"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/

godaddy isn't the owner. They're just who the owner bought it through. You have no proof they were registered by the same person, it's masked. And godaddy is enormous, one of the largest domain name registrars in the world.

You must have issued my earlier post saying I didn’t think she was. I said she wanted people think she was a credible candidate - and there’s a difference. That is the PR.

I believe you mean you know she isn't. Because it's blindingly obvious to anyone who knows anything about US politics that she she isn't.

As of the rest, what Meghan believes, thinks, wants people to think etc is exactly the kind of speculation that I am dismissing out of hand from the niche media, so unless you can prove that you have special and unique access into her mind, I am afraid I won't be accepting what you believe she wants people to think as fact!

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

By assessing the evidence of my own ears and eyes over the last few years. What an odd question!

I believe you mean you know she isn't.

Congratulations, you’ve finally understood what I’ve said twice already. I was worried I’d have to say it for a third time. 🤣

Hurrah! I am so glad we got there at last. 🙃

The Duchess of Sussex isn't running for president in 2024, you have admitted you know she isn't, so now we just have to get you over the little hurdle of admitting that anything else around her non-existent candidacy is speculation!

Domains By Proxy don't register domain names. They simply act as a masking service, hiding the identity of the domain owner from whois searches. They are listed as the contact for millions of domains - I don't have a current figure, but it was nearly 10M in 2014 and I'm sure the number has gone up since then.

I just thought this should be repeated. The two domains in question could have been purchased by different people.

On lots of these threads time and time again people talk as if they are privy to Meghan's innermost thoughts, the state of their marriage just by looking at a photo and prophesies of what their intentions are now and in the future.
It's very strange.
We don't know so very much

I also have no idea what the benefit would be to wanting people to think she would run for President. It would only open her up to more extreme negativity and ridicule. One 'famous' POTUS has been quite enough!

Anyway, I must go and check on the validity of my domain name, can't remember when I last renewed it 😃

What evidence would that be, I wonder.

Considering that Meghan has not really mentioned much about the government since that question on Suits cast and later encouraging people to vote - you know just like Beyonce and a lot of celebrities did .

Or is the narrative now, that Beyonce also wants to be president too?

It's not an odd question. Since there's no evidence at all that Meghan has tried to position herself as a serious political figure, it begs the question as to how you would make such an off the wall assessment tbh!

I think they have created a lot of the tabloid craziness around themselves, firstly by having someone like Omid Scobie, who is /was a gossip columnist, as their unofficial spokesperson. I get that they may have wanted a tabloid hack in their corner, but it does seem disingenuous when they really don't want tabloid exposure.

Then so many public 'announcements' about their charitable donations but without any real substance behind it, which made them look very self aggrandising and gave opportunity for it to be picked over. The unnecessary (some would say inappropriate) public visit to Uvalde, when even the towns most famous citizen stayed away in those early days.

With regards to her political ambitions, I think she would absolutely like to be thought of as someone who could actually run for some kind of office, she has never denied it. She has published letters she wrote to Nancy Pelosi, she has made plenty of political public statements, so hence there will be that question and conversation around her political ambitions, will she or won't she run for office (not necessarily presidential initially, but plenty other high ranking offices she could run for)

With regards to the Dior rumours, it was suspected those were leaked by their own team, however no one knows who or what was behind it, however it wouldn't surprise me if there is some truth in it and it will happen at a later date, but I think both sides may have thought it best to lie low for a while with all the furore around it.

This proxy thing is real.

I'm a nobody and when we wanted to extend our firm, the names were taken. Someone told me there are people who buy random site names with the intent to sell them.

Do you recall how Sussex Royal was brought by someone and a big deal was made regarding Harry and Meghan wanting to copyright - despite the fact that William and Kate had also done the same previously.

It would not be so hard to guess names like DianaLilibet/ DianaElizabeth/FlowerBean etc. it could be any name combination. A computer would throw out any combination if you were looking for royal name possibility.

I am curious to see the link of this same person who supposedly brought all combinations on the same day though.

Meghan tried to position herself as a serious political figure a few times. Once by obtaining the personal cellphone numbers of elected officials that do not represent her and calling them directly without scheduling time. Introducing herself as Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.

It was this a few other incidents that lead some to believe she may be playing groundwork to launch herself into politics in the future.

firstly by having someone like Omid Scobie, who is /was a gossip columnist, as their unofficial spokesperson

He isn;t though. Are all the journalists the write positive books about other royals their unofficial spokespeople? Its a silly claim people have made about him that's unhelpful to his own career. Bizarre that because he doesn't hate them he must be an unofficial spokesperson.

I'm not sure where this comes form so no idea if it happened, but this isn't that unusual or an indication she intended to run for office. Plenty of celebrities are highly political people and yes they call them, they donate, they campaign for them or against them depending. I don't think any of it means someone is about to run for President.

Scobie had information on their whereabouts and plans when only someone with a very direct connection could have that information.

It was also proven and admitted in court that was briefed by their staff for his book at their direction.

However he obtains his information, it is not a leap to recognize that they often provide it willingly.

has anyone seen the ongoing thread on mn about rumours? this thread kind of reminds me of that. someone starts a rumour a bit Meghan and the white house. and it becomes fact.
can someone please link to where the words come out of her mouth.

Then so many public 'announcements' about their charitable donations but without any real substance behind it, which made them look very self aggrandising and gave opportunity for it to be picked over

There's plenty of substance behind many of their charitable initiatives and very many times, the organisations have tweeted their thanks and appreciation
World Kitchen for one
Not everyone 'picks over' everything they do

The political ambitions are just total hearsay and another vehicle to criticise her about, when there is no evidence. Why can't she have political opinions, she's quite entitled to.

The 'Dior rumours' are just that. Rumours

It was indicated in comments that came directly from several of the senators that Meghan called who expressed bemusement at her using the title and the idea that they should give her air time when she is not a constituent.

Yes, it is unusual. One would question how it came up with the senators publicly though. I doubt they called reporters to talk about it themselves.

Some thoughts on your comments @themessygarden

I think they have created a lot of the tabloid craziness around themselves, firstly by having someone like Omid Scobie, who is /was a gossip columnist, as their unofficial spokesperson. I get that they may have wanted a tabloid hack in their corner, but it does seem disingenuous when they really don't want tabloid exposure.

As far as I know, Omid Scobie does not write for any tabloid. He did before Meghan arrived in the UK, but certainly not now, he writes for Harper's Bazaar I believe, and for US outlets. If he is an unofficial spokesman, he's not a very good one. His book Finding Freedom is contradicted more than a few times by the Sussexes.

I believe he is in the same position as Bryony Gordon and Tom Bradbury in that he is one of the only people in the press willing to give them a fair shake, and they appreciate that. Wouldn't you, if you woke daily to Angela Levin and Georgia Ziadie, who calls herself Lady Colin Campbell, speculating maliciously about the state of your marriage?

It's not at all disingenuous that they don't want tabloid exposure. I know it's hard to believe that a Royal or a UK politician can live without the niche media, but there really is a big world out there of media that does not include the tabloids. Harry is suing them all. They made Meghan's life a misery. Before they left, they categorically stated they would not be working within the Rota system. You really think they are leaking stuff about themselves so the tabloids can profit off them?

Then so many public 'announcements' about their charitable donations but without any real substance behind it, which made them look very self aggrandising and gave opportunity for it to be picked over. The unnecessary (some would say inappropriate) public visit to Uvalde, when even the towns most famous citizen stayed away in those early days.

Meghan went Uvalde to pay her respects after a shocking and brutal shooting. Kate went to Sarah Everard's vigil after her shocking and brutal death. If you can tell me why it's okay for one woman and not the other to respond movingly to a shocking event, then sure, I'll buy what you are selling. The Uvalde families certainly seemed to appreciate Meghan's visit, and it led to a lovely partnership to create the Kaboom children's playground.

With regards to her political ambitions, I think she would absolutely like to be thought of as someone who could actually run for some kind of office, she has never denied it. She has published letters she wrote to Nancy Pelosi, she has made plenty of political public statements, so hence there will be that question and conversation around her political ambitions, will she or won't she run for office (not necessarily presidential initially, but plenty other high ranking offices she could run for)

Not going to speculate on what she thinks, as I don't know, and neither do you, But as already established, she's not running for president. No more than Kim Kardashian who fronted a great campaign on unjust imprisonment after she did her law degree. Susan Sarandon did not run for president after weeping at the Oscars. Nor did Marlin Brandon after he boycotted them for political reasons. Well known people take up all sort of political causes without being said to have presidential ambitions

With regards to the Dior rumours, it was suspected those were leaked by their own team, however no one knows who or what was behind it, however it wouldn't surprise me if there is some truth in it and it will happen at a later date, but I think both sides may have thought it best to lie low for a while with all the furore around it.

More "it was suspected", "it was leaked", "no one knows" etc. I think people are so used to the games that the Palaces play that they can't believe that moving away means that the Sussexes don't have to play these silly games of sources and insiders and friends and friends of friends of friends who said this and that and this and the other.

They speak for themselves.

In that regard, their comms are more evolved and modern than those of the family they left behind who can't seem to understand that a transparent, coordinated StratComms plan will be good for them ALL, and is the one reform that's truly needed to move them away from this bizarre version of sniping rival medieval courts, each with its own town criers in the niche media, into one family that speak with one voice and supports each member.

It was also proven and admitted in court that was briefed by their staff for his book at their direction.

That's entirely normal when people write books on the royals. It does not make them a spokesperson.

To say again - Domains By Proxy didn't register it. Someone did, but we don't know who. Whoever it purchased a package from GoDaddy that includes using Domains By Proxy to hide their identity.

As for how whoever registered it knew, we don't know that they did. It may have been a lucky guess - there are plenty of people out there who try to guess what domain names people might want to register so that they can register them themselves. Maybe it was entirely unrelated, however unlikely that may seem. Or maybe this was the Sussexes, but that doesn't prove that meghan2024.com was anything to do with them.

With all due respect...so what?

The RF have their RRs they will leak to, provide info to, brief.

Having seen him on the BBC2 documentary about the Princes, I have to say, he came across really well. Cautious, knowledgeable and informed. Far better than some of the bonkers RRs who quite happily took money to talk about the OW interview before they had seen it!
Balham Donkey Sanctuary springs to mind 🤭🤣

Introducing yourself as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is not a 'serious political figure' move, though. That's a hindrance on either side of the Atlantic.

She was using name recognition (or you know, using her own actual legal name) to try to get to talk to someone about - if I'm remembering correctly - parental leave?

@Roussette

Oh yes, the informed Royal talking heads who gave analysis of an interview that they had not seen!

If that's not a clear example of bias, I don't know what is!!

Well yes, so what about all of it?

They clearly do brief Omid Scobie so that he will share info they provided.

People do have legitimate reason to suspect she may have been laying groundwork to run for office.

If a poster doesn’t think these points amount to criticism, why bother to dispute them?