"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/

Then you also have to take the criticism when you can’t live up to the huge deal you signed.You can’t have it both ways. As a prince Harry was protected from this but now he’s not.

I’m not sure where they have complained about the criticism about their deal.

Who called them frauds and shysters? I missed that

these are synonyms for grifters.

There could be some sour grapes from a few who had to work extremely hard producing daily content for Spotify, but that is not Harry and Meghan's problem.

Their name alone is the pulling power, Spotify would have seen the spike in listenership when Archetypes came out, because some people did not even register with them and they would have later discovered other podcasts along the way.

*Do understand, I am not trying to base Spotify success sorely on H&M. No doubt the likes of Taylor/Justin/Harry S/ Beyonce would have pulled audiences ages ago, and on the podcast front the Obamas would have pulled their own audience. But I am saying H&M would have also pulled another large audience, as witnessed in how popular her show was.

I also note that in the original report, Spotify themselves have not complained about Archetypes and the podcast itself. Someone who has to do more content for the money seems to have done. Spotify also did not say they fired H&M. After letting go over 200 people, they are doing their own reevaluations.

Gosh, how sinister was that?

Camilla Tominey outright called them workshy. I mean of all people.

No one expects them to. @sashagabadon wasn't expecting them to. They were saying if you take $20m and agree to produce a certain amount of content, then that's what you have to do. You can't expect that you would get a soft ride and would be given much more grace and space to succeed.
If you feel you'll require that because you don't know what you're doing, don't take the $20m and make promises you can't keep.

I guess when they get sacked for not doing enough work and are labelled grifters, it's not a huge leap for others to call them workshy.

So they weren't called frauds, shysters and grifters. They were just called grifters.

I mean, considering you seem quite supportive if them, I don't understand why you're making out they're being called names they're not.

She said it before the Spotify deal was announced - which once more was not reported as them not doing enough by Spotify themselves.

you take $20m and agree to produce a certain amount of content

Fantastic - what were the exact terms? How much content? What were the deliverables? Again - you cannot blame the people for how much people are willing to invest in them - investing in a product is always a gamble.

I don't take a blind bit of notice anything Tominey says. She lied on This morning in an interview about Meghan.

And she said she had had death threats because of her criticism of H&M. She showed an email which was threatening her children. Yahoo then confirmed that no such email address existed... it was 'fuckyou@yahoo etc'. The email address was typed into the contact form on her website.

She makes money off the back of hate for H&M. Horrible woman. Along with Angela Levin, Piers Morgan, Dan Wootton et al

This sounds like a narrative that is being driven, because no where do I also see Spotify complaining that they did not fulfil their contractual obligations - surely they would have taken them to court if that was the case.

I mean, considering you seem quite supportive if them, I don't understand why you're making out they're being called names they're not.

The PP was talking about how they’ve been branded. I don’t disagree with her assessment. Using synonyms for terms is reasonable - I would hardly object if someone described a champion as a winner, gold medalist or titleholder and wouldn’t think that if someone hadn’t been described using the alternate terms that I was calling them names. But to each their own.

Oh yes, I remember that.

Her lies. Meghan made Kate cry. Archie loves reading - but he is too young to read. On and on.

I remember her saying she was threatened by H&M supporters, despite the email said nothing about the Sussexes - in fact, they are the ones who reported the threat to the Met police. In fact, she is constantly smearing immigrants / muslims etc. So anyone could have threatened her.

You can blame the Press - in particular the British Press - all you like, but I read all the stuff about Spotify, and the leaks about Harry’s suggestion of interviewing the Pope and Putin (!!!!!) AGES ago on US gossip sites.

You can muzzle the Press - nay, close every newspaper down - but how are you going to suppress social media?

But on this death threat she talked about, blaming fans of H&M, no one did threaten her. How fucked up do you have to be to make up a death threat to score points.

Yahoo Customer Care@YahooCare
Hello there. Further investigation shows that he account in question does not exist in out system. As per our terms of service such accounts cannot be created.
2:03 PM · Jun 23, 2021

Morning all. I am finding it interesting the ongoing commentary about the Spotify deal, there's more talk about it than the fact Spotify itself is struggling to make money, something Simmons himself is head of. Theres lots of other podcasts and podcasters who won't remain with them, and many of them including Harry had an issue months ago with Spotify because of the Rogan controversy, there were a few stories at the time bit not a lot of focus on it. I also find it interesting the narrative is that Spotify dropped them, when its entirely possible neither side wanted to carry on. Meghan said in her last podcast she wanted it to take it to other platforms didn't she? So there were indications some time ago this wasn't going to last. Which with Spotify, does;t seem to be unusual. Instead of Spotify being under the spotlight for it, Meghan and Harry are. There are a lot of people talking about celebrity podcasts in general. Many of them, understandably, resent the fact 'celebrities' without the relevant experience and training, are getting deals they feel they should have. A similar thing happened when reality tv became popular and actors were quite snooty about it, now many actually appear in reality tv.
I think critiquing what they're doing is fine, but once again it's disproportionate, and largely being done by people who want them to fail and would never give them any credit anyway.

https://www.laineygossip.com/prince-harry-podcast-pitches-bad-ideas-are-not-uncommon-but-how-pivot-into-good-ones-putin-trump-zuckerberg/74308

Laineygossip is a dedicated H&M fan so you might as well be linking to SussexSquad.

So, do Fans think Archetypes was great? We’re you looking forward (in unironic appreciation) to Harry’s interviews with Very Famous People?

I think if Murdochs; various outlets ca be linked and relied on for entire threads then you should probably be a bit more open minded to this one. It's also a lot more balanced than you're thinking.

Like the link says, plenty of creative people go through bad ideas, it's part of the creative process.

I'm not a 'fan; either. I rarely talk about Meghan's work or what they do... I typically just defend against the tide of overwhelming negativity beacsue I think the world would be a better place without so much of it.

So, do Fans think Archetypes was great? We’re you looking forward (in unironic appreciation) to Harry’s interviews with Very Famous People?

We really need an opposite word to 'Fans' don't we....

I picked and chose which Archetypes I listened to, depending on what interest the guest was to me. I heard 4 or 5. I think Meghan did well with what I heard. I was criticised on MN for not listening to them all, because I would've done if she wasn't such rubbish, and the fact I only heard 5 meant she was
(If you were to see my Podcasts on my phone you would understand, I subscribe to soooo many and listen to all sorts)

I have no idea on the Harry nonsense, it sounds just that... nonsense. Unless you can link to something that verifies it? Everything I look at says 'reportedly' and 'a source'. I take it with a pinch of salt. I think Putin is a little busy at the moment....

I’m someone who listened to Archetypes - you can go back and see I had some criticisms of the podcast as someone who listens to quite a few different podcasts. I thought it was a good podcast that needed some refining which I anticipated would have been worked out by the next season.

I’ve also said on another thread that many people are aware of how defensive Harry is when it comes to Meghan. Trump said “I didn’t know she was nasty” when told about her comments about his rise to power in 2016 followed by some nice comments about how she was representing the US well. Knowing this and Meghan’s very obvious left leaning and dislike of him - how likely would Harry seriously float interviewing him?

Think back to when they signed their deal - the future was uncertain in terms of lockdowns, we’d just started the Covid vaccines, January 6th hadn’t happened yet, Putin was not really accepted on the world stage but was not the absolute pariah he is in the West.

Again - it is highly unlikely that Harry, no matter how stupid and entitled you think he is, would seriously float interviewing Vladimir Putin simply for the serious geopolitical consequences doing something like that would be. But again - the narrative is just that isn’t it - Harry is a bit dim and self important and therefore this would fit in with this idea.

And she said she had had death threats because of her criticism of H&M. She showed an email which was threatening her children. Yahoo then confirmed that no such email address existed... it was 'fuckyou@yahoo etc'. The email address was typed into the contact form on her website.

I’m not aware of this incident, just trying to understand what’s been posted. So someone sent her a threat via a contact form on her website, which once sent goes directly to her. And when asked for their own email address, the sender entered a made up one?

So, she still received the threat, but the sender gave fake contact details. Isn’t that the same as being sent an anonymous threat through the post, then? The threat still exists, you just don’t know who sent it?