"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/

Minimising lying and minimising bullying 🤔

??

‘I expect’ suggests that I believe it is very possible. It is not a statement of certainty. What you attempted to do was to suggest that many people feel the same as you. It’s quite meaningless to state ‘many’ as it’s not quantifiable. How many is ‘many’ exactly?

What I have observed is that some posters appear to believe (or even hope, I imagine) that the vast majority of people (not sure how far this extends geographically) feel the same way about H&M as they do.? I can understand if you limit yourself to threads that are designed solely for the purpose of denigrating the couple then you might perceive this to be the case. But what’s the chances that you’re right? I expect that the people who start and contribute to these threads are small in number but have various usernames which they use, thus giving the impression that more people are commenting than is actually the case. Much like we know that 84 Twitter accounts were responsible for approximately 70% of the “original and derivative hate content” targeting H&M. I’ve said it before, this behaviour is fruitless and very destructive (more so for the posters themselves).

P.S. It’s not far-fetched (relative to some of the things believed on these types of threads) to assume that most mothers would consider the health and well-being of their newborn child to be a priority.

And how monstrous for her to suggest that members of the Royal Family don't keep their passports on them at all times!!

Next, she will be saying she didn't carry cash.

The monster!! Burn the witch!!

demonic almost

P.S. It’s not far-fetched (relative to some of the things believed on these types of threads) to assume that most mothers would consider the health and well-being of their newborn child to be a priority.

Honestly, this is a parenting site, you could say that on any other board and nobody would bat an eye but here...

Minimising lying? Well ti depends on the 'lie' and context? one of my kids is still outraged we 'lied' about Santa. We all tell harmless lies, either to go along with a custom that kids love or to keep something for ourselves.

Anyone who writes a book about the royals contacts their press secretary to clarify the details. She forgot about it and no longer had access to the emails. It had no bearing on the case because the book came out well after the articles and she won her case regardless.

Nobody has minimised actual bullying. I don't think Meghan was the bully.

Meghan tells grandiose lies, big difference to extending the magic of Santa 🤣🤣

The thing about the wedding and calling the public one a "spectacle" and wasn't their real one etc was that it was a dig at the royal family and the British taxpayers who funded the whole thing. Basically they insisted on having the same amount of money spent on them as William and Catherine, but then they bitched about it afterwards how it was so terrible and not for them. Talk about ungrateful. Actually they were the ones who pushed for an even bigger "spectacle" and invited Hollywood celebs who they didn't even know. The Oprah interview just made them look like spoilt brats, and everything they've done and said since then has reinforced that

Basically they insisted on having the same amount of money spent on them as William and Catherine, but then they bitched about it afterwards how it was so terrible and not for them.

How do you know they insisted?

I think it’s heinous to want privacy when it comes to child birth regardless of who it is. I look forward to joining my sisters in arms against liars in robustly condemning anyone who posts “my DH’s family have this tradition of standing outside the maternity suite from the moment they know any woman in the family who is giving birth is in labour till after the bay is delivered. They then expect the baby to be ready to be presented and for me to have my Sunday best on. I don’t think I’d be up for that and really would like it to be just between us. AIBU to tell them after the baby is born later on in the day once I’ve got back home and settled in just so I can get my bearings?”

Iwantcakeeveryday · Today 17:36
A better example of a lie would be saying you have an inability to sweat or the you were ay Pizza Hut instead of at your pedo friends place with a trafficked girl.

Oh lord! We're back to "wot-aboutery". Yes, Andrew probably lied. Meghan certainly lied - about several things

@skullbabe

I think Labour is a private thing, so I wouldn’t like my husband to discuss it in his book.

But that’s my opinion.

My opinion is that sarcasm needs some wit to work effectively, which might explain why it’s fallen so flat on this thread

Iwantcakeeveryday · Today 19:00
skullbabe · Today 18:16
Yes it is indeed monstrous that she said that someone told her that people danced in the street.
demonic almost

No no, not demonic - exaggeration doesn't equal truth.
Neither does it deflect from the obvious - she lied, many times.
You may not mind - I don't particularly mind, because I've accepted that she is a liar when it suits her. So I rarely believe what she says unless it obviously true. Does she care what I think? Of course not

😂😂

invited Hollywood celebs who they didn't even know.

Do you know that many of the celebs were actually for the groom? The only tenuous A lister was Oprah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle

I understood what they meant Re: “got married” in their garden. I fully support announcing any private events and especially childbirth whenever people wish.

It’s hard to reconcile the “spectacle for the world” language with inviting complete strangers, though. I will never believe that anyone forced them to a have a huge wedding, or that they didn’t actually want it.

inviting complete strangers, though

Who was the complete stranger? To Meghan it would be most of the guest list but was anyone an actual stranger? Oprah they'd met but no friend. Other than her, aren't they all mostly friends of Harry?

No 'probably' about Andrew

What you call a lie with Meghan, some would dispute

Senior members of the RF declining to participate in diversity education and training would not surprise me.

The Sun newspaper on Saturday published an apology to Meghan Markle on its front page and said it realised that “with free expression comes responsibility.”

“with free expression comes responsibility.”

I happy danced around my kitchen after reading that.

Of course the free press comes with responsibility, despite some people on here believing that a press should be able to print whatever it wants without reservation.

The comments are unanimous - it was a nasty piece of work, and should never have been published.

This is a small win for all. Except Clarkson and The Sun, of course.

Variety on Clarkson’s Bollocks article:

One passage in the ruling (point 33) sheds light on how the Committee arrived at its decision to uphold the complaint on the basis of Markle’s sex:
The Committee first considered the references in the article to the Duchess’ sex. It noted that the article’s headline described the Duchess as a “A Woman Talking Bollocks”. The article cited three people as objects of the columnist’s ‘hatred’: the Duchess of Sussex and two other women, Nicola Sturgeon and Rose West, and the only clear common characteristic between the three was their sex. It highlighted that the Duchess is seen as a female role model (as being “pretty cool”) by referring to her influence on “younger people, especially girls”, and the feeling of “despair” which this prompted in the columnist. It stated that the Duchess had “obviously used some vivid bedroom promises to turn [the Duke of Sussex] into a warrior of woke”, which in the view of the Committee was a reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to exert influence, and also implied that it was the Duchess’ sexuality – rather than any other attribute or accomplishment – which was the source of her power. Finally, it referred to a “dream” of the columnist in which the Duchess was the subject of humiliation and degradation. Any of these references, individually, might not represent a breach of Clause 12. However, they were employed in the context of the columnist expressing his hatred of the Duchess “on a cellular level” and, together, they served to highlight the Duchess’ sex while the article also used humiliating imagery which played on negative stereotypes about women.

That was from Variety. It seems to be a very good article but my iPhone blanked some of it. My phone does that at times.

Variety on IPSO ruling re Clarkson’s Shame article .

CEO Jemima Olchawski said: “Since it was established in 2014 IPSO has never upheld a complaint about sexism – and that changes today. This landmark decision is a real opportunity for our media to catch up with what women have known for years – misogyny and hate are not acceptable and they can no longer be dressed up as satire or banter. Misogyny that normalizes violence and coverage that blames women who experience violence have no place in our media, or anywhere in our society.”
Olchawski said the decision will help to elevate “the state of public discourse about women and tackle misogyny in our media.”

Media ‘misogyny…….can no longer be dressed up as satire or banter.’

Amen to that.

Variety interviews IPSO and we get a look at the process.

Another happy dance!

Here is Byline's article on it
https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-meghan-sexist-column-sun-c880a9d5ac0ed2cc300fc3a0fcb56cdd

Clarkson’s daughter had been among those who blasted the column. “I stand against everything that my dad wrote about Meghan Markle and I remain standing in support of those that are targeted with online hatred,” Emily Clarkson posted on Instagram

A good day for women and just sorry that Clarkson still works for Murdoch and suffers no consequences to speak of

Sorry, not Byline's article. AP.