"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/

You know he's black don't you?

No is he? I had no idea - that changes everything.

To borrow a term from black americans "skinfolk ain't always kinfolk".

Can't believe anyone would disrespect Sir Trevor Phillips, and disregard his opinion just because he sees the (obvious) shortcomings of H&M.

But I suppose that's fandom, not reason....

My point exactly.

That's really unfortunate. I think you and everyone else should post freely, Samcro.

We've been asked by MNHQ to report posts that we feel break talk guidelines rather than addressing them in the thread. It's not up to any poster to decide who can post and what they can say. Typically when they do this, the posts are removed.

Why mention Windrush not six times actually. Fourteen. Talk about Windrush, do, it needs talking about. But to drag H&M into this is wrong. In my opinion

Maybe drag Braverman into it instead as she is responsible in ditching some of the promises made to the Windrush people. Not H&M.

Absolutely, it is horribly shameful and we aren't the only poc talking about this today. He's dragged them into an issue that he should not have, for clicks. It's gross and offensive. It is not the first time he has done this type of thing ror been criticised for his views on race in this country. he's alright so everyone else must be. Many of his views are deeply offensive to many poc, something he is well aware of by now.

But there are people who think they have wasted a grand opportunity and who aren’t at all racist. And they are not denying that the press made intolerable remarks about MM either.

There are those who think there are inconsistencies with various accounts. Recollections may vary and all that jazz. There are those who believe everything.

The press don’t speak for everyone either when they speak negatively about H&M. . It is also suggested that Britain is a racist country.

Both sides of the argument are guilty of using sweeping statements by saying ‘everyone’ or ‘no-one’ etc.

Are there people who are racist? Absolutely. But as a country? I don’t think so.

Just because he didn’t agree with their recollection of events doesn’t mean he denies racism. His opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s. We’ve already seen just how differently his views have been interpreted on here.

As an aside, ‘Och it’s a (pure) sin’ is used in my area a lot about all sorts of happenings. I remember my school fringe which was an absolute abomination (inch long/squint) and hearing ‘Och, who did that to the poor bairn? It’s a pure sin so it is’.

I appreciate it may seem over the top or emotive for some. For others? It is merely a way to express something. It may be just that for him. He may think it is the more serious version of it. Unless any of us are told from him how he meant it, then no one knows.

And @Samcro - I hope you will post if you have something to say. Your posts often make me consider things from a different perspective.
Some may think wandering conversations are derailing. I’m not sure they always are.

I think it is only derailing if folk shove something into a conversation to negatively discuss others or bring up nasty rumours in order to deflect or distract from views that they find unpalatable.

Conversations ramble. As long as it is respectful and is pertinent to people mentioned in the thread title, I can’t see how it would cause upset.

Well in our case - and probably most cases - we get final approval of questions plus answers, before anything is released.

And although the podcast came out fine, questions and all, we didn't approve the article that was written to go with the podcast, and the PR firm were unable to improve it. Since podcast plus article came as a pair, the whole thing was scrapped.

But, to answer your question, yes it would be a risk but you make sure you get final approval.

thanks seen it now and get it at last.

Are there people who are racist? Absolutely. But as a country? I don’t think so.

I suggest you read this.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/01/uk-discrimination-against-people-african-descent-structural-institutional

Just because he didn’t agree with their recollection of events doesn’t mean he denies racism. His opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s.

He is though, because there was absolutely racism against her. People have been imprisoned for it. the Neo nazi who threatened Harry and called him a race traitor for one. There were headlines, a BBC dj referring to their son as a chimp, plenty of online racism that Harry has spoken of since the very early days. His opinion isn't valid as far as I am concerned and I am allowed to dismiss any opinion that I think is without merit. People are entitled to hold opinions, it doesn't make them all valid.

Just because he didn’t agree with their recollection of events doesn’t mean he denies racism. His opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s.

His views in the article were used to justify H&M and the UK being "not racist" in the title.

Now - going back to the point of the thread - H&M have absolutely no place in a conversation about Windrush nor do they have a place in a title to declare that the UK is not "NOT RACIST" using a black man as cover. (We can disagree as to whether the UK is actually racist - but that's a derail). They have nothing to do with it. Zip. And yet there they are being brought up again - hence making the news on Windrush75 about them. The pictures are mostly of them. It's disgusting - and that you don't get why I brought it up is the issue. Why insert them into Windrush75? What do they have to do with it?

Trevor Phillips was on a Commission that issued a report denying institutional racism in the UK, so his views will not be surprising to many people of colour who have lived with and experienced the sort of racism he frequently denies.

Just as you have conservative white people, you have conservative black people.

He is very much an establishment conservative, and his views reflect his worldview.

What is embarrassing is that the Daily Mail chose to headline his interview on the 75th anniversary of the Windrush as being about Meghan and Harry, complete with six pictures of her, and just one of the Windrush.

The Guardian is having a really great series on Windrush75 if anyone is invested.

The DM story is the kind of tabloid coverage I am talking about in this thread. Here it's quite extreme because a serious national conversation covering 75 years of history, a conversation that remains current given the recent Windrush scandal, is reduced to a headline about Meghan. It is agenda pushing, and quite deliberate.

As for what Meghan did being "unforgivable" and a "sin", the day Trevor Phillips uses those words about politicians in charge of government policy, and not about someone who talked of her experiences, is the day I take him seriously. Until then, he's just another establishment conservative.

My experience with Mumsnet generally is that this is not the best website to discuss the nuance of race and racism, so I will limit my comments to just this.

hey have nothing to do with it. Zip. And yet there they are being brought up again - hence making the news on Windrush75 about them. The pictures are mostly of them. It's disgusting - and that you don't get why I brought it up is the issue. Why insert them into Windrush75? What do they have to do with it?
Thank you @skullbabe you nailed it. This is what the press do, its clickbait, and it is wrong to do.

The reason I posted the article is because H&M have absolutely nothing to do with Windrush. They have been inserted into an article about something which is incredibly important to many black people of carribean descent in this country which has now had the consequence of taking away the rightful focus on the victims of the British state and onto H&M. Hence creating news.

He mentioned them but briefly.

He didn’t make his views on Windrush all about them. The Press did that.

That is the issue. And what I believed the thread to be about.

Thanks for expressing what I'm trying to say better than I could.

Good to see we are singing from the same hymn sheet - my issue indeed is the article and its premise.

People are entitled to hold opinions, it doesn't make them all valid

Quite.

@skullbabe

You expressed it very well. I am just wordier! These are the kind of stories I am hoping to highlight in this thread.

This is actually the worst example of what I call "Meghan shoe horning" I have seen.

There was another race related one that sticks in my mind, when it was breathlessly reported that Kate's ancestor (who was actually a great somethingth aunt) wrote letters that led to the freeing of an enslaved ancestor of Meghan's on her mother's side.

Kate's ancestor freed Meghan's ancestor from slavery, don't you know.

It's honestly the funniest attempt at white saviour narrative I have seen, and that's saying a lot.

i for the life of me can’t see why someone would mention H&M into a interview about windrush
meghan did suffer racism
it’s a fact

My post got deleted? The thought police are in force here I see.

Great post, and totally agree. I think it's really important to be aware of where our attention is being channelled. It's such obvious scapegoating when you look at the reality of the way the Windrush generation were treated - that was sinful and unforgivable.