very hard to believe she was entirely misled by Harry. So what was plan & why the misconception? Did she assume there was far, far more money & resources available than there were? Again, would someone so clued up & ambitious just ‘assume’?

Agree about social media too.

Rf is a strange thing all around, they have huge power and influence but have to choose not to exert it, because that’s their constitutionally agreed role. I think Meghan thought they were ‘refusing to defend her’ when in fact they were refusing to use their power as head of state to silence the free press.

All the talk of ‘modernising’ by h and m seems to mean that too…using influence to push a progressive view point eg lots of people think Camilla should publicly disown Clarkson and should have refused to go to lunch where he was present. IMO that would set a dangerous precedent with royals allowed to declare people ‘acceptable’ or not.

This article explains it better:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/who-do-harry-and-meghan-think-they-are/

I think this is a very fair analysis.

I also think her feelings were taken on by Harry out of a sense of support/loyalty and have deepened into his own hatred of the media to the point he's convinced himself they were to blame for his mother's death.

Bot sentinel found evidence of a coordinated campaign of hate against meghan markle
www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ellievhall/bot-sentinel-meghan-markle-prince-harry-twitter

So it's not surprising H&M would want the source of that identified and stopped

I believe that coordinated campaign has coloured many peoples views of MM as a manipulative untrustworthy character. Its all very subtle tho so people just believe it to be a "fact" she is like that

Much as I disliked Clarkson's column, and the sexism/misogyny in some sections of the media general, the kind of attitude that comes across in their reply to his apology explains the tensions with the Cambridges and the staff at the palace. The Royal Family can have influence, to some degree - eg. Camilla raising awareness of domestic abuse etc. However, when it comes to wider cultural issues, like what people can and can't say in the free press, they have to tread very carefully. They keep telling us how unjustifiabley mean everybody was and how innocent they were. But if their intention was to become influencers all along, no wonder they were blocked.

If they carry on throwing their toys out if the cot and refusing apologies etc no-one will write about them...and then where will they be?

The other thing I think is different is that the Hollywood press is much more highly intermediated than the UK press, particularly when dealing with institutions.

I doubt Meghan would have been expecting that she’d be dealing with papers and reporters who actively wanted to find stories about her and already had their network of people in the know who they could tap up for information to pursue and write about. She would have been far more used to a press office working like a PR team - sending out information of what they wanted the press to cover, and how things should be presented (and so, being in control of what the press knows, and what they are able to write about).

That model works fine here when you’re a Love Island/Soap star celebrity looking to keep yourself in the public view, but it’s not appropriate for anyone in a significant public role in a country with a free press. But I absolutely understand that it must have been an almighty shock for her.

It seems pretty clear from Spare that Harry doesn’t really distinguish between the actual media and social media. This is something they could have protected themselves from. The Palace started out leaving comments on instagram unmoderated, then announced that they were having to moderate them (and not just from anti Meghan posts, also anti Kate) and were looking for tech solutions to filter them. But they could have turned comments off - or, better yet, just not read any of them (I know Harry said Meghan didn’t read them, but from the way he discusses what was going on their office I don’t see how that can be the case).

@Dobby123456 I think you're right, they effectively decided to be 'influencers' and had a growing evangelical zeal about how they could bring the monarchy and royal family into the 21st century.

@Cherry60 that's it, possibly Harry had a lightbulb moment and thought how he could put wrongs right and begin to steer the ship in a more progressive direction away from the established 'way' which was clearly toxic as he/they saw it. He could see the wider Royals were probably well meaning but suffering from 'unconscious bias' and could be enlightened into doing things differently.

Meghan clearly has a Caesar management style, which is old fashioned, ironically... and of course the whole idea that the 'new kid on the block' and an 'inside man' can change the world is very grandiose. Rather than hijack the Royal family they could do their own thing else where and make a positive difference. It all feels self centred somehow, it's all about THEM and perceived slights. For Princess Anne it is all both the charity, the cause and giving that publicity. Why so selfless thinks Meghan? Why isn't she monetising etc? Hollywood and the Monarchy are wildly different.

Victoria Beckham always says she doesn't do 'negativity', there's something in that I think. If you go looking for negativity and bad press and social media you are going to find it. You live by the sword, you die by the sword .

Any 'famous' or well known figure on Twitter sadly gets very negative comments, sometimes these spill over into racism, threats etc. They report and call out. Can you change all of this? It happens, it shouldn't.

On a personal level I have to deal with very negative comments re: any presentation or anything that goes into the 'wild' online. I'd be lying if I said that didn't hurt and there is a tendency to dwell on the negative and beat yourself up for many, especially the sensitive. But. 'know thyself' and possibly employ a person to sift your press, like big companies do, such as BUPA etc. Let me know about what REALLY crosses the line and all the positives too!

Could M and H start a campaign where you truly ignore and don't read the negative press? You don't go looking for it? If you look for persecution and negative press you are going to find it. What do others in the public eye do? How does a Prime Minister cope? They will inevitably be criticised for everything but their vision for the country and for others should be forefront and the main focus. Of course a caveat to this would be if ever it spilled over into something that needed action and some things. like Clarkson's article, do need jumping on, but you can't control everything?

I would argue if service and a cause is true then wallowing in negative commentary and trying to elevate yourself to sainthood is not going to help and that way lies madness.

If that’s true then it’s awful, but it is only on Twitter. This thread is mainly about mainstream newspapers and there’s no evidence of a co-ordinated campaign at all.

I imagine the rf have zero influence over Twitter given the absolutely vile stuff that’s said about them all on there.

@Serenster I see where you're coming from and you make excellent points but I don't see why it was or would be an almighty shock to her, everyone says Harry is at fault as he didn't prepare her. Do you think Gwyneth Paltrow, of similar age and intelligence I think (albeit more accomplished and famous), wouldn't realise or do her homework? Meghan is incredibly, incredibly smart, she didn't get the role in Suits by accident (she had to adapt and change outfits last minute, etc). So, so, so difficult to get even that far. It speaks highly of her acting ability, tenaciousness, self belief and work ethic. I don't buy she was a naive hick, middle aged woman who didn't know how to curtsey and didn't understand the demands of the National Anthem. Plus., plus, many more examples.

Marrying Harry would be life changing, she'd do her homework. The Tig, was excellent she's a meticulous researcher and curator. She's lived, she's cultured, been married, she's very well travelled, she's been exposed to overseas Embassy diplomats. She clearly has enviable self discipline and organisational skills.

She allegedly wanted to team up with/marry someone who was in that vein. Re: influencer/rich/powerful. Ashley Cole, seems to be someone she wanted to hitch her cart to potentially and she allegedly tried a few times to get there. Although would he be a fulfilling partner and intellectually her equal? This suggests she wanted fame and fortune and more of an 'influencer' role.

Colin Montgomerie, she had a few dates with him too, allegedly but that didn't work out. Corey Vitiello, she was apparently loved by his family etc. He apparently didn't have the ambition or international connections she was looking for. Trevor Engleson, an American film producer, he could help get her started and had contacts. She's possibly already told us very much who she is by her actions to date.

I can imagine her as a young child and woman with furious, burning ambition. There's nothing wrong in that. Maybe genuine love and excitement and the power and prestige, got in the way with Harry and she thought she could effectively work with her husband in what was in reality a stuffy, family business. but is finding/found that 1. In simple terms it's very difficult to do this! 2. She's having a crack at waking up the royal family into the 21st century but didn't bank on all the problems involved, and she's only doing it through love.

It's VERY tempting to hit back re: negative social media, especially at ridiculous and unfounded criticism. People do it here, but it's like wrestling with a pig, you both get dirty. Why not ignore? Secure people do this.

It must have been very difficult for Meghan to be amongst the poorest and less influential in the little Red Schoolhouse and at secondary school. She did very well and was very well thought of and it sounds like she was genuinely kind and compassionate, helping the underdog etc. In California, in my experience, money is worshipped and beauty and power, status and influence, being at the bottom of that pecking order (and seeing yourself as an ugly duckling as she apparently did) might stoke a ruthless ambition and an 'I'll show them one day'...

I think you're right, they effectively decided to be 'influencers' and had a growing evangelical zeal about how they could bring the monarchy and royal family into the 21st century.

It's going to be very difficult for them to influence the monarchy and royal family from the outside.
Especially when living in California.
Especially as they've effectively ceased all royal engagements.
Especially as they have done numerous TV programmes and interviews and now a book criticising their family the royal family.

I doubt there is any way back.

I doubt their influence is as great as they seem to think it is.

@crosspusscrossstitcher I feel that was plan A & they left when they realised.

What’s the long term game with ‘Plan B’?