Harry and Megan dubbed "fucking grifters" by Spotify exec and podcaster

[Qbish]

No great surprise there... Would love to hear his story about Zooming Prince Harry, I can only imagine his frustration with the whining ninny!

Leading Spotify figure lashes out at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after end of podcast deal | The Independent

I’d give quite a lot to listen to Harry interview Putin about his childhood trauma, I really would!

I’ve definitely said this before but amusing podcast ideas aside, I’d have thought Harry would be the better interviewer of the pair. All that royal training in how to ask people about themselves or their charities that they do.

While Meghan was writing on bananas, he was asking quite good questions to the woman in the background.

She has been trained to be asked about herself and talk about herself nicely (as an actress) and speaks well in public - even if the specific content of her speech is often unintelligible, she delivers it very well. His “training”, is to redirect the attention to good causes. He’s done it for years and years, his parents did it for years and years, his brother, is aunts and uncles spend their engagements asking randoms about themselves and their jobs. It seems such a no brainer.

Oh my God the hubris. I can’t believe Harry thought he was a suitable person to be interviewing such people. Who does he actually think he is?

Your whole post is the reaction that the papers have been looking for. Can't believe anyone is falling for this.

Harry interviewing Putin and Trump. As if.

When Spectator had someone named 'Cockburn' (they often refer to themselves as a 3rd party), gosh I knew they were taking the piss. Now I'm just waiting for FT to report something from 'Cockhold' 😂

Exactly. Such suckers, they just lap it up 😳 The press don't even need to try very hard! 🤦‍♀️

When Spectator had someone named 'Cockburn' (they often refer to themselves as a 3rd party), gosh I knew they were taking the piss. Now I'm just waiting for FT to report something from 'Cockhold' 😂

You do realise it is a real name ? I used to work with a colleague whose surname was Cockburn. Pronounced “Coburn” (or, at least, that’s how they pronounced it).

Hear the Spectator explaining the real person, who was called Cockburn, that the gossip column is named for. In an article from 2018 - it’s not a new thing.

https://thespectator.com/uncategorized/real-cockburn/

The level of grandiosity is astounding. It really makes you wonder what his palace staff have had to deal with over the years when he was a working royal.

He really must be completely out of touch if he thought interviews with the likes of Putin and the Pope were feasible and realistic ideas.

I suppose it is a product of his upbringing really. His grandmother was the Queen, his father is the King - so he probably just assumes he would be granted access to anyone he chooses.

It is quite sad really - as a Royal he probably would occasionally rub shoulders with world, religious and business leaders but that is merely a function of his role, his office - not himself as a individual.

He should have really listened to his grandfather who always cautioned that the public and world interest was in the role not the person.

Cockburn is an alias it’s supposed to be a joke. Most likely there are multiple writers! The UK equivalent is Steerpike.

@Serenster Yes, the column and nom de plume doesn’t appear to have been created just to discuss H&M nor to have any connection with Elizabeth Arden cream.

Serenster

My colleague pronounces it the same way. As did a childhood friend.

No such swerve for another ex-colleague called Grocock.

Yep, born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

To the topic, I do agree much of the “news” gets created and it’s absolutely ridiculous. It’s been that way since the inception of 24 hour news and grown much worse with the advent of the internet.

Now we have endless people that just talk for a living, online, on tv, on radio and on podcasts. They talk about utter tripe in an effort to create content. Try listening to Megyn Kelly for a few minutes; she’s obsessed with Meghan and so incredibly vitriolic. I only caught it by accident and didn’t listen for long, but felt like I got stupider just hearing it.

I am glad Harry is amongst those suing the media, and hope it brings about change or at least some accountability.

Apologies, wrong topic!

Meh, it's Spotify. Even the Obamas ditched Spotify because they're known for being a nightmare to work with and they're failing pretty hard as a company.

The guy who slammed Harry and Meghan is a right wing sports pundit who used to host his own successful sports TV show until he got fired over some scandals (think Bulldog from Frasier, but more famous). He was infamous for getting into hot water for constantly making sexist and demeaning comments about female athletes, and he got fired from ESPN for being abusive to staff, and spreading conspiracy theories.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/john-skipper-says-he-fired-902314/

He's known in the US for being a loudmouthed jackass who publicly attacks female celebs on a regular basis to try to get attention. The British press are referring to him as an exec, and I think people who aren't familiar with him assume he's just some regular corporate executive who was so shocked by H&M's behaviour that he had to speak out. That's not the case. He's a sports commentator who sold a popular sports podcast to Spotify and managed to negotiate a fancy title as part of the sale. Being incendiary and dunking on other celebs is part of his celeb schtick and he's always doing PR stunts like this.

Having said that, the idea of Harry trying to interview Putin about his childhood trauma is extremely funny. I've never thought of Harry as overly burdened with intelligence and can easily believe they slacked off in their deal.

The challenge for Harry is to fully understand the power of his birth v his power. He’s would be use to rubbing shoulders with the great and the good at State events and clearly thought that would translate into his new life - that he could use those connections now. He’s not grasping that those people aren’t going to violate their privacy in the way he is happy to (and the privacy of their families). It’s a bit like when a CEO announces they are retiring…suddenly everyone drifts away as without the title, people aren’t interested. I think this is why Harry used HRH in the court case. He’s starting to understand the importance of it.

he must have been very frustrating to work with, and a world where everyone doesn’t say ‘yes’ is new to him. Increasingly the Palace PR team are looking very competent - they curated a good image for him.

I'm aware it's a real person. He talks all sorts of shiz. This is his byline :

Mischief, mayhem and Washington gossip. Send tips and party invites to [email protected].

I'm just amused that The Spectator would have such a person their payroll.

HRH is Harry's title.
He just agreed not to use it for commercial purposes.

It must really burn that it is the likes of the WSJ and Bloomberg that are breaking a lot of these recent stories. Respected financial journalism. Can't blame the British tabloids here.

So why would Harry want to associate himself with such a person then? Well, we all know the answer. Their greed drives them to do anything .

What burns is to find out that 'respected financial journalism' are also on the payroll. Rolling out gossip ? ffs

I remember FT trying to get on the lucrative bandwagon and their subscribers would have none of it.

Lucky for these publication most of their audience would pass over Harry and Meghan stories, but if they keep it up, the audience would take note and they won't be happy.

I can't believe Prince Harry wanted to interview Vladimir Putin about the time he was given a Finger of Fudge when he wanted a Curly Wurly and some spoilsport didn't greenlight it.

Even the Obamas ditched Spotify because they're known for being a nightmare to work with and they're failing pretty hard as a company.

The Obamas had another deal lined up, announced at the same time that they were parting ways with Spotify. That doesn't appear to be the case for the Sussexes.

Being incendiary and dunking on other celebs is part of his celeb schtick and he's always doing PR stunts like this.

None of which means he's not correct in his assessments however. The fact remains that between the two of them, all the Sussexes managed to produce for Spotify in 3 years was one podcast series.

What burns is to find out that 'respected financial journalism' are also on the payroll.

What 'payroll'?

There are posters who will always judge publications which criticize Harry or Meghan as "tabloids", "printers of unsubstantiated gossip", "unreliable", no matter how worthy and respectable they may always have been regarded.

Possibly because sometimes it's the only defense, however ridiculous .

The WSJ is not a gossip rag, it’s a world respected paper, the idea it would trash it’s reputation to ‘gossip’ about the Sussex’s

Signing big deals is business newsworthy, big deals failing is also newsworthy as both can affect market valuations