"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/

What did you enjoy about Spare out of interest?

It's not "according to...[me]", it's the actual rationale of the actual judge, as was widely published at the time of the decision.

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.

I don't want to break the rule about being patronising but I have very real doubts about your experience in detecting judicial corruption.

I was referring to Finding Freedom. Which, though it had some inaccuracies here and there, was actually an easy, light read.

As for Spare, it confirmed a lot of my suspicions about Harry and how he grew up and some of the workings of the institution. There were a few surprises, but I was happy he could set the record straight on some things. I particularly enjoyed the parts of when he met and fell in love with Meghan.

I also listened to both on audio too.

Is his book not going to just her another load of suppositions, theories and gossip by others? Again I don't see how this makes this source any better or more credible than media outlets?

My guess is that he has now sussed out who the liars are and who are not. It also does help him that OW interview and Spare came out, so he can make assessments of who told him the truth and who did not.

Some of the stories in his book were debunked (by Harry and Meghan), some were confirmed.

A few example someone told him the following lies:

• H&M wanted a quiet life for their children, hence no titles was their choice
• Meghan went on a 'kidnapping and security course'. Spare says that never happened.
• No one made neither Kate, nor Meghan cry. That never happened.
• Harry proposed in Africa

And a few bits and bobs.

It is also possible that others did tell him the truth about the above, but he believed according to proximity or role - so he believed Jason Knauf for example. I think he is a good writer who will do his best to get to the truth, and dig even harder this time, what the truth is.

Yes, there were a lot of truths in the book- hence he is accused of being their spokesman. What is clear to me is that he did in fact interview a lot of people as he claims.

My take is that with the revelations on Netflix that there were divided camps, together with Jason Knauf story on bullying and going to court, he is now clearer how those camps are divided. He can also see who are liars and who are telling the truth.

Omid was still spouting nonsense about TQ’s body coming to London by train for the funeral with an elaborate route @so who knows what’s in his book.

That's what the palace told him. It looks like on purpose too.

I believe he was later cut out of the RRs, I guess for not towing the hate line.

Did he say that?

Ok so basically the hope is that he is better at sussing out the "true" sources now.

Thanks to Harry and Meghan revelations of what was really going on, he should certainly have the wider picture now, just like the rest of us.

@MarcelProust

I think it’s their version of what was going on, which history has shown has not always proved to be true.

As hIs recent ‘catastrophic car case’ tweets have shown, he will print any old shit they tell him to, without verification

Yes but indeed recollections do vary and yes as poster above said there are things that we now know are downright lies.

MarcelProust · Today 10:52
That's what the palace told him. It looks like on purpose too.
I believe he was later cut out of the RRs, I guess for not towing the hate line.

Or maybe for not toeing the "truth" line?

Or maybe for not toeing the "truth" line?

So nice to see "toeing".

When you have nothing to say, become the grammar police.

'Towing the line'. Oppss, and those quotation markks and those commmas and full stopps. esepeically for you at laMaarssschalinnnnnn

✌

I’m not sure whether to say touché or touchy to that…. 😁

I don't want to break the rule about being patronising but I have very real doubts about your experience in detecting judicial corruption.

Proofs in the pudding and time will tell.

Either works for me! 🤣

Just say touche eclat, covers up all sorts of things!

Ohhh @Maireas , I stupidly read that as eclair and now I'm hungry!!!

See what you did? You've put me in the mood for eclairs! Is Markies food hall still open?

Don't know ! I'm too ill to go out anyway 😭

Don’t go eclair my friends.

They are doing a custard choux bun thing.

Apparently it is delish.

Touche eclat is a wonder.

Touchoux eclair is more my thing. 🐽

Custard choux bun? Be still my beating heart.

Towing the line'. Oppss, and those quotation markks and those commmas and full stopps. esepeically for you at laMaarssschalinnnnnn

Ah, thanks, but I'm well stocked.
You tow them back, Marcel, you're probably more in need of them.