"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/

Literally I said from the moment the Dior story came out that it was a negative story - I was going to post the Grazia article in a thread tlking about the Dior deal but I realised that many people aren't really interested in nuance but more interested in anything which feeds into the narrative of them failing and so I didn't.

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 don’t think Meghan is going to run for the Presidency. I think Meghan wanted people to think she was a credible candidate for that kind of role. See the difference?

And it’s a provable fact that the same company that registered the domain name rights to “LilibetDiana.com” on the same day the Sussexes daughter was born (but a few days before her birth, and name was announced), had earlier in May 2018 purchased the domain name “Meghan2024.com”.

Yep DM make something up, get mileage out of it, then write articles saying she's been dropped when she hadn't been hired

Make it make sense!

I found it fascinating that people literally could not see that there was never going to be a positive outcome for Meghan with the release of that article. From the little jibes "silly little podcast" and way they described Harry (which f course led to speculations of them splitting) and if Dior denied the story, she would be denied or it was her trying to manifest by forcing their hand or if her team denied it, it could be taken as an affront by Dior for future work. There was no winning with that article.

Any way...on to the next thing.

I am no longer a fan of MM, but I have to agree with you. What interests me are the actual things said about H&M, not the press speculation.

@Serenster

Sunshine Sachs were initially engaged by the Sussexes but as far as I know, the relationship ended in 2022 when they decided to take their comms in-house.

It is a savvy move financially because they will attract publicity for their work products, and that publicity will be handled by the third parties with whom they work, along with their own in-house team.

I very much like the idea of publicity being attached to a product (Archetypes, the docu-seies, the book etc) rather than publicity for the sake of it. It makes intuitive sense.

I have no knowledge about who registered which domain names, but it is pretty clear, I think, that anyone wishing to run for president in 2024 would have declared by now. I do not think for a minute that Meghan will run for president in 2024, or any other year, and have no reason to believe that she plans to. Certainly, I have not seen a single interview, before or after she married Harry, in which she declared that she wanted to run for president.

I have however seen her work on paid parental leave, which I think is a great initiative, and one that most well-meaning people support as it's a scandal that the US is so far behind the Western world on this.

I would also love to see them do work on gun control and on the death penalty, another issue on which the US is very far behind the rest of the Western World, but for their mental health, it may be best for them not to be within touching distance of such controversial issues! Meghan caught enough flak for missing Trump's State Dinner when she was on maternity leave after having Archie, so some issues are best swerved!

Serenster ..I'd be buying those domain names too primarily to stop any idiot buying it and posting crap on a website with that name
Wise move

I've bought a particular domain name, primarily because I don't want anyone else having it when I launch my brilliant idea lol

Absolutely, the referring to their relationship was a bit of a giveaway, they're trying their best to create a narrative they're splitting because they know this puts pressure on relationships. Its god awful isn't it?

It is interesting how people seem to not understand why a high profile person would want to purchase a domain name or trademark a name.

Yes its not uncommon is it? Makes perfect sense.

The RF do it. They have trademarked hundreds of images and names and words

@Qbish

It's great to have you here. You don't have to like them at all to see how unfairly they have been made into villains.

There are moments when I have wanted to tear out my hair over some of the ham-fisted things they have done (the statement about the "near catastrophic" event in NY being one) Just one carefully chosen word would have saved it, potentially catastrophic, I screamed, potentially catastrophic! I tell you, good grammar is underrated!

But I am and will always been in their corner because nothing they have said and done justifies the vitriolic treatment they receive from the tabloid press. Nothing justifies the entire hate industry built around them by the tabloid press, YouTubers, GB News and other Royal commentators.

Harry was mocked on threads here for responding in his trial: "You will have to ask the journalists."

Words and words devoted to his admission that he did not have direct evidence in his case, but not a single person appears to have read the pages and pages of circumstantial evidence that he and other witnesses presented, or to have worked out that his case, a high stakes gamble for sure, is built on inference, and that he was essentially asking the judge to draw adverse inferences from the failure of named journalists to appear.

He was called thick, dim, thicko, drugged out, all sorts of names because people were too blinded by their dislike to see that it was a tactical answer. And the judge clearly saw that when he asked why the journalists were not testifying. If they have done nothing wrong why are they not defending themselves? Particularly Piers Morgan, who has been so mouthy on this case, despite it being sub judice, speaking everywhere but in court, where he is suddenly too shy, too cowardly or both, about taking the stand.

Harry will be vindicated, of that I am sure. As will the other complainants.

Arghhh! Have to stop or else two weeks of pent up ideas will be crammed into one long unreadable post!

Trust me, I completely understand why someone would protectively buy a domain name. 😀 As everyone says, it makes perfect sense.

What doesn’t make sense is why someone would protectively buy the domain name “Meghan2024” four days after they got a married to a Prince of the United Kingdom, with the expectation that they’ll then be a senior member of the UK Royal family. Unless….

(Also, why would you protectively buy that domain name six years in advance unless you want/want people to think you might be running some kind of campaign in 2024? Tell me again how there’s no PR involved in stories about Meghan maybe running for office, and it’s all just made up by journalists…)

@MrsMaxDeWinter But I am and will always been in their corner because nothing they have said and done justifies the vitriolic treatment they receive from the tabloid press. Nothing justifies the entire hate industry built around them by the tabloid press, YouTubers, GB News and other Royal commentators.
Yes this is a nutshell for me is why I defend them. Do people including them make mistakes? Obviously. All the time. It's the extent of the coverage and focus that I object to, it's such an overreaction. The press aren't doing it for love of monarchy either, they're just annoyed that they wouldn't stay in the institution playing their game. They are effectively being punished because if they succeed in their life away form the royal family, if they live a life of success professionally and do good charity work alongside that, it will not be good for the future of the British royal family. They need them to fail miserably in all areas otherwise what kind of message does that send to other members, either the young ones now or those to come? That you have a choice in what work you do, who you marry? That you do not have to be royal to live a life of service? Neither the royal family or the parasitic press that feeds off them, nor the public that participate, want that.

tell me again how there’s no PR involved in stories about Meghan maybe running for office, and it’s all just made up by journalists…

I will tell you again @Serenster that Meghan is not running for president in 2024.

This is a story invented by journalists.

There's no super PAC established to fundraise for Meghan.

Whatever the story about that domain name, there is no Meghan for 2024 campaign running anywhere in any corner of the United States. It's only in the "niche" media of the UK (thanks for that description, Department of Homeland Security, I will call them that from now on, I think!)

Democrats do not run against incumbent presidents.

Meghan is a Democrat.

Joe Biden is the sole candidate for the Democrats in 2024.

But I'll tell you who is running for president, and who I am excited about, not because he will win, but because, like Ralph Nader before him, he will electrify the race with ideas.

Cornell West. Look him up. He's brilliant.

To be more accurate, whoever registered lilibetdiana.com uses Domains By Proxy to keep their details private. Whoever registered meghan2024.com also uses Domains By Proxy for the same reason.

Domains By Proxy don't register domain names. They simply act as a masking service, hiding the identity of the domain owner from whois searches. They are listed as the contact for millions of domains - I don't have a current figure, but it was nearly 10M in 2014 and I'm sure the number has gone up since then.

I'm afraid your "provable fact" is wrong and doesn't prove what you think it does.

Could be a different Meghan...

I will tell you again @Serenster that Meghan is not running for president in 2024.

You must have issued my earlier post saying I didn’t think she was. I said she wanted people think she was a credible candidate - and there’s a difference. That is the PR.

For the same reasons already mentioned. There was already talk about Meghan's supposed presidential ambitions before they got married, so it's preventing the use of 'obvious' domain names by spiteful individuals.

Could be a different Meghan...

It was bought by the same buyer who bought “LilibetDiana” the day the baby was born, and well before the birth and name were announced.

Are you going to tell me that could be another Lilibet Diana? (It’s not the only relevant domain name registered to that buyer either, by the way).

Blimey, I was just suggesting.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

To be more accurate, whoever registered lilibetdiana.com uses Domains By Proxy to keep their details private. Whoever registered meghan2024.com also uses Domains By Proxy for the same reason.

Do, please, tell me how Domains by Proxy knew the name LilibetDiana on the same day the baby was born?

Thanks for this correction :)