WSJ: Meghan & Harry produce a major Hollywood flop..themselves

[RYGO]

WSJ: Meghan & Harry produce a major Hollywood flop..themselves

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Produce a Hollywood Flop: Themselves - WSJ

https://archive.ph/lpNKq

The article's behind a subscriber wall for me, so I haven't been able to read all bar a taster.

Which bits show bias?

That backs up my impression. There were some racist articles, which was wrong (needless to say, except here it seems we have to say it), but in general they had positive press.

If you click towards the bottom of the link where it says “archive” you can read it there!

And 'young couple'

I supose because young people rightly get more leeway in not being very self-aware, it is because they haven't had the life experience, it is expected that they respond a bit like teenagers and cannot see beyond their own feelings.

So it is good PR to refer to a couple with some gaps in self-awareness as a 'young couple' because it makes anyone criticising their lack of self-awareness look mean.

Exactly Tigger. Murdoch, more thanone of the media magnates Harry is suing us pulling out all stops, it seems, to discredit H&M. I think Harry expected this. Or at least, would not be overly surprised by this.

What we should all be concerned about is the power Murdoch and also MGN and AP (the other news medias Harry is suing) are weilding in the UK. And, at least in Murdochs case, also in the US and Australia.

As soon as I saw the article posted I checked on wiki to see who owned WSJ now. Turns out it’s News Corp (hiding behind Dow Jones) aka Murdoch - Murdoch media is also known as the Murdochracy in Australia, which will give posters some idea of the power the Media is wielding in Australia. All very concerning now.

Trump in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK, and Morrison in Australia all brought to us courtesy of media magnates. Each country has one thing in common when it comes to the media - we all have a powerful Murdoch press chipping away at our democratic institutions. The fact that Trump, Johnson and Morrison are no longer leaders is a little reassuring, but not overly, to my mind. Prime Ministers still seem to be much influenced by the media now. Media can make or break politicians, build them up and pull them down. And have become ruthless in exerting their power.

From wiki:

The Wall Street Journal
**
Type
Daily newspaper
Format
Broadsheet
Owner(s)
News Corp (via Dow Jones & Company)
Founder(s)

( I just woke up and I’m off - back to follow the news re Russia - very concerning)

Is bloomberg news part of the news group that harry is suing too? Since theyve also been reporting negatively on the Sussexes.

What's interesting though is there's been no denial from Spotify or Netflix about these leaks, and these stories are actually quite similar to what the palace staff had to deal with when working for the Susessexes.

It's funny, now it's all one big conspiracy by the press to destroy the Sussexes, since it's not the British media this time that's criticizing them. Is this like Donald Trump and his ‘fake news’ all over again?

The fact that Taylor Swift declined a personal invitation letter from Meghan to appear on the podcast, via a spokesperson, makes me like her even more. She is best example of true talent + productivity, and can spot grifters from miles away.

I am not a ‘fake newser’ Mamoru but have long been aware of the power of the media. I’m all for a free press as part of the democratic process, but it needs to be a free and responsible press. We used to think of them as the Fourth Estate working as a check and balance on power. But I’m unconvinced we can now see them that way. We’ve seen with Levenson 1 how badly some media behave. Yet there was no Levenson 2 and why not?

You say it’s not the British press that is criticising them here, but the WSJ is a murdoch paper and he also owns the Sun and the Times in the the UK and much of this crap is coming from his media. I think many many British people think of The Sun and Times as being ‘British Press’ or don’t they? Or maybe you don’t know the answer to this, as you said you aren’t from the UK?

Don’t let your dislike of Harry get in the way of holding the media to account and demanding better.

Bloomberg news could be accused of jumping on the profitable bandwagon of Harry and Meghan hate. I’ve seen reputable broadsheets that aren’t above publishing a bit of tabloid style trash re Harry and Meghan now.

It’s such a shame.

Watching world media coverage of Russia in the past 36 hours has been incredible. Informative with true experts in serious topics. And media asking the serious questions. This is how news media should be all the time. And it’s brilliant when it’s like this. Front page of online WSJ right now - all 10 stories are about serious news. They follow the demand.

Yes because the likes of Bloomberg news, and other reputable broad sheets, are all jumping in on the Sussex hate because its ‘profitable’ to do so. They're willing to destroy their credibility just so they can ride on this profit train. Right. FYI, the Spotify deal with the Sussexes made international headline news at the time it was reported, this was a business deal gone wrong, so why shouldn't this have been reported? Have you ever considered that there is actually truth to these reports? Or is it just too difficult to accept that harry and Meghan truly are that entitled, lazy and lack any creative talent?

The WSJ may be owned by Murdoch, but it’s a well respected news outlet that reports ‘serious news’, as you yourself stated. They have also done investigations and broken stories like the Theranos scandal and Elizabeth Holmes. Some of their journalists are Pulitzer prize winners. For you to claim that it's all some kind of conspiracy against the Sussexes,(without any evidence whatsoever apart from being Murdoch owned or that it’s profitable to do is laughable).

What you're saying is similar to what Trump and his supporters have been saying about ‘fake news’, and how widespread it is even in reputable news outlets. There's disturbingly similar language, including the accusations, and how you can only trust the direct ‘source’, aka Donald Trump or the Sussexes in this case.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/30/politics/trump-legacy-fake-news/index.html

Also, if this is all untrue, why haven't Spotify or Netflix or even the Sussexes themselves issued denials or requested extraction? This is highly damaging for them, coming from respected news outlets. This isn't easily dismissed as being from the British tabloids.

*retractions

Although some good points are made, that article is mostly a character assassination. As a PP has indicated, the question is people should be posing is who owns the publication, and what their agenda is.

To play devils advocate in relation to H and M’s work endeavours, it can’t be that unusual for start up production companies to take time to develop their brand and find their feet.

It’s obvious that they got the deals they did because of their public profiles, not their credentials, but that is rife in the entertainment business as a whole.

There is a current narrative being pushed in the media that Harry and Megan’s are grifters and that their projects are breaking down due to a lack of work ethic - am that amount of negative PR begins to become a bit suspicious.

Again, to play devils advocate- Harry has been in the Army, so I would expect he has picked up some leadership skills somewhere .

He won’t be an expert in things media related, so it actually makes sense if he has deferred to those more knowledgeable in the business. There is also the cultural differences- he isn’t American, so perhaps will communicate a little more indirectly

What really stands out to me in the article is that Megan is once again portrayed as ‘difficult’. Surely it’s not that uncommon for content providers/ producers to have the final say in podcast edits ?

She very rarely does get positive stories written about her, The statistics quoted in the Wall Street Journal really don’t portray the reality of the viciousness and dog whistle racism in the UK press.

This saccharine piece in Grazia goes to show what other narratives and fluff pieces could be written about her , if Murdoch’s News Corp didn’t have such control over so many publications.

https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/meghan-markle-instagram-return-the-tig/

It is nauseating, and her PR team/ friends in the business most likely had a hand in it but it’s a counter balance to the above, more like something you might read about other influencers.

You don’t know what the Wall Street Journal is, do you Tigger? Do you think the FT is a rag too. Just embarrassing.

These words are not hatred. Hatred is bandied around far too easily these days in an attempt to shut down a difference of opinion or mild disdain.

Most people want H&M to be content and their lives to work outside the RF but not at the expense of the country or the RF.

As for having no effect on people’s lives. What H&M said definitely had an effect on the way the country and Britons are viewed, which ultimately does have an impact on our lives. What they said created a lot of commentary and most of it not positive.

Then there is the attack on the British constitution and Head of State. If the monarchy were to be brought down, the country would temporarily cease to function with no Head of State.

It is naive to think that all of this had no impact on us, how we are viewed and our standing in the world. Even H&M failing has a ripple effect.

I feel a tad bad for Harry.

He has been surrounded by "yes men" his whole life, people telling him that he's much cleverer and interesting than he actually is.

Now that he's in the real world, he's quickly learning that he's nothing special. The only interesting thing about him is his family, the one card he's thrown away.

Good post DragonDoor.

Mamoru I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t think there’s ‘one true source’ for anything. I think it’s misguided to defend something like Murdoch media just because of Strong Dislike of Harry and Meghan. Oh, I nearly forgot to mention that the ghostwriter for Harry’s book has a Pulitzer too. I’m stepping back from this conversation now. Best wishes to you.

She very rarely does get positive stories written about her, The statistics quoted in the Wall Street Journal really don’t portray the reality of the viciousness and dog whistle racism in the UK press.

Did she not pick the journalist from The Cut to write about her. A black woman so sympathetic to Meghan. Wasn't that the first article to take jabs at Meghan?

The article isn't a character assassination.

Indeed it contains nothing about their characters, it's all about their business actions (though it does surmise that they were out of their depth)

The entertainment industry is notoriously competitive. The things required for success are 1) hard skills and 2) hard work.

There has never been any suggestion that H&M had much to offer in the way of either 1 or 2. They just aren’t professionally equipped for the jobs they want. In fact, it’s deluded of them to imagine they could be successful in Hollywood with so little experience and talent.

It’s difficult to know where to go from here brand-wise. They have made themselves into notorious b-listers. They turn up somewhere, take all the attention, and at the same time convey a not-A-list vibe. It’s a kiss of death for anyone organising an event.

But Murdoch's News Corporation owns newspapers in various countries. Australia, US, UK, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Ireland. The UK Times and Sun are British press but are you then saying The Australian is a British newspaper because Murdoch owns it? I think the Australians might disagree, especially as Murdoch started it before he'd even moved to the UK. As Murdoch is Australian American, by what you're saying, The Sun and The Times are Australian or American press rather than British. So your argument doesn't make sense.

NewsCorp is massive that owns and runs so many businesses multinationally. The Sun are constantly still settling cases. Harry isn't going to make any difference to either The Sun's reputation or readership. You think a 92yo guy who's hemming and hawing about his next wife, is telling the WSJ to go fake a story? Give him a break. He's got other things to think about.

@00100001

Well, if you read the article in the context of Invictus.... He and/or someone else probably had an idea about a veterans competition

Veterans competions existed before H came along.

According to many accounts Invictus was inspired when Harry visited the US Warrior Games (established 2010)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_Games