"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/

@marcelproust - the “right-wing media” is rather a quaint notion, when all the original Harry&Meghan gossip comes from YouTubers, TikTok, Tattle Life etc. I have seen stuff in the Daily Mail that I saw aeons ago online. An example being then Dior story.

Is it? Why? Why is it his responsibility to get them to court? His point was that MGN didn't call them as witnesses. You would think if they're so sure it was all above board, they would actual have the people who wrote the stories in court testifying to how they did obtain the information.

Perhaps Sherborne should have got some witnesses to support Harry’s testimony, or at least a witness statement to support Harry’s testimony. I’m sure the opposing counsel will raise that issue

Why are you so focussed on Harry, when 3 others testified too, and they will all represent what will happen to 100 other litigants.
This isn't just about Harry you know... it is the whole media underhand tactics of phone tapping, hacking, blagging

I agree with your last post @Iwantcakeeveryday . Why weren't those involved put forward as witnesses. I think we know why....

Oh please, lets not pretend it isn't a major hole in their case they're defending, that they will not have the journalists who wrote the stories come to testify how they did in fact get their stories. If the entire defence is there was no illegal obtaining of information, have them come in and say how they did get it. Why would Harry need witnesses? He's not the one accused of illegal activity.

@Roussette

He was the one was was widely reported.

It’s largely gone under the radar here in ireland since his testimony and I can’t comment on the others as I don’t know them, don’t read the papers that reported the original stories. I’ve sympathised with the others plight on here but I’ve nothing of value to add.

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.

Firstly, there’s no accused in a civil claim.

Secondly, the claimant brings a claim against the defendant. But after that they have no control over the process. The defendant doesn’t has to do what you want them to. And starting a claim because you want to have a pop at someone you hope the other side will call as a witness is verging into an improper use of litigation. As I have said many times, it’s to resolve genuine disputes, not further personal vendettas.

It’s entirely up to the defendant to decide how to defend the case against them and what evidence to call. If they believe they can do that by pointing out the flaws in the claimant’s case, as seems to be the case here, they will do so.

Also, the lawyers should have warned their clients how emotionally draining litigation is, and how they shouldn’t expect that getting “their day in court” would result in seeing the defendant feeling personal chagrin. That’s not what the court process is about (you want a genuine apology - try a mediation, not a court battle).

You would think if they're so sure it was all above board, they would actual have the people who wrote the stories in court testifying to how they did obtain the information.

Not how litigation works, I’m afraid. The defendant will figure out the best way of defending the claims against them and put that forward. They are defending each individual claim made against them, not their conduct generally. If Piers Morgan had no personal involvement in any of the stories relied on by the claimants, his evidence is irrelevant.

Why would Harry need witnesses? He's not the one accused of illegal activity.

He’s the one who’s brought the claim though. Primary rule of litigation: you bring the claim, it’s your job to prove it.

Secondly, the claimant brings a claim against the defendant. But after that they have no control over the process. The defendant doesn’t has to do what you want them to.

I think we can all understand this, no need to be patronising.

And starting a claim because you want to have a pop at someone you hope the other side will call as a witness is verging into an improper use of litigation. As I have said many times, it’s to resolve genuine disputes, not further personal vendettas.

What is this in reference to? Why would you think any of the claimants have started a case for his purpose? Its Morgan who has the sick and fucked yup vendetta here, not Harry.

It’s entirely up to the defendant to decide how to defend the case against them and what evidence to call. If they believe they can do that by pointing out the flaws in the claimant’s case, as seems to be the case here, they will do so.

We know that too. Obviously, Sherborne and quite a few people giving opinions on the case, think it is a major problem they haven't been willing, or able, to bring in the authors of each article to refute the allegations and accusations about their articles. To not bring in Morgan who has been mentioned and so involved in these cases, leaves a major question mark over their defence in the eyes of many. We know the judge thought Morgan should have been called.

Also, the lawyers should have warned their clients how emotionally draining litigation is, and how they shouldn’t expect that getting “their day in court” would result in seeing the defendant feeling personal chagrin. That’s not what the court process is about (you want a genuine apology - try a mediation, not a court battle).

I am sure they were warned, and adult enough to know it would be draining. I don't see why you have an issue with their lawyer mentioning what they've had to go through.

The defendant will figure out the best way of defending the claims against them and put that forward.

We also get this. But its a valid point to make that if their main defence is, it was all acquired legally, they would have the writers in to say how they obtained it. I am not sure why this is a point being debated. The judge queried why Morgan wasn't there too.

Thank you from saving me from typing a long post. You just said exactly what I was about to say, but maybe more eloquently and clear than I would have.

@Iwantcakeeveryday

The ‘bug’ under the car would have been compelling if anyone else could have provided testimony to support it. Something like that should have been a home run.
Chelsy, friends, his security.

Perhaps Harry should have joined Piers Morgan to the paper in his claim if they thought he was the ringleader ? Could they not have done this ?

I think we can all understand this, no need to be patronising.

Your posts don’t suggest that you do, though. If you don’t know that you don’t call the defendant the accused, I’m not sure why you’re huffy when someone who does know how things work explains them.

There’s a lot of posts on this thread with people pointing out that things that they believe should have happened haven’t happened. Most of them are way off base. I’m just trying to be helpful.

Litigation is basically an experience of you don’t always get what you want. The claimants may well have been hoping that Piers Morgan would be a witness. But the defendant hasn’t called him, and the claimants for whatever reason decided not to make an application to compel him to appear. They have done so with other witnesses successfully in this case, so it’s not like it’s an oversight - it was their choice. It’s a bit ridiculous then complaining that he’s not given evidence. If they wanted, they could have done something about it.

Could they not have done this ?

No. The paper was run by a company, and it’s the company that is legally liable for its activities.

So you are saying they cut and paste blind gossip.

As for right wing media - well I do like the Americans calling them 'niche'.
All in all, I was referring to the narrative that Harry and Meghan have failed and will be dropped by Netflix.

And there's no denying the bias in saying that Spotify dropped them and then wrongly attributing randoms as saying Spotify was not happy with a no1 podcast and did not pay the Sussexes, when Spotify never said any such thing. Also the bias of not reporting clearly that Netflix already dropped around 200 employees from podcasts - an indicator that they are re-evaluating that wing of their business.

@Serenster

Thanks as ever for the legal advice.

It was me who referred to Victims and accused.
I think everyone else, except you, seemed to know who I was referring too.

People come on here and hardly refer to 'The Duke and Duchess of Essex', but everyone know who H&M are, unless you have not read the thread. No need to be obtuse.

We aren't in a courtroom, theres no need to correct every little word someone says. We all know what @Roussette meant when she said accused, they are being accused of something! Maybe it makes you feel superior to point out every little meaningless error, but it does come across as patronising and rude.

There’s a lot of posts on this thread with people pointing out that things that they believe should have happened haven’t happened.

Yes that's what happens on a forum, and in life. Lots of people have opinions on the legal system and what frustrates them. I don't find your posts that helpful, but maybe someone else does.

It’s a bit ridiculous then complaining that he’s not given evidence. If they wanted, they could have done something about it.

Its not though is it. It's a point lots of people including the judge has mentioned. So not ridiculous if the judge on the case points it out too!

@Serenster

I find your knowledge helpful and your corrections useful. Please continue

At any rate, from what I read, the judge was questioning why Morgan wasn’t there as he has plenty to say publicly about phone hacking.

We’ve been told on one of these threads that any mild criticism from a judge is to be taken very seriously.

How many times does it have to be said, the case is not just about Harry?

@Roussette

Surely they should all try to put their best case forward to help themselves and the others.

Course you do!
Just out of interest do you want the case to be won? This case that is not just about Harry that is... the other litigants who have been put through the mill and their lives affected so much by this, I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

As for being corrected on posts, I'm used to it. If it was anyone who was a Harry detractor, I doubt it would be mentioned.