"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/

Maybe because everyone made a HUGE fuss about the word 'married' ?

To them that wast their marriage, most likely their anniversary celebration date.

Someone invites you to their hippy wedding by the beach, are you going to pull them up as liars because they had to go back to the town council to sign the wedding certificate when they come back from that honeymoon? This is ridiculous.

Absolutely. My DD is married in the eyes of her husband and his family but not married in English law till next year, bonus is we get two fab ceremonies!

H&M wanted something special for just them and the outcry and shouting about lies lies lies is weird!

Oh it's not a waste of time. It has been acknowledged as a lie. It doesn't matter as you say what I think but it is well known and some people will remember these things when it comes to associations with the Sussexes. Watch out - it is what they think that matters as opposed to legalities. Who knows?

You're not 'looking for the truth' though, you're looking for ways to attack them. You're now rephrasing what she said, and pretending saying it that way would make a difference to you. It has the same meaning. they had a private moment they consider a meaningful ceremony, that's what she said, that's what they confirmed. How lovely. Not really any of your business to say what it was or wasn't. Its not your day. She did not lie, she simply told a sweet story about a moment they had to themselves. I think to reframe it as a lie, as I said before, is something people have done so they can dismiss anything they say about how they were treated.

It's not some hippy couple though - it was someone who had a big 32 million pound wedding part of which was paid for by Joe Public.

My goodness you are obsessed with them 'lying'

They had their own private ceremony before the wedding, so what
They are not puppets to do your bidding

And how many times do royalists point time how much tourism and money this and other royal stuff would have brought into the country?
Incessant

It has been acknowledged as a lie.

What does this mean? Acknowledged by who? You can keep saying it and I can keep replying, there was no lie. Juts a group of nasty journos who spin things to create a narrative that the British public are only too willing to lap up to entertain themselves. It is a sad sad waste of time.

Your dd is not the Duchess of Sussex getting married in front of millions in a highly religious ceremony. And I’ll bet she won’t dismiss either of her ceremonies as a spectacle for the masses. That would be rude and ungrateful.

I am entitled to my opinion on this the same as everyone else so don't accuse me of doing this or that. As to whether it is my business or not - is it any of anyone's on this thread. It is a discussion and that what happens. If you dont want to partake then don't read it? A sweet story doesn't work for me thanks but you are perfectly entitled to take it that way. Please stop trying to make this personal when quite simply I disagree with you. I accept that you have a different view so let me have that courtesy.

Iwantcakeeveryday · Today 12:28
You're not 'looking for the truth' though, you're looking for ways to attack them.

Just as you and the other "fans" are looking for ways to defend them. It's often a long stretch.....

Ok, so this is weird.

Do you go on about how the queen and now KC are 'proven liars' because they have 2 birthdays a year. Publicly funded for a lot of money.

This case is a biological, physical and scientific impossibility !

I am not sure why people continue to slug in out on this forum - its a bit repetitious and myopic - as seemingly the rest of the world has already formed their opinions on the behaviour of this couple over the years and for the majority it seems indifferent or disappointed.

Many also agree that some media coverage was racist and misogynistic some areas of SM is fanatical - on both sides.

This is a great thread, and I plan to start a new one once this fills up. The press coverage of Meghan and Harry is an important subject that reveals a lot about the press in the UK, its power to shape narratives.

But of course you don't have to participate in anything you consider to be repetitive and myopic slugging!!

There’s still space for 180 entries, so you may be getting a little carried away

Well, you are certainly helping to get it to page 40, so yes, it will fill up, because I can predict that you will post at least twenty more times ...😊

For the world I think, not for the masses. That would be rude, I agree.

Please do. Start a new one. I just feel the negativity towards H&M is ramping up at the moment, probably because Meghan is quiet and the court case for Harry and the other three, ruling is weeks if not months
Whenever they are quiet the media becomes more and more outlandish, and the threads here more and more desperate

This is a great article about the media, Meghan, Harry and why we are where we are. Not an easy read for some but it rang true for me.
Meghan is not the ogre some like to think she is. And quote... The British tabloids are like wild slavering dogs, hunting in a pack unquote

Many posts on here are debunked in the article

aninjusticemag.com/3-secrets-the-media-dont-want-you-to-know-about-meghan-markle-4712dc9c2aa4

Sorry but yet again you have exaggerated and spun off into other areas. I don't see the need to further explain what is an opinion that many have. You don't agree - that's fine.

No worries but again I think it's telling that you starting this off as saying they specifically disrespected the Queen with this.

Glad to hear you are going to start a second thread on this subject OP. Studying the media through the lens of its focus on Harry and Meghan is illuminating. The last hour or two reading the latest posts has been very interesting. (The whole thread has been interesting).

I had not realised just how much ownership (some of) the British public seem to feel in regards to the Royal Family members. In one way it makes sense as the people pay a LOT of money to support them. Although, this is apparently more than covered by the tourist dollars they generate. So not sure who owes who here.

‘lens of its focus’ lol. I could have written that better. My bedtime, obviously.

They had a private ceremony between the two of them before the wedding - I think everyone agrees. Did they get married officially on that date? No. Does that ceremony mean more to them than the actual ceremony? Probably. And until today I thought just that - but now I see that they offered a clarification the very next day that they exchanged personal vows but did not officially get married which makes me think that the people who go on about this seriously need to give their heads a wobble.

@skullbabe @Roussette @Morestrangerthings

In news that will surprise no one, our favourite tabloid reports that the senior members of the Royal Family have apparently declined to participate in the training on racism, inclusivity and diversity that the households instituted after the Susan Hussey debacle!!

On the bright side, Charles has hired the first ever private secretary of colour in the royal household ... in 2023!!!!

Why on earth would they not participate in this? Why? Surely they, of all people in their unique position, should jump at this, if only to put across the right message

I suspect because they don't think they need it.

It's an odd one isn't it. The King is head of a state of a country where every employer, apart from himself and the royal households, are subject to race and sex discrimination legislation.

Not sure how anyone can justify that to be honest.