"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/

People can change their opinion of course. I think this is a little different because it changed when she moved from a left wing paper, to a Murdoch owned right wing paper.

Highlights (as per a typical piece)

• I liked them to start with
• Took pictures at a cemetery (not heard this one in a while)
• Encouraging Harry’s paranoia
• Didnt reflect on herself in Archetypes
• Complained about how small Frogmore was
• Truth
• Suggesting that the UK was as racist as the US
• Narcissism
• Talentless

🙄

Thanks for the link @skullbabe

I managed to read the first paragraph before a subscription message came up.

But she starts by quoting the head of UA, the studio head whose agency tried to sign on Meghan and failed as she chose WME, and who has been widely criticised for his comments in the industry papers, as that's not something agents ever do.

Of course you can change your mind @LadyMuckingabout I have said it is every woman's prerogative, and indeed right, to do so.

It is just an interesting change of mind from Hadley as she was absolutely slamming of the right wing press treatment of Meghan in her Guardian article, but now that she works for such an outlet, she has joined the bandwagon, including quoting the studio head who was quoted in the WSJ, a Murdoch newspaper.

Whatever has changed her mind, I hope it is not simply that she is toeing the Murdoch party line.

Suggesting that the UK was as racist as the US

I think this lies at the heart of a lot of the unpleasant ongoing vilification of Meghan. Theres this need in other western countries, but especially the UK, to compare ourselves favourably to the US. The ' we aren't a bad as them' kind of attitude, ' we aren't stupid enough to have guns', 'we wouldn't vote for someone like Trump', 'we aren't as racist as them, look at their police.... ' etc etc So to have one of them point at our royal family and our press and say, actually they've been racist and its so bad I am moving back to the US... well that's a real kick in the teeth for a lot of brits and I think this really drives the anger. I notice too theres always this issue with them as celebrities only, hanging out with LA celebrities ( while at the same time being shunned by them? ) and that Britain is better because we have proper royals, who of course are completely different to celebrities who make their own money. Obviously the whole idea of monarchy and a royal family is just an invented thing and doesn't make us special or above anyone else, but I think perhaps some people might believe it does. Some people cringe and are embarrassed by it, some people actually think it makes us better than everyone else. When you think of it like that, you can imagine how enraged some royalists would be listening to Tyler Perry say on the Netflix series, I recognised that abuse that I grew up with, and how they were trying to control them, and I had to offer them help... I listened to him recently talk about how he deals with negativity and people saying negative things about him, he gave a great answer about how he is focussed on his goal and on his purpose and if he was to give all that noise too much of his attention, he wouldn't have reached his goals. I am so glad someone like him is friends with Harry and Meghan, and of course, godfather to Princess Lili.

@Iwantcakeeveryday

An excellent post. But I think it is more simple than just US versus UK comparisons. To royalists, the royal family is the ultimate representative of some kind of "Britishness".

Meghan was "welcomed" into that upper echelon. Then she said, no thanks, and left. It is that rejection of "Britishness' that I think a lot of people can't process.

Do you know RS Locke? She has been quoted a lot by James O'Brien. She wrote the only commentary that in my view gets close to understanding why her departure has so outraged the royalists.

Imagine a society founded on a class structure with the (white) British royal family at the top as determined by birth and by blood. A biracial woman enters the top of the pyramid by marriage, negating both the birth and blood requirements society had previously been told were preconditions. Because she lacks those prerequisites, she’s considered unworthy. Because she’s proud of her own heritage and regards herself as equal to others at the top of the pyramid, she’s considered ungrateful.

After years of being told that she was unworthy and ungrateful, the newlywed took the crier’s advice and returned from whence she came. Despite one tattler’s audacious cautions not to force her husband to “choose between you and us.” He did in fact choose his wife, just as he did the day he married her, much to their chagrin. Ironically, though society spurned her placement at the top of the pyramid, when she leaves with her husband, for some, it calls into question whether the pyramid’s peak is still something to aspire to? Whether those at the top are truly elite? Whether blood and birth really are prerequisites? Their departure is considered a rejection of the pyramid as a construct, thus a rejection of the society itself. For others, it was a necessary repudiation and confirmed that just as they suspected she was NOCD — not our class dear.

https://royalsuitor.medium.com/will-the-house-of-windsor-turn-into-a-house-of-cards-d344db7076d9

oh that's good!

it calls into question whether the pyramid’s peak is still something to aspire to? Whether those at the top are truly elite? Whether blood and birth really are prerequisites? Their departure is considered a rejection of the pyramid as a construct, thus a rejection of the society itself.

Indeed. How dare she reject such a thing! It weakens it doesn't it, her rejection and his leaving. They can't have that.

Who wrote that shouldn’t give up their day job 😀

Whoever

This is her day job.

One to which she, as a black "royal commentator" has the same right to as Angel Levin, Tom Bower, and all the other white writers and talking heads who make their living talking about the royal family.

@MrsMaxDeWinter I really don't think it is as complex as that. Most people who raise their eyebrows at M and H do so because of what is seen as a lack of decency toward the then Queen, a basic lack of manners. I can remember the wedding day and the happiness that H was getting married and also the interviews stating how they were going to bring new life to the RF. It then went all tits up. I don't think royalists think that her leaving weakest it- I imagine they think she wasn't up to the challenges of carrying that role. I certainly don't think they are questioning the whole validity of an ages old tradition based on one person.

Thank OP, before I run off. Just wanted to say that is an excellent article. Someone did link J O'brian reading it on here, but it got lost in the noise. But I have listened to him reading out more than once.

what is seen as a lack of decency toward the then Queen

What does that mean?

yes and the others you mention are crap tabloid writers but don't get criticised by the anti H & M crowd do they!

It means that she tried to spurn the traditions of the RF - eg all the faff about Archie's birth the lying about when he was born etc, the refusal to issue a photograph..this flummoxed the public then the big tour to SA and finally the reveal with Desmond Tutu. Bearing in mind that most people have always lived with the Queen in their lives it was seen I imagine in various ways from what a dick to it's all about her and a hundred other views. It was seen as disrespectful by many . This was only one example of course.

I am afraid I don't believe anyone on Mumsnet who says they started off liking her then soured for this or that reason because I remember writing to MNHQ in 2017 concerned about the racist undertone of many of the posts and threads. This is before she had said a word.

Also the level of vitriol since she left does not suggest people who liked her at first then changed their minds.

I recently checked the Daily Mail comments on the day of the wedding in 2018. There were more than 11 000, the most of any DM news feature, and almost all of them were negative. Again, before she said a word. If the Daily Mail is indeed the voice of "Middle England" and Mumsnetters are the more educated members of Middle England, then I would say she was disliked from the first, and not for anything she did or said. She was disliked from the first for who she is. But because people are unwilling to confront their prejudices, they have retrofitted their dislike, and found other reasons for it.

But the timeline does not lie.

@MrsMaxDeWinter Totally correct. I was here. I saw threads from the minute Meghan came on the scene. Yes, some were OK, but some were absolutely awful (I'm fucking sick of Meghan and Harry title of thread a day after their engagement)

So to pretend that everyone liked her and only went off her because she took Harry off and wouldn't toe the line, is untrue. To be fair, yes, that might apply to some posters, but why was there all this negativity around her from day one? I have seen posters say a load of times "I knew she was trouble in that engagement interview" and "I didn't take to her from day one, she was too american" and so on

@ItsOnlyMeNow
I find your post fascinating in an odd way! So what she didn't want the photo op on the steps of the hospital, so what they wanted to do it their way. For the public to be so flummoxed must mean we are so set in our ways, so in awe of the RF, so bound to this archaic institution that nothing ever ever can change!

Change can bring about wonderful things, just because something has been done in a certain way for decades, doesn't mean it has to carry on (like the standing on steps of hospital to a wall of photographers within hours of giving birth. Barbaric. There are photos out there at what Kate was looking at when holding little George, maybe 15 deep photographers. Horrendous)

all the faff about Archie's birth lying about when he was born etc, the refusal to issue a photograph

In what way does that disrespect the Queen? Its their child, how and when to announce and what photos to share is up to them and nothing to do with respecting the queen! How silly to try and use the Queen to justify the press being annoyed they didn't;t get their way. You are really reaching to make any of that about respecting the Queen!

Well that is a totally different point from the one that I made but there you go .

Perhaps your phrase I am afraid I don't believe anyone on Mumsnet ...indicates how narrow your thoughts are on this?

I am able to believe that yes some people may have not liked M because she was an actress or an American or because of her colour but it doesn't stop me looking at the wider picture for other reasons.

She was disliked from the first for who she is. But because people are unwilling to confront their prejudices, they have retrofitted their dislike, and found other reasons for it.

Totally agree!

ItsOnlyMeNow · Today 10:11
I really don't think it is as complex as that. Most people who raise their eyebrows at M and H do so because of what is seen as a lack of decency toward the then Queen, a basic lack of manners. I can remember the wedding day and the happiness that H was getting married and also the interviews stating how they were going to bring new life to the RF. It then went all tits up. I don't think royalists think that her leaving weakest it- I imagine they think she wasn't up to the challenges of carrying that role. I certainly don't think they are questioning the whole validity of an ages old tradition based on one person.

Exactly that - well said!
I remember watching the crowds in Windsor on their wedding day. A group of black women, hugging each other, laughing, saying "We've got a sister in the Palace!".

I thought of them when it all collapsed.

No I am not silly or reaching and I choose to disagree with you on this as would many other people. It was seen as disrespectful - why on earth would anyone lie about when a child was born? Or lie about when they were really married?

it means that she tried to spurn the traditions of the RF - eg all the faff about Archie's birth the lying about when he was born etc the refusal to issue a photograph..this flummoxed the public

Why do you believe that as a member of the public you had to have a front row seat at Archie's birth? He is not a direct heir. Why should she have paraded him to a bank of photographers within hours of giving birth? If you had a child would you be comfortable doing it? Surely the issue is that it is a stupid tradition, not that Meghan refused to go along with it.

They met the press two days after Archie was born, and photographers were taken. Why was two days too late?

then the big tour to SA and finally the reveal with Desmond Tutu.

What big reveal with Archbishop Tutu?

Bearing in mind that most people have always lived with the Queen in their lives it was seen I imagine in various ways from what a dick to it's all about her and a hundred other views. It was seen as disrespectful by many . This was only one example of course.

I don't know if you have ever had children, but yes, when a woman gives birth it is indeed all about her. The public saw the baby two days after the birth. Why was that not enough?

And are you aware that the Queen herself did not parade all her babies in public after birth, and that it's a "tradition" that was only "carried out" by Anne, Diana, Sarah and Kate?

Meghan has done Charlotte and all future royal wives who may have children a huge favour. She has shown them you can say no to the madness and can introduce your baby to the public when you are ready and comfortable to do so.

I admired them for doing it their way. I was YES!!! a modern couple to blow some of the cobwebs out of the RF.
Tradition means changing of the guard, parades and all of that. Not having to brief the press about every contraction you are having lol

What you see as in awe of I see in a different way. It happens.

I am able to believe that yes some people may have not liked M because she was an actress or an American or because of her colour but it doesn't stop me looking at the wider picture for other reasons.

I don't care if people don't like her, each to their own. We are referring to the volume of negativity and nastiness, and it being disproportionate to any perceived wrongs. It just doesn't;t make sense for a royal board to spend so much time on negative criticisms of her every day for years on end, while not scrutinising the actual working royals who have way dodgier issues going on. Things that actually matter.