"They don't just report the news, they create it": on Meghan, Harry and the Press

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

The much trumpeted story of the Dior deal is such a classic tabloid creation, isn't it.

I enjoyed this Grazia article that lays bare the utter nuttiness.

First the tabloids report the rumours as though they are true.

"Meghan to sign with Dior!"

No sources, just speculation based on Meghan and Harry wearing clothes by Dior a handful of times.

Then when both the Sussexes and Dior report that the rumours are not true, (Dior spokesperson said they are "nonplussed" about where the rumours came from) they spin it into "Meghan Rebuffed by Dior!"

This has also happened with Meghan's much rumoured run for the presidency: Robert Jobson actually wrote, with a straight face, in his book published in April 2023, that she was absolutely, certainly and most definitely going to run for president in 2024.

I mean any critical person would realise that the timelines don't make sense, she would have needed a fundraising Super PAC by the time the book was published, and in any event, Democrats don't normally challenge a sitting president ... but hey ho, Meghan is running for president in 2024 because a "Royal Correspondent" said so (and they are so knowledgeable about the American presidency) and a tabloid published it.

And it's the same with The Tig. She is going to launch it any day now. She wants to rival Gwyneth Paltrow! Story after story, based on nothing but speculation.

Rumour after rumour, speculation published as "news" to create media stories about a woman whose plans are not known to the tabloids because she and her husband made it crystal clear even when they were in the UK that they don't engage with the tabloid press.

And there are no "palace sources" who can speak with any kind of plausibility about the Sussexes, so the tabloids make it up as they go along, whipping up headline after headline, driving their readers into a frenzy over things they create ...

While ignoring the important news, like the damning questions by the judge in the Mirror Group case, who asked why the journalists, among them Piers Morgan, have not come to court to testify in the phone hacking trial ...

Oh no, that's not as important to report on as Meghan's fictitious Dior deal, completely implausible rumours of her presidential ambitions, and the speculated upon plans to best Gwyneth Paltrow!

https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/meghan-markle-smear-campaign-dior-spotify-faking-interviews/

Absolutely and it's bizarre why people choose not to see it

It makes them feel good to say that she failed in their imagined storylines.

I recall how the Dior rumour started, when GMB were reporting on Harry's appearance here in the UK and was wearing the brand, which then tweeted it. Suzanna or someone said, "oooh, I wonder if he could be their brand ambassador", something along those lines. Now it's a front page story.

The presidency one. Meghan and her suites colleagues where once asked who would most likely be president in the cast, they all said Meghan.

For The Tig , I think that's based on some story of her being spotted at the same restaurant as Gwyneth and Cameron Diaz - though I did not read they were all dining together. Her fans would like to see it back though.

The WSJ article claimed that 'those in the know' say Meghan is unlikely to be paid for further Spotify episodes. Next thing I know, I see piss soaked TalkTV stating as fact that she was not paid. Dispute the fact that no one knows details of the deal.

Yes, but the main angle is to see her fail on things that she never said or applied for.

It will be interesting when someone looks back at this in about 30 years time, what was basically "Meghan hysteria". Much like Diana hysteria, when she died and the (guilty) Press cleverly turned the heat away from them to the Queen. People fell for it. They always do.

The main angle is to see her fail on things that she never said or applied for.

This is such a great summing up of this madness @MarcelProust

And Meghan Hysteria is exactly what it is @Jemandthehologramsunite

Thank you for starting this. Its not really new, this behaviour form the british press but they're more focused on this couple than anyone else I can remember. It is pretty classic, start a rumour, pretend it was leaked form her camp, wait for those involved to deny and then laugh and mock her for being rejected. Its a cruel and very public form of bullying that continues despite very little public activity from her. They're clearly trying to ruin any attempt she makes to create a good career for herself. Making her so controversial, without her doing anything, that nobody will go near her. Its really sinister and the ferocity with which they're trying to destroy her is something I just haven't seem on this scale. Perhaps the fact social media copies this kind of behaviour now is why it's so intense. Its disturbing to watch the glee and anticipation total strangers have at the thought of something bad happening to them. Interesting that Prince Michael of Kent's staff lobbied to get a Putin advisor a visa isn't making bigger news, or being discussed by anyone here incensed by Harrys visa! Those kinds of stories are in the public interest, so is the Monarchs exemption from 160 laws! But they're rarely discussed. Instead we get silly rumours turned into huge stories that have no bearing at all on our lives.

Welcome back. Was shocked at your departure as you are always honest, open and transparent. Never rude or nasty. You are correct. The Piers Morgan comments have been largely ignored as has the apology to Harry from Alice O'Connell, former editor of New Zealand Women's Weekly. AO'C interview is incredibly honest and worth a read..(sorry can't post link from this device). Keep up the good work.

yeah absolutely! Both the press and the public were awful to and about Diana and then when she died because of their sick level of interest in her, they lined the streets in mourning, to the extent those poor boys had to be seen by the grieving public. It was actually disturbing to watch the level of grief by people that participated in what happened to her. That's the thing really, the press is awful, but who is buying their shit?

I suspect their PR has a fair amount to do with it, most articles are smattered with quotes from them and saying how x (whatever the article is about) fits in with their plans for her career. Harry and Meghan might not as a couple directly speak to the tabloids, but very naieve to think no one associated with them does for their own gain. A lot of the articles aren't negative to begin with but the rebuttals are written with glee by the tabloids, its a very bizarre game. The same happens with the Royals, there are spates of negative articles that are then counteracted with some saccharine article about how amazing they are.

To be honest though I can't feel much empathy for people that have happily made money from talking about others (lots of which have proven to be lies) being spoken about themselves. Its bizarre people are that bothered though, neither her nor Harry have any real talents, even passion projects such as invictus were thrown under the bus in the pursuit for revenge- what do they have to offer really beyond hoping to remain relevant to secure deals which being in the media does? The Kardashians use a similar process, they don't care what's said about them as long as it gets them column inches, they know things pass but as long as their name is out there they can try and capitalise on it.

oh yes, I got it wrong the other day and thought it was the Australian women weekly. Would be good to share he interview here.

Here's the article by Alice O'Connell

I published some stories that were unfair and incredibly one-sided – and can now see were from sources who weren’t telling the truth. My biggest mistake though, was that I stopped seeing Harry as a human being.
Kindness is something I’ve prided myself on for a long time. The Weekly was always seen as the “kinder” magazine in its peer group (it was up against the likes of Woman’s Day, New Idea and NW) and when I got the job as editor it was something I was determined to carve out even further. I was determined there’d be no salacious and overly gossipy stories and it would instead focus on the good, particularly when it came to everyday hard-working Kiwis.
But, on reflection, it wasn’t all that kind. I wasn’t kind. I wasn’t kind to Prince Harry, and I certainly wasn’t kind to his wife, Meghan Markle.

https://capsulenz.com/think/prince-harry-apology/

I found the article Harry based, with Meghan mentioned in the end. I wonder when this editor decided that Harry was not human - not when he married Meghan by any chance.

Thank you for posting Alice O'Connell's apology @Iwantcakeeveryday I will get into it later in the day but just wanted to quickly respond to this observation from @Dinobore

I suspect their PR has a fair amount to do with it, most articles are smattered with quotes from them and saying how x (whatever the article is about) fits in with their plans for her career.

No they are not, there are no quotes from Harry and Meghan "smattered" through these fictitious stories. Meghan's "career" has been made up by the press, with much misreporting. She is not talking to tabloids, nor are "sources" close to her. harry is suing almost all teh tabloids, it's absurd you think that they are smattering them with quotes when it is very clear that they talk through their infrequent press releases, and always on the record.

They are not playing the unnamed sources game, because they have seen first hand how it has been used to disadvantage them. I don't believe a single story about them that does not come directly from them.

Thank you all for the warm welcome back ... I will be dipping in and out, because I am writing at the moment. Also, I have had some very frank and welcome conversations with @MNHQ in the background about the nature of the debate on this forum, and I have also introspected about my own participation in these threads.

I will try very hard to add light and not heat, which means that I will not be engaging in tit for tat posting, no matter the provocation. If we are to keep the threads rational and constructive, I urge all like-minded people to do the same, and above all, let's stick to the Talk Guidelines.

I also have the distinct impression that @MNHQ is keeping a much closer watch on the Royal threads, and that is a welcome development. Any problematic posts should be reported, not responded to: that was the mistake that got me suspended, and one I will not make again!

Onwards and upwards!

It’s always based on a small nugget of truth, so they hear something or infer something and completely blow it up. But hardly ever do you get the ‘real’ story and probably never will - H&M and Dior would never talk about any discussions they had, if any. It could honestly be as simple as Meghan being added to a longlist of potential influencers to contact. And next thing it’s in the news that she’s their next muse!

@MrsMaxDeWinter I so agree with your last post and thank you for the advice and direction.

Another section from Alice O'Connell's apology:

Having read the sections in Spare where Harry talks about the lies and spin put out by communications teams from other royal houses (we’re talking about those of King Charles and Queen Camilla, plus the Prince and Princess of Wales here), I can think of several stories that it makes sense about. For one, I can remember the talk about a rift occurring between ‘the fab four’ (that was Prince William, his wife Kate, Prince Harry & Meghan), and the hoo-ha about Meghan Markle supposedly making Kate cry before her wedding to Harry over bridesmaids dresses. We printed that story, when yes, in fact, it was the opposite scenario that took place.
Yes, we had official sources, but those sources were telling a different version of events to protect their own royals, or were deflecting and creating entirely false stories to bury other stories (negative stories, but true stories) that might come out about the royals they were responsible for.

So is she admitting their sources were comms team for William and Kate here?

I didn't say they were quoted, the PR manager whatever his name is has been in a few and he hasn't released anything to say what he said was fictitious. I think fair play to them personally, their PR company is apparently one of the best and I'm sure they know what they are doing.

As far as I am aware, @Dinobore they have no "PR manager", but have a communications secretary, Ashley Hansen, who is a woman, not a man. They also share the same agency, WME. Harry is represented by the agency WME for his book, and Meghan recently signed with them for various projects.

SPARE aside, WME has not announced any new deals. The only thing that I have seen is a statement from WME that was made on the record to the WSJ, on the cancellation of the Spotify deal and saying that there is interest in placing Archetypes elsewhere.

"The team behind Archetypes remain proud of the podcast they created at Spotify. Meghan is continuing to develop more content for the Archetypes audience on another platform,"a representative from Meghan's talent agency, William Morris Endeavor (WME) said.

This is what I mean when I say when they speak, they go on the record, with no "unnamed sources". So I am not sure who this "PR manager" is who you refer to but I am happy to be educated.

Thank you for this thread @MrsMaxDeWinter

I need to read the posts through properly, as I have only skim read

One thing that leapt out @Dinobore re Imvictus.
You are saying Harry has dumped them, or thrown them under the bus, is that correct, I thought he was working on a documentary or prog about them

"Prince Harry would executive produce the series and appear on camera. The funding from the documentary series would go to the Invictus Games Foundation, and their work supporting international wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans"

He was fully committed as of a few months ago, have I missed something?

@Roussette no you haven't missed anything, Harry is still actively involved with Invictus. he was recently present at the Warrior Games- which was what inspired him in 2013 to start Invictus:

https://twitter.com/warriorgames/status/1668667203997118488

I think a lot of the stuff in the media is made up, people like to pretend its journalism, but you only have to look at how many threads that are lifted off mn.

I hate the fact that if H&M don't sue over a story, posters say it must be true, victim blaming IMO.

I don't believe a single story about them that does not come directly from them.

Ditto. Me also. I am sick to death of the 25 articles a day about them quoting 'a source.'
Unless they have put out a statement themselves which they do infrequently, I treat these articles with disdain. As opposed to glee that something might be wrong with their lives because it's all just bunkum! There is far too much pulling them apart for no reason, and that's not just their behaviour. I have been appalled at the extent of posts about Meghan's appearance. Every bit of her. I want to elevate women on a Mums site. Not disparage, mock and insult them.

Wise words from you @MrsMaxDeWinter on how to handle differing views on this thread. More than happy to discuss. Not happy with personal comments which I will ignore.

@Samcro yes so agree. How unfair is it to demand H&M sue for every lie told about them? No one else gets 30 articles a day peppered with lies and quotes from 'sources' who don't exist.

@Roussette look at what happens when they do sue. H is ripped apart for quite righty not wanting to be hacked.

Lets not forget tabloids have claimed 'sources' when they were hacking or bugging people too. So the idea that what we read by them has got to have some truth to it, is frankly nonsensical.

I see the lying cheating Boris has a job with Daily Fail, and that he has given a knighthood to Tory Ben Elliot, camilla's nephew who was accused of accepting cash for access to his Uncle
https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-party-conference-2021-tory-co-chair-ben-elliot-refuses-to-answer-questions-over-cash-for-access-to-prince-charles-12426215

And it Is important to emphasise that contrary to popular belief, WME is not a "PR company". They are agents, and sell work products on behalf of their clients, books, film and TV projects, music, and for athletes, endorsements etc. They are paid only when they place work for their clients with third parties.

The US rate for literary, sports and artistic agencies is 20 to 25 per cent of any deal. It used to be 15 per cent in the UK but in the last few years, it has reached US levels for the very top agencies.

So if a book, for example sells for 100 000, the agency will get about 20 000. So there is an incentive for them to place work for their clients with third parties. Things like puff pieces, etc are not done by agents, but by publicists, working for the third parties to whom the work is sold, as publicity will be part of any deal.

So Harry's interviews etc would have been set up by Penguin Random House as the publisher as there will have been a publicity clause in the contract negotiated on his behalf by his agent at WME.

You are most likely to only hear from WME in the trade papers like Variety, Publisher's Weekly, and in the UK, the Bookseller for books.

Thank you again @MrsMaxDeWinter it is so good to have you here with your informative posts!