"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/

I listened for a minute and then they quoted “a person close to the family.”

They also included a video of him answering a question paraphrasing “the honest answer to that would be yes” but didn’t include video of the question itself.

Love the Succession-like background music.

We don't need a person close to the family telling us he pitted his sons against each other.
He made them both heads of different organisations at the same time and when Lachlan left, he put out a statement that James would stand along COO Carey.

No wonder Elizabeth just packed her bags and left.

That was the question in the original interview. I am attaching it, and it's right at the beginning of the interview.

Thank goodness for the likes of Led by Donkeys/Byline/Hacked Off etc.

Marcel Proust that’s such a different standard of reporting for this when you’ve made repeated complaints about lack of named sources when it comes to anything related to H&M.

Mostly because the H&M accusation are not based on anything we see or hear, quite the opposite in fact.

I just gave you a link to what was asked of Murdock and also explained something he, himself said on a statement. Big difference.

I think it’s a weird double standard.

My own actual criticisms come right out of their interviews, books, documentary, etc. It’s all about how they have openly treated the people around them.

The rest is just discussion about articles, taken with a grain of salt. I’ve personally never criticized anyone’s career choices or performance.

AliceOlive, its a bit of a shame you didn’t watch the rest of the 10 minute video. But your dismissal of everything that has no direct source is noted. I, too, like documented sources, so often go looking for the source. There’s plenty of stuff in that 10 minute video that can be sourced quite readily.

Actually, whether he pitted his children against each other or not holds no real interest for me. It’s the interference in governments and the dangerous amount of power that affects all Americans, Australians and British people that I have issue with.

[Off topic warning: I also like the Succession music. Loved the series. Very dramatic and very funny in a very dark humoured way. It’s not about the Murdochs per se, Theb Shiv character is not supposed to be Elizabeth Murdoch - one main difference is that Elizabeth left the family long before Lachlan assumed the position of heir to Rupert’s empire. His son James has certainly shown more conscience than the character Roman. And although Kendall and Lachlan have one thing in common - failure in business at some point that I’d it as far as I know. (Lachlan lost about $ 500 million in a telecommunications deal he entered many years ago - 2001- when still young and when a 500 million loss was considered very substantial). Australia’s other media nepo baby at that time, James Packer, also lost 500 million in the deal.

Rupert himself came from money. . His dad left him his first newspaper, he had a exclusive style education, his mother was a ‘Dame.’ Unlike Logan Roy who was an orphan that came from Ireland.

Thanks for the link to the you tube video of longer documentary , MarcelProust.

@Morestrangerthings

Logan came from Scotland in the series, you don’t want to upset the Scots who may want to claim him even if he was a fictional character 😀

I will always admit I’m more interested in the dynamics on this forum than anyone we actually discuss. So I’m not defending Murdoch in anyway, I just note that Marcel is quick to dismiss any source critical of H&M but not a video like using tactics on par and worse than those she’s mentioned as not acceptable.

I loved Succession, but also recognize it to be complete political propaganda. (The Murdochs are not utterly foul-mouthed, for instance.)

I’ll read further on Murdoch than I have already, but find sources that are more than a sensationalized YouTube hit piece. (I don’t watch those when it comes to H&M, either, because the people making them seem quite nuts!)

🤣 Our household actually grieved when he died. My DH and I kept saying at random intervals, “I can’t believe he’s gone”.

I find it noteworthy that all of the people complaining about someone having a hand in shaping the narrative on this planet are also trying to shape the narrative. And everyone mad about it just thinks everyone else is too stupid to inform themselves and recognize what’s really going on.

My apologies. Absolutely right.

I will always admit I’m more interested in the dynamics on this forum than anyone we actually discuss

Yeah you didn't actually need to spell it out, its obvious.

If that’s meant to offend it’s falling flat.

I don’t feel bad about being more interested in people I’m actually interacting with online than ones with whom I’ll never come into contact.

AliceOlive

I don't post much on here anymore.
I enjoy a bit of royal gossip and I don't know anyone in RL who's the slightest bit interested, other than the occasional comment on fashions or big events like the coronation, so it's interesting to read the threads here.

But I empathise with your post I will always admit I’m more interested in the dynamics on this forum than anyone we actually discuss.

It’s the same for me. Almost no one ever mentions any of them. My own DH probably couldn’t name them other than King Charles without thinking about it.

@MrsMaxDeWinter to get back to the intention of your thread... I thought this was interesting.

*The bond with Archewell Productions is one we deeply value. Harry & Meghan launched as Netflix’s most spectacular documentary debut to date. Our exciting journey with them isn't ending anytime soon. We're currently collaborating on numerous projects, including the much-anticipated documentary series Heart of Invictus," the spokesperson told ET

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/496393/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-netflix-deal-remains-strong-amid-false-reports/

Also latest on the MGN case:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hard-evidence-widespread-unlawful-activity-150138718.html

Very happy to see some positive news for them. Will absolutely watch the Invictus Documentary and I hope the tabloid case help promotes positive change.

Top. Well done to the pair. I look forward to seeing their future productions.

They're his lawyers, though. What else are they going to say? 🤔

I did read this.
I wonder if it's going to stop the right wing media from perpetrating the lie that Netflix wants to drop them.
I doubt it will.

Sherborne went in hard about the no shows.

Piers Morgan was mentioned so many times by witnesses, I don't suppose he would have got away with lying in court this time. I do wonder how the MGN lawyer will address the subject of the absentees. Most crucially, will they even be criminally charged after this case?

Speaking of Murdock, here are some of the reasons (or should I say people) he considers himself untouchable. Took a lot of guts for those people suing to come to court.

Sherborne went in hard about the no shows.

Maybe he should have sought orders from the court compelling them to attend and give testimony, then? If he didn’t, it’s all bluster.

I think he did that on purpose.

As it's a civil case, judged on probability - hence he emphasises how much the victims had to come in re-live the trauma while the accused have not bothered to show up.

Some of them already lied on Leveson, so they could again do it, and he would probably need hard proof from years ago (maybe he does have proof or maybe not, no way to prove it either way now).

But, from the witness statements together with the previous payments from MGN, I would say the odds are stacked against the press.