"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/

Well... there's 100 who aren't, who are relying on this test case. I presume you are saying Harry fucked up. I think he did a good job, as did the other three.

@Roussette

As a child I loved Matlock, so that’s my background in Law 🤣

I’ve only done contract and tax law professionally so not much use here

i often find law frustrating as the gap between moral and legal codes is sometimes so wide so appreciate a cool headed legal boffin providing an accurate understanding

But in my own experiences and from reading drink driving cases etc lawyers have to correct every tiny thing to stop cases being thrown out on ‘technicalities’ which frustrate me beyond belief so I understand the corrections

Me too

I appreciate the clarification, also. I was starting to wonder if terminology and burden of proof were completely different in UK civil cases.

I agree it's helpful to have some legal explanation but tone is important. Also being mindful that we're discussing things on here as laypeople and while the correct terminology is useful it's not always appropriate or necessary to correct a poster who is using language more informally when we all know what they mean.

Surely we’re much better trying to use the terminology that the legal teams are using rather than the incorrect ones. Mixing up criminal and civil case terms is important as they are incredibly different

What does it flippin' matter if everyone gets what you mean,?
It just interrupts the flow of discussion and is irritating.

I am quite ok with something being corrected if it's blatantly wrong but if it's just to pull someone up for the sake of it, when everyone knows that, for instance the MNG is 'the accused', I'm not!!

This exactly. I think most reasonable people can understand what you've said here.

Everyone knows Harry and therefore the others are going to win. The judge won't rule against him. There must have been stronger cases than Harry's in that 100 so Sherborne stuck his in there for a reason.

Publicity and awareness of the case maybe?
MGN would've tried to bury it no doubt

I am not certain they'll win on all claims, but I do hope they win some of them so all the claimants can get justice. After watching so many of the top dogs get away without being punished before, I do not have much faith in the people actually responsible truly being held to account. I do think every one of the claimants is brave for taking them on and going through so much personal stuff once again. Well done to them for even trying.

I agree it's helpful to have some legal explanation but tone is important.

Might i point out that that that also goes for calling posters rude and patronising? Not exactly setting a friendly tone there…

A little difficult to argue that was what set the tone when it was clearly a response to being patronised in the first place. But I don't want to get into a back and forth with you, if you feel your tone isn't patronising there's not much chance you'll listen to anyone who feels otherwise.

Hello, all. Please refrain from personal attacks - report posts directly to us if you feel they break our Talk Guidelines. If posts continue to break the Guidelines then we have no choice but to remove threads. Thanks.

I can see how publicity and awareness benefits David Sherborne's reputation but it's not going to make any difference to the judge. Surely putting your four claimants with the clearest evidence is most likely to win the case which is what they all want. Why jeopardise the others' cases by linking them to a weaker one?
Either Sherborne doesn't care and is putting himself first which I suppose is quite plausible. Or he knows that judge is going to bend over backwards to see Harry wins so he might as well use it to his personal advantage.
Did anyone really go into this thinking H was going to lose? He didn't even think he had to follow instructions to be present on the first day.

"The case" does not exist. This is a series of independent cases that are being heard at the same time for efficiency of administration. They will each be decided on their own merits. No claimant can jeopardise another's case by having a weak case.

David Sherborne did not decide which claimants would be the representative cases. The judge chose a selection. He chose Harry's case because Harry made it clear that he was not going to settle, and if it was going to go to trial anyway it might as well be done now. The rest were chosen because their cases are a representative sample of the various issues that need a judicial decision (limitation etc) so that the rest of the 100 claimants are better able to settle their own claims.

Please stop alleging judicial corruption.

So David Sherborne got Elton John to introduce him to Harry to persuade him to join them in these lawsuits. And according to you Harry was the only one of the 100 who wasn't going to settle so was an obvious choice for the judge. Not that Sherborne had anything to do with that decision, he just was very fortuitous that Harry being one of the four helped raise the profile of the case. Or maybe that's unfair because David Sherborne is such a reticent chap.

As for the judge, well like judges in civil cases do, we can make negative inferences and use our experience to inform us of what seems to be likely in order to come to a conclusion. If it's good enough for a judge, it's good enough for me.

David Sherborne did not decide which claimants would be the representative cases. The judge chose a selection. He chose Harry's case because Harry made it clear that he was not going to settle, and if it was going to go to trial anyway it might as well be done now. The rest were chosen because their cases are a representative sample of the various issues that need a judicial decision (limitation etc) so that the rest of the 100 claimants are better able to settle their own claims.

Thank you Dolma

Thanks for your contribution.

Yep, and it was reported as such. Not sure why posters on here don't seem to know this.

Lots of panic, I see now they are going after Scobie because he refuses to tow the line of Harry and Meghan hate train.

He also reminded us of some truths.

It's why staff turnovers at the
Sussexes' Archewell
business continue to be
prime tabloid ammunition
and why Kate, the Princess
of Wales hasn't had to face
many questions about the
four (five, if you count the
one who accepted the job
and then mysteriously
changed their mind) private
secretaries who have worked for her over the past six years.
And it's why the story of that paparazzi car chase in New
York was furiously poked for holes within minutes of it
breaking, but coverage of Sophie, the Duchess of Edinburgh's
tax payer-funded motorcade tragically taking the life of an
elderly woman hasn't been the focus of dozens of opinion

Absolutely @MarcelProust

I think I better come off that thread. He's now 'repulsive' apparently

Not a word I'd use myself hey ho

There are a zillion writers, columnists RRs extolling the virtues of the Monarchy and breeding hate for bucks on H&M, let's hear a different view

I'm looking forward to his book. His last one was a best-seller list.
He announced this book development straight after FF. He had said he spoke to over a hundred people for that, so I think he was getting a lot of material to justify making this book too.