"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/

Hey! That's not very nice. It's really important to keep things civil on this board because emotions run high sometimes.

Yes, it is sad.

@MrsMaxDeWinter glad you're back! Am travelling so cannot reply in depth right now, but I so agree with your very insightful posts. Keep it up. 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

Glad to amuse! I hope can agree now that it's her legal name and certainly the one she's best known by, so it makes sense to use it? And also that the legal name discussion is a bit of a distraction from the points actually being made?

Could I please ask posters not to derail the thread?

Thank you.

I have read the article you originally posted @MrsMaxDeWinter here's the last part-
Why is it then that whenever the Sussexes make a business move, or announce new work, the headlines are always skewed in such a negative light? And more importantly, why is it always implied that Meghan is somehow to blame, or the one who has been snubbed? The most recent batch of three stories have all the marks of yet another smear campaign towards the mother-of-two.
From court cases with tabloids to Netflix documentaries about their decision to step back as senior royals and flee Britain, it is worth noting that the couple have gone to great length to demonstrate the emotional impact of this kind of relentless negativity, and the endless attempts to make Meghan seem manipulative or fraudulent.
We know it fuels abuse towards the couple, we know if makes Harry fearful for his family, and we know it has had a near-deadly impact on Meghan’s mental health. How can one contribute to such discourse with their conscience intact at this point?

That's a good question isn't it? If you know what you're doing is harmful to someone else mentally or otherwise, why not just stop?

I think the derail on the thread is as clear an example as any of how news around them is created

That’s a major difference in perspective then. It’s not a derail to talk about how people behaved which led to current public perception of them. To discuss US cultural norms around title usage, etc.

You have a poster asking everyone not to talk about anything that she doesn’t agree with. Another calling names. Another few being passive aggressive “how sad.”Another bringing up a topic, then trying to say there is agreement where clearly there is none and now we must stop talking about it or it’s a derail.

This is an example of posters trying to control a conversation and create a vacuum.

As if there isn't a vacuum elsewhere! There are some threads I just can't post on.

The topic is about how the press create news when it comes to Meghan - so the story that has been created is that Meghan wants to enter politics or even become president. So - campaigning for a good cause and using her USP to speak to senators ✅; the US president’s sister being asked on a celebrity magazine show if Meghan should go into politics ✅; her and her team preemptively purchasing domain names to prevent name squatting and other issues ✅.

And now the news is and the accepted narrative is that Meghan wanted to enter into politics. Case in point.

I literally avoid certain threads on here because of just that very issue

But .... so what?

She wants us to think she could run for president?

Prince William wants us to think he will end homelessness.

Love 'em or hate 'em the abuse they get from nasty newpapers is not on.

Participation by the majority of the UK is shameful.

Then we have hand wring about schools, bullys, social media, public discourse etc when actually the kids learn very well from those around them.

Why are you saying legally she is no longer Markle? She got married in the UK and you don't have to change your name.

And another thread to castigate them off of the Dior non story - rinse and repeat. 😞

What is the derailing? The marriage name or the political ambitions? Oh wait why are you asking?

H and M certainly feel that they have the capability and the exposure to make a difference as they say on Archwell.....

" At The Archewell Foundation our core purpose is, quite simply, to do good. We meet the moment by showing up, taking action, and using our unparalleled spotlight to uplift and unite communities, both local and global, online and offline.'

That's quite a statement.

Reading with intrigue

As is William's statement saying he plans to 'end homelessness'.

Bottom line for me is... they both have their hearts in the right place and are trying to do some good.

But the difference is.. one gets little or no criticism for a sweeping statement, and the other two get severely exorciated for it.

*excoriated

Humphhhh... spelling!

Iwantcakeeveryday · Yesterday 10:49
I see the lying cheating Boris has a job with Daily Fail, and that he has given a knighthood to Tory Ben Elliot, camilla's nephew who was accused of accepting cash for access to his Uncle.

Hurray Iwantcakeeveryday something on which you & I are in total agreement!
Amazing! Let's have a party!!

In the absence of any real news about Meghan this week, the press continues to create stories, even shoe horning her into stories about other members of the royal family.

Copy-Kate Strikes Again! is the headline of a story about Kate wearing a pair of shoes that Meghan often wore.

Camilla wears Dior After Label Rebuffs Meghan! is another ...

These could simply have been reports about what the two most senior royal women wore, I mean, it is the Queen, and the next Queen, but no, they just had to create drama by bringing Meghan into it.

Elsewhere, that trusted font of knowledge on all things Meghan, Tom Bower reports that the two have had private conversations with each other about about calling themselves Spencer. How does he know? The same way he knows all the thoughts that he put in Meghan's head in his book, I guess. And Meghan, according to Tom, asked to borrow a house from an unnamed woman she met for the first time, cue much shock and horror from Dan Wootton who interviewed him.

Next thing you know, the borrowed house story will become real news. Royal expert commentators will be commenting on it, and out will trot Samantha Markle, on cue to wag her eyebrow and tilt her head as she comments authoritatively on the private life a half-sister she has not seen since 2008, and she will regale us about how Meghan needs to borrow a house because her marriage to Harry is collapsing and also, she once tried to borrow a strange woman's house in 9th grade, but was rebuffed as strongly as she was rebuffed by Dior!

onlylarkin · Yesterday 16:58
Her title is her name.

Is it? The "Duchess" thing is a title she can use if she wishes, but her name, especially in a country that doesn't use titles, could be Meghan Sussex; Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, or even Meghan Markle. Her choice.

@MrsMaxDeWinter Your take on it has made me 😂🤣

I see headlines saying 'Duchess Dior - over before it began'

How can something be over when it never began?

That's a weird one.

It was a rumour. Dior have confirmed the reports were unfounded.

But on MN and elsewhere no doubt it'll be she has been dropped by Dior after becoming a Brand Ambassador.

I have to say... of all the complete bollocksy made up nonsense about Meghan, that is charting close to the top...

@Roussette

The attached has to be my favourite of all the Shock! Camilla wore Dior! headlines.

Imagine the press wanting people to believe that the actual freakin' Queen Consort is so small minded that she would make a "swipe" at a step daughter-in-law who lives an ocean away ... over a rumour that is not true.

The Ascot story is also all about how pleased Camilla is that Meghan who has only ever been to Ascot once was not there

If this is Camilla "leaking" her thoughts to her mates in the press then she has far too much time on her hands and the job is clearly not occupying her enough.

But I really want to believe this is just the niche press trying to make a story out of a woman who has given them no new stories in months.