"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 really enjoyed the Paris episode - I think Paris really got to tell her story especially with regards to the troubled teen industry. I think the episode was such great examination of how Paris leaned into her label but that really who was or is. I do remember that the episodes however were a Rorschach almost for many people - people who disliked Meghan saw the episodes negatively with her melting down and digging at others and others saw them simply as conversations. The fact that these anondyne conversations caused so much consternation was certainly something.

No - they will find a way to say that it means nothing or that they bought it or that it’s worthless. Nevermind that these awards and nominations are not for H&M alone but the producers, composers, filmographers, editors and all the hundreds of people involved.

The Gracie awards are another set that you pay to be nominated.

It’s a second rate award show for a second rate ‘documentary’. When their documentary had to resort to using press footage of a harry potter premier to build the Sussex narrative of press intrusion/pursuit, I would hardly describe it as ‘non fiction’.

Like I said - the important thing is the schadenfreude which you so aptly have demonstrated.

The Gracie awards are another set that you pay to be nominated.

No - you pay for entry. The judges then nominate you based on their criteria.

https://allwomeninmedia.org/gracies/call-for-entries/graciesfaq/

I may be guilty of that but at least I've never tried to humiliate my family in public, nor have I made unfounded accusations against them, just because I didn't get to have my own way.

That’s the issue. It was intended to be a two fingers up to the establishment , or rather ‘the Institution’ as they put it, after accepting all the lavish expenditure and public interest and goodwill. They are like a pair of spoilt teenagers . They could have kept their private vows between themselves rather than using it as a stick to beat the RF with.

Whatever you say.

Thse threads are really funny now.

No news, nothing going on with the couple, invent something terrible or harp back to the same old same old that's been said before a million times.

Agreed - rinse and repeat.

They create the news!

Then they get extremely angry at their own creation!

@Iwantcakeeveryday That's a very nasty comment to make to someone who is expressing their opinion. They have as much right as you to their views.

Of course people can share their views, myself included. I am allowed a view on what people post here. If you can all make comments on what Meghan and Harry have done, why are you so opposed to having your own behaviour commented on? I know none of my family would be humiliated or embarrassed with my online comments, they read them.

Personally I think anonymity is why social media is so toxic and if we all had to put our names to our comments the world would be a much kinder and happier place.

Because this thread is about the royals and not the anonymous posters who post here?

@Iwantcakeeveryday Your comments were hardly kind! Please don't lecture people on posting kindly when you insult other posters. People must be allowed to call out lies and spin anonymously or otherwise. I speak out openly about my views. I don't post stories about fake pregnancies or any other nonsensical theories. I've heard and seen real crazy stuff but I have enough common sense it ignore it.

You're obviously referring to H&M. Perfect summing up of their behaviour

I don't think it was an insult, but an honestly held opinion. I think a lot of people would post very differently under their own names. I'm reminded of the McCann troll who committed suicide when she was revealed and her sons shock at who she was. Anonymity isn't necessary to hold people accountable, you're thinking of whistleblowers and I don;t think people commenting online about Meghan and Harry are the same at all, that's a strange thing to bring up.

As I said there are people who post anonymously because their views are frankly deranged but most anonymous posters post simply to remain anonymous. Talking about child or relationship issues is better anonymously. I'm sure everyone would agree that. I don't think anyone here has posted the vile trolling nonsense I've seen elsewhere so they shouldn't be linked. People are allowed to find the couple unlikable just as others find them likeable

Perhaps you should also realise that not all the comments people make about the sussexes are insults but rather honestly held views. And perhaps in light of what you wrote about putting names to our comments, you should lead the way as an example for others and post your real name here?

Yes. I couldn't make sense of this either as it seems a criticism of H and M.

Is it really really an honest held view to actually say you are hoping they will crash and burn?

To me, that is not a view, it is wishing the very worst on two human beings. Nothing would be bad enough for them, in your opinion, I feel. Your loathing of them seeps through every post.

Criticise current actions by all means (there aren't any) but trawling the internet to denigrate them endlessly in your quest for them to crash and burn really isn't 'an honest held view'

so true in away, mn is also bad for the name changing, people can just name change and become someone else.