"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/

Yes, IPSO isn't really fit for purpose.

I'm am relieved that IPSO did find the Clarkson 'Shame' article to be sexist. In my opinion that wasn't enough. I know some people would argue it with me, and I've no wish to enter into debates about it and won't, but I think it was sexist and racist.

But at least The Sun has to apologise for it. Has anyone seen any apologies as yet? I've read two different articles on what The Sun has to do -- one said a small apology on the front page. Another said it will be a full front page size.

Meghan said on the interview that her SIL was called ‘Waity Katey’ - but Meghan had it much worse

This was not a criticism of Kate. You may not understand nor believe in the fact that Meghan has intersectional identities which make the some of the coverage of her very different to the coverage of Kate but you cannot say that someone acknowledging the sexist description of someone in a similar situation as you is criticising them. I have never understood this train of thought.

Yes - it’s very apparent on these threads and the media that these children are being given roles - Charlotte is bossy or the sensible one and Louis is the clown or the naughty one. I have always been uncomfortable when I see people labelling especially Louis the way they are - many of us have or have had children his age who cannot sit still for long periods, who need entertaining, who need to comment on everything and will tell you when they’re not happy - loudly - it is unconscionable that people would label this normal behaviour as naughty. Because these labels follow them and no matter what you think of Harry, he gives a very good account of how limiting that is to any child.

As regards the labelling and its effect - well Harry has certainly lived up to that and well beyond. It is a shame if people can't break out and find their true self and not always blame the past.

So we should continue to label the children now? Or do you agree with the idea that it’s wrong?

What I want is, posters who don't like Meghan or think she has done very many wrongs to just say..she deserved that vindication and IPSO ruling. Because without that, and bringing up other stuff, to me, it just sounds like she deserved that vile rhetoric about her

I think Meghan has made many mistakes and I am delighted about the ruling. Didn’t post about it yesterday because it doesn’t come with any punishment or fine so thought it was great but not enough.

I think Clarkson is misogynist pig and disgusting human and I can’t stand nasty old men talking about women and mothers the way he spoke about Meghan. It seemed particularly gross because of the way the media has harassed her and because I perceive them as isolated. Also ticks me off because Harry can’t exactly fly over and punch him in the face. Which is what I think most men would want to do.

So she absolutely deserves the vindication. I hope she understood that many people were up in arms over his comments.

Public revulsion swayed it

Yes, exactly. It was not confined to people that have a solely positive opinion of the pair’s behavior.

But despite Clarksons pathetic apology about it all, he meant every word
I think it was his DD calling him out in very strong terms and very publicly that forced an apology from him

I doubt he’s sorry. Misogynists don’t change.

Clarkson won't change. That's who he is and his USP, I suppose. He just likes doing everything he's not supposed to. And he doesn't really care. He's been pulled up on this incident, but the people his style appeals to won't care about an Ipso ruling. They'll carry on watching and reading him. And even if he loses all his contracts, he'll be back in one form or another because he has a following and a reliable audience for what he does so he's very bankable.

Of course i think that there should not be labelling. What an odd question.

You're right, @Nightlystroll , he's a maverick, like Piers Morgan. People will always watch and listen to them. So they get air time.

If course and its a shame it needs saying. There's no 'but' when it comes to the Clarkson situation. All that any reasonable person should.be saying is, its absolutely wrong, sexist and not acceptable.

@Roussette glad you appreciated the article re labelling children. I know as a parent its something that when raising my kids I have been conscious of, and other parents talk a lot about. It then seems out of place now for media to do it to famous children, and particularly royal children who will have it attached to them and constantly repeated to a large audience. Even Charlotte being described as sensible or in charge, that can lead to bossy, uptight etc as she gets older and I think its important they should be free to grow and be themselves without being so narrowly defined.

Totally agree 100%. It's so damaging

I get very upset when I see (on this site as well) Charlotte being described as "bossy". Heaven forfend that a girl child is determined or confident. Just awful.

Agree - Charlotte is not bossy neither is she the “sensible one”. She’s just a child. Her parents are best placed to be able to know their personalities.

I get very upset when I see (on this site as well) Charlotte being described as "bossy". Heaven forfend that a girl child is determined or confident. Just awful.

Bad enough that broadcasters and the press say it. No need for it to be mentioned on here at all. It just fuels a fire that should never have been lit.

Yes, it's been said quite a lot on these threads.

I do remember Omid Scobie commenting on Louis and having to delete his tweets after a backlash

How mean. I'm glad he deleted them.

It seems that the general opinion is that, though Clerkson does and says things that cause most people to dislike him greatly, he will always get a hearing because he has "fans" who like his style and will always back him.

A bit like H&M then, wouldn't you say?

How does someone become a royal reporter?

It never got raised in career guidance at school, although admittedly that was back in the last millenium.

WHY does someone become a royal reporter?

WHY does someone become a royal reporter?

I think it was often the editors choice and people were just told that was going to be part of their job even if they objected.