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

It's all got very 'fake news'.

Yes and on the other currently ongoing thread someone refers to a US Weekly as "Another Sussex hate site" because they perceive based on one headline that the interview in question, with Andy Cohen, is critical of Meghan.

Then someone else posts the same link indicating his comments were actually positive and was about Meghan. So not a "hate site" now.

From this exchange I learned that apparently Meghan has "mixed feelings" about the Real Housewives show. It's actually pure garbage and Cohen is the garbage man. Not sure how any feminist can have mixed feelings about a tv show set up to display women at their absolute worst.

The Obamas left Spotify because they wanted to broadcast on more platforms and spotify wouldn't let them. That was their disagreement. The exclusivity clause.

Bill Simmons was one of the widest read sports column writers across the US. He worked for ESPN and built their podcast network, Grantland. He made it into a successful arm for ESPN. He did get sacked but he'd been critical of their stance on a few sports issues. When he got fired he built a second podcast network, The Ringer, and he hired journalists that worked with him at Grantland. He earned millions from his pdcast alone. He sold the Ringer for $250m, of which he got about $125m. He's in the top 40 most influential podcaster list.

You don't get to do all that because you have no talent. Hes still in charge of The Ringer and he's grown it by 50% since being under Spotifiy's ownership. Spotify gave him the exec positions, I believe part of his current role is to build the European sports arm of Spotify. 🙄

You might not like him but to try to portray him as a loud-mouthed doofus that happened to sell a podcast (it was a podcast network) to Spotify is ridiculous. He built up 2 networks, one of which he founded from scratch. And it was actually one of the best known podcast networks, with 50 podcasters. On top of growing the Spotify podcast division, which he's already done, he also broadcasts a highly popular podcast four times a week.

I get you dont like him but the guy is self-motivated and hard-working. He puts out more hours in a month than 2 people, Harry and Meghan, managed in 2½ years. You don't think that would be frustrating to him?

I actually thought the accusation from Andy Cohen was the more serious one. Meghan is obviously new to podcasting so I don’t begrudge her experience, and it’s not like she was pretending to be a journalist or something, it was just kind of bad manners

I watched the US weekly link but must have missed what you saw. He seemed to be defending her, saying she did interview him. There’s headlines also saying he slammed the “insane rumor” that she faked her interviews. Even from sites commonly derided here by some as being Murdoch owned hate sites.

I can’t take Andy Cohen seriously though; watching him drunk, crude and slobbering on NYE on what should have been a family friendly Times Square coverage was disgusting.

I listened to the podcast Andy Cohen was interviewed in, I got the sense that Meghan felt a bit conflicted. RHW is low rent TV - it thrives on drama and bitchiness which is obviously a million miles away from the brand the Meghan is creating. It shows woman at their worst.

Yet Andy Cohen is a very powerful media executive - he has his fingers in so many pies. She wouldn't want to alienate him. He may be useful to her at some point.

I actually felt she did quite well in balancing that in the interview. I think Andy's concern is that she did the interview (which she obviously did herself) but that she then recorded and overlaid an 'intro' to that interview that made her feelings about RHW quite clear. He didn't get that context and felt the interview would have been different if he had that context. He didn't criticise her though - it was more 'I wish I had know that context the conversation would be more nuanced' etc.

The British Royal Family, obviously, d'uh.

Hopefully the sarcasm was obvious there.

I dont see how Andy Cohen shed light on anything. (As is ever the way with Andy Cohen!) We know Meghan interviewed the well-known guests. The accusation was she didn't interview the less well-known /unknown ones. And actually I think she'd have been fine with that if she'd acknowledged who had interviewed them. So, "that was Joan Brown speaking earlier to Janet White".
Meghan really didn't do anything different than many broadcasters, although admittedly she had more time than those broadcasting daily, but the issue was not giving fair dues.

" I think Andy's concern is that she did the interview (which she obviously did herself) but that she then recorded and overlaid an 'intro' to that interview that made her feelings about RHW quite clear. He didn't get that context and felt the interview would have been different if he had that context. He didn't criticise her though - it was more 'I wish I had know that context the conversation would be more nuanced".

That's the take I got. That had he known that's what the context and slant of the interview she was wanting he would have wanted to have had a more detailed and possibly slightly different conversation about it.

Maybe that's just Meghan's inexperience as an interviewer though?

Got it. I was clearly only half paying attention. 🙄

To be fair, she actually said she was conflicted. I actually found the quotes from Cohens book to be irritating. He kept saying things about her and using the word 'interesting'. It sort of had a negative connotation but he never nailed down what his real thoughts were so it might not have been negative. Honestly, he does that a lot. It's annoying. Make a comment, don't make a comment. But don't say these empty phrases. It's not fair on the person he's talking about.

Cohen said he was expecting to defend RH as he had to do that often and he enjoys doing it. He came across as a bit disappointed in Meghan that she actually avoided making her comments to him.

She had a lot of people working on these shows including an extremely experienced producer. I don't think any of these decisions were made accidentally or through inexperience.

Harry may have grandiose ideas, but I also think he suggested people he had heard of. “So, right, yah, erm, we could talk to like The Pope, and the Facebook guy there was that movie about and what about Putin? We get together him and the Ukrainian guy and I talk to both of them about childhood trauma - awesome !”

People will do anything for money. Anything.

It is well known that the Meghan Hate bandwagon brings it in big time.

Just surprised that reputable publications would sink so low.

Have you seen any US weekly you tube episodes?
I stopped watching a few years ago, when it was apparent that they are no objective channel. Gave them plenty of breadth, thinking this can't be real and they kept rolling in negativity after the other. Questions and guests are clearly not neutral.

The question to Andy was negative and ridiculous, no need for any good thinking person to think of or ask. I guess they didn't get the answer that they wanted.

Have you seen any US weekly you tube episodes?
I stopped watching a few years ago, when it was apparent that they are no objective channel.

So do you only watch 'objective channels'? Which channels do you have in mind?

The WSJ is not anti Meghan. I don't think it actually cares one way or the other. It has reported their big money deals, but it has questioned whether they have anything in their tank other than anti RF rhetoric.

There's no Meghan Hate Bandwagon in the reputable newspapers in the US that I can see. They've received and treated the couple quite well and wrote positively about the documentary, even if there was a bit of criticism of it being low on content and high on schmaltz. But they were not negative.

You can't expect these papers to report the positives on the couple as in the high money deas they got and then just ignore negatives. Spotify finishing their contract and criticism from one of the most influential people in podcasting who'd actually worked with them, was aways going to spark interest. It's news. The reporting of which is actually the WSJs job.

I don't know WSJ to be anti Meghan anything. But now and again some editor does seem to verge on wanting clicks for hate money at times. It's a hard one for papers to resist, I suppose - especially in these hard times.

There was absolutely no need to talk about 'those in the know'. What the hell is that. Those publications don't usually work on those terms. Hard, solid sources is the norm. Business people (the core audience) have absolutely no interest in idle gossip.

That is why I was so shocked by previously reputable papers reporting on this. I guess a recession will do that for you.

Hate money?

or Clicks for Hate

Or 'fake news'!

It's not about wanting clicks, although every business needs to sell. It's a news story about business. Spotify is in the news about staff lay offs which the WSJ reported. There was massive interest in the deals when a host of celebrities were signed up. And at the head of that were Harry and Meghan. They got a lot of positive publicity for it.

Now it's gone sour and there have been comments from a named experienced man within the company, how are they not going to broadcast that. It's news and it's to do with business. People in the know are sources that don't want to be named. No newspaper in existence only reports with named sources. On a different league, i know, but how would it have been if people had dismissed Woodward and Bernsteins unnamed sources as idle gossipers.

It's nothing to do with the recession. The US actually have laws that protect journalists from having to reveal their sources. It's a reporting norm.

The interviewer asked him a question and he answered. When she said it was insane she agreed and repeated the word. Shall they never ask probing questions about items reported elsewhere?

US weekly isn’t something I would ever touch, it’s always been garbage and gossip even when it was just a print magazine. Cotton candy for the mind.

But I saw you posted a link to it, then someone said they refused to click on it, then she posted the same link suddenly after seeing the video was not actually negative. It makes the head spin how quickly people change their minds based on whether something supports their own view or not.

I think the fact that Spotify’s model was in hindsight a terrible idea is news… Harry and Meghan were more of an angle on that, not the story itself.

And the Andy Cohen thing was kind of bad manners but… she’s not an experienced podcaster and maybe she felt awkward. Forgivable opportunity to learn imo.