"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/

I would imagine Heat celebrity gossip onto Royal is a fairly easy step - lets face it it's not frontline war reporting or political expert, is it?

Thanks @Milcar for that question!!

I think you just get sent by your publication.

The likes of Camila Tominey/Valentine Lowe/Dan Wooton used to report on other things didn't they - I think they still do.

Maybe sometimes, you just insert yourself like Angela Levin who wrote a book after about Harry after she was sent to do an article.

More reliable would be the historians, who will mostly have access to archived material and will try to write as accurately as possible.

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

Good - leave the kids alone.

That's what I'd like, @MarcelProust . I read an excellent biography of Edward VIII - plenty of contemporary sources, contextualisation and consideration of interpretation. It's either a criticism or a hagiography in this instance, it seems.

@Maireas
I would read a book by Lucy Worcey , Kate Williams, Suzanna Lipscomb in a heartbeat.

Not too keen on those who keep the agenda of H&M hate trains. I was a bit sceptical at first of Robert Lacey, since he goes on BBC and ITV a lot who all have a negative rhetoric. However, after Spare (funny enough), I see a some of his passages confirmed as having taken place (albeit, not in the exact blow by blow kind of way, plus you have to go past the caricature art and so on).

It does refer to history a lot and explains how things were done historically (and why in some instances, the spare did not have to do them in the past - hence Harry should not be obliged). So I will likely give his books a shot - out of curiosity.

Norman Baker put me off by his constant GBNews appearances against H&M. Though I hear his book on rf finances is good with facts, but that is all I will be reading it for.

The likes of Valentine Lowe/ Jobson - reporters. I'll give those a miss.
Let alone Bower and Levin - would not touch with a barge pole.

I read the Tom Bower book; his main source of evidence is Thomas Markle, so that would challenge the validity. However, it was interesting when he discussed Meghan's visit to the UK in the summer of 2016 when she met Harry. Although he's not presenting her well, Meghan's level of self promotion and networking actually impressed me. That is a tough world and gigs weren't easy to come by. Yes, she went where she'd be photographed, got clothes to promote, met up with Piers Morgan etc, but that really is how performers get work. I don't think flipping burgers for a certain shoot or being a briefcase girl goes against her, it just shows she's had to push and parry.

Yeah, well, I would take Bower with a massive pinch of salt.

Meghan would come for press junkets for Suits with the rest of her cast - a normal thing. I wonder sometimes if the Piers thing actually happened since she put up her day and no mention of him that day, and he never took his regular selfies ? Coming over, promoting, networking and socialising is part of the package for actors (probably in their contracts too).

I guess the flipping burgers and briefcase girls was some kind of a pop. Any different from Kate working an odd job on a yacht or friends retail store ?
Not different from Meghan jobbing for a yoghurt store, calligraphy and book binding. Just paying more per hour.
Surely everyone starts somewhere from uni.

She later sustained a comfortable steady income doing a job she likes while doing UN work, Tig, Reitman's, adverts and small movie roles.

I agree labelling is wrong - and so very narrow - always negative and a form of control or shaming.

Really interesting your observation that it can be self perpetuating if the child chooses to rebel and live up to it. How did your siblings label you the clown / the naughty one / the bossy one?

I haven't seen H&M writing articles saying people they know are worst than a serial killer. And should be publicly shamed by shit throwing. So no, I don't agree.
As far as I'm concerned, JC should have no audience at all and the fact he can be defended for that article is gobsmacking.

(Not saying you are, just that there is an undercurrent of that)

yes @Roussette I am trying to think of anyone else who has taken a person they don;t like who is in the public eye, and written a violent humiliating sexual fantasy about them. I can't think of anyone. I can't think of one woman who has written that kind of thing about Harry. It's only women who get treated like this and its mostly men doing it. The idea anyone thinks anything Meghan has done in any way justifies or minimises it, is quite distasteful to put it mildly. To make comparisons in any way is quite shameful. Misogyny and sick sexual fantasies are very much on their own level of depravity.

Society shouldn't give any kind of platform to people that behave like him, that we do is a very bad reflection on us all.

Roussette · Today 11:30
I haven't seen H&M writing articles saying people they know are worst than a serial killer. And should be publicly shamed by shit throwing. So no, I don't agree.

No doubt Clerkson's trashing of H&M is worst than H&M trashing the family - and others.

Breaking into a Jeweller's shop and stealing goods worth thousands is worse that lifting a few sweets from the Pick 'n Mix.
But it's the same crime - theft

I don't think you get it. No point in trying to explain. Many posters have tried, me included.

One more time (I might regret this)
By bringing up something H&M has done (in your eyes) as an answer to condemnation of disgusting article, you are more or less saying they deserved it.

To go with your crime analogy... the pic n mix robber is not as bad as his neighbour who murdered his wife.
It's still a crime.

You misunderstand, @MarcelProust . I said that I questioned the validity of the book because of the nature of the source material (TM)
I also said that her networking and self promotion were part of her job as a performer and have not criticised her for this.
Quite the contrary.

Roussette · Today 12:35
By bringing up something H&M has done (in your eyes) as an answer to condemnation of disgusting article, you are more or less saying they deserved it.

No, I'm not saying "they deserved it". I make no judgment here-I don't know enough.
I'm saying Clerkson obviously thinks they deserve it.

Just as H&M think the Queen and the DofE deserved to have their last days soured by lying accusations.

If you spew it out - expect to get some back. Maybe worse.

Roussette · Today 12:35
One more time (I might regret this)
Passive/aggressive, much? "if I make you agree with me, you must be stupid"

Correction
If I can't make you agree....etc

So Clarkson thinks they deserve it, and that's OK with you?

That is what you are saying. In very many ways. I don't understand about the Queen's last days, she was a very elderly lady, they spoke when they did, and it wasn't in 'her last days' which I would class as two or three.

In every instance of your post, you are saying Meghan deserved that article. At least we have established that 100%.

I apologise for being passive aggressive, I didn't mean to be.

I make no judgment here-I don't know enough.

What do you need to know? There is nothing to know.

Surely you can make judgement on the contents of the disgusting article?

JK Rowling, Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock, Posie Parker - any openly gender critical woman actually - are some of the examples you couldn’t think of. Not to mention Jordan and Rebecca Adlington, who were the subject of horrific offensive “jokes” fro Frankie Boyle (“I have a theory that Jordan married a cage fighter cause she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from f*ing her.” - is but one example).

My main surprise about Clarkson’s comments were not that he said them - they’re entirely in line with his unrepentant boor persona (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt here, and assume it’s a persona. It may just be his unpleasant personality). It was the fact that they were published in the mainstream press. Some sub-editor was obviously not doing their job that day. Normally that kind of content is reserved for less well controlled platforms.

Anyway, I don’t think that that kind of comment is ever justified or acceptable. No matter how annoying the subject of the comments is. For example, despite not being any fan of Tories, I didn’t think Angela Rayner should have called them scum either. I didn’t think Carnegie Mellon professor Uju Anya should have wished the “thieving raping genocidal empire-heading” QEII an excruciatingly painful death, either. I don’t think it’s okay for Frankie Boyle to tell a “joke” about raping and murdering Holly Willoughby. None of that is remotely okay.

Yep. Like those individuals who saw George Floyd and wanted context. The context is that he is getting killed by police.

All I'm seeing is excusing Clarkson.

I'm sorry to say I agree. We saw it on threads about Andrew with the victim blaming of the coerced and trafficked girls (they knew what they were doing, why is VG smiling, where were their parents, why didn't they report it... and so on)

And now with JC and his disgusting article. We'll have 'he's entitled to his opinion next'

Don't know how calling a whole corrupt political party scum compares, tbh.

It was addressed to an individual.

I remember it very well, she was referring to the party.