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

It may be Murdoch owned but it is also considered a well respected news organisation that has broken serious stories like the Theranos scandal. It was also considered the most trust worthy news organisation by the majority of Americans in 2018:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonysilber/2018/10/03/the-wall-street-journal-tops-a-new-index-of-most-trustworthy-media-brands/amp/

I think it's misguided to dismiss these negative reports just because they go against the pro Sussex narrative. WSJ were in fact the ones who also broke this story of Spotify ending their contract with the Sussexes. That should tell you that they do most likely have inside information, or else how would they have known this news before it was reported anywhere else? And this news also supports the ‘grifter’ claim that the Spotify executive made (who had direct contact with the Sussexes). This also supports the issuss that the palace staff had when dealing with the Sussexes. Multiple staff turn overs, some who went back to their old jobs not even lasting a year working with the Sussexes, it all sounds familiar. You also can't explain why neither the Sussexes or Spotify or Netflix have issued denials over these stories. And why Bloomberg, another well respected news organisation, not owned by Murdoch, would choose to report on something damaging to the Sussexes? Claiming that it's profitable is not a good enough excuse, as they're not your random tabloid that needs to rely on gossip and tabloid scandal just to generate income.

Or perhaps these news organisations are just reporting the truth that the Sussexes do have poor work ethic and their sources are the people who directly worked with harry and Meghan? Is that so hard to believe? I mean, their work speaks for itself, 12 podcast episodes over the span of 2-3 years, and not even all the interviews were done directly by Meghan. Was that really the best they could do? Meanwhile, other podcasters put out weekly episodes and never got the same deal that the Sussexes got. What exactly is their value to Netflix or Spotify apart from talking badly about the royal family? And Archetypes was only at the top of the charts for the the first few episodes before it quickly dropped down the charts. It wasn't doing rogan numbers nor was it in the top 5 most listened to podcasts in 2022.

It’s an uncharitable article with an unpleasant headline, but it’s consistent with pieces produced elsewhere. We’ve been hearing that Meghan is difficult to work with for years now - William booted them out of the Foundation for that very reason, they can’t keep staff and they lack focus and commitment.

Invictus was a fine idea but by Harry’s own admission in his memoir, he needed someone else to make it happen. The person he approached needed a lot of persuasion as he was unwilling to commit to such a huge project. I suppose you could argue that being the face of Invictus is what gave it appeal, and we were at that time very pro veterans anyway, but Harry wasn’t responsible for turning the concept into a major event by any stretch of the imagination. Meghan isn’t without talent and when she sets her mind to something she goes for it, but neither of them appear to have the project management or people skills needed to accomplish what Archewell in all its forms has been set up to do.

I go back to what I’ve posted previously, Harry is not a thinker or a planner, he’s a doer. They need to stop thinking of themselves as influencers and settle on a business idea that they can grow. If nothing else they could build a property portfolio in no time. They have more than enough seed capital to get something started, but it’s time to put their money where their mouths are and stop relying on others to make things happen for them.

but are you then saying The Australian is a British newspaper because Murdoch owns it? I

No, I didn’t say that. You seem to have overthought this, Gracewithoutend

Murdoch just paid out $A750,000,000, (that is a LOT of zeros), in the US a few months ago to Dominion. He’s very likely up for a similar, if not bigger, payout to Starmatic soon. His Fox News media in the US got caught telling lies in regards to the results of 2020 election.

Then, an Australian independent online newspaper called Crikey said something about Murdoch media, and Lachlan Murdoch (Rupert is not running his empire alone, after all) threatened to sue. Instead of backing off and retracting what they said, Crikey took out a huge ad in the NY Times which, in my words, was a ‘come and gets us, you sue us please’ challenge. Essentially they stuck out their tongue at Murdoch. It has been called a David and Goliath moment. End result is that Lachlan stepped back and called off the lawyers, and dropped his case on the day they paid out over $750,000,000 to Dominion. Murdoch media is not going to fold as a result of Dominion payout and very possible Starmatic payout, but it’s hurting. Also hurting is it’s credibility. And Harry and the others suing them won’t break Murdoch either obviously. But if he wins, it’s going to hurt.

Murdoch and Lachlan don’t have to tell their editors on a day to day basis what they want done. They are employed by Rupert, Lachlan et al because they know exactly what he wants and do it.

‘Give him a break’

Give Murdoch a break?

Now I’m really stepping away from this thread this time. Too time consuming. Please don’t @me. I’m good.

'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.'

So which is it? The WSJ is a serious newspaper with good, well researched articles, or is that only if it's not about the Sussexes - if it's about the Sussexes it's all lies and character assassination? I don't think the WSJ jornalists would sink their reputations on reporting falsely about Harry and Megham somehow.

That’s really stretching it. The WSJ has editorial independence. You can’t even call WSJ and The Sun sister papers, Harry’s actions against The Sun if successful will have absolutely no impact on WSJ whatsoever. They do believe in the free press which Harry may have a problem with but that’s an editorial position not a conflict of interest. This would be such a dangerous precedent too - if ALL wealthy men have to do is start legal proceedings against a single company owned by each of the media barons to have ALL criticism of them dismissed because of a “conflict of interest” THEY created, we will never be able to hold the powerful to account ever again. “But Murdoch” is not actually a critique. The reporting is sound, trying to create content of a quality and interest that justifies the amount of money they need has been harder than M&H expected.

Tbf you don’t need to be a biased journalist or whatever, to point out that Harry and Meghan bit off more than they could chew. Millions for Netflix, millions for Spotify, Archewell, women’s advocacy (M) CHIMPO of a company (H) charity endeavours (both) lawsuits (H) Polo (H) hiking/gym/beauty regime/hair and stylists for award ceremonies etc (M) plus all the other time taken up with normal parenting and (rich person) things. I bet they take more than 5 weeks holiday a year too.

they thought they could tell their story (again) put their famous names on something, their face on the box, and the rest would be done. The money was for content which needed creativity, skill and hard work. Even if they were really good, I can’t see how they would have the time to do more all these things properly. I think they were greedy and grabbed every contract without factoring in the work it would be.

Replying to morestrangerthings post:

I worked at newspapers years ago and I have my head in my hands. The action against The Sun has no impact on any other Murdoch owned paper. Most have total editorial control. They also have boards. There are so many layers between what actually gets published and Murdoch. And no the board members and editors are not all mere fleshy vessels channelling the will of Rupert Murdoch. They may share his political views (although the WSJ news desk doesn’t) but they are not literally executing his financial will. “But Murdoch” has been used as a way of dismissing good journalism for too long. Would the landscape be better without him? Undoubtedly. Did this piece get written to please him? Of course it didn’t! Have you any idea how many articles are written per day just at one paper?

“Hey Rupert, I’m thinking of doing a piece about- you know Meghan and Harry? - well them, the angle will be how everything is going absolutely brilliantly for them, how their Spotify contract was cancelled just as they planned, how their family is actually really cool with all the trash talking and how classy airing your dirty laundry in public is, and how genius Prince Harry’s idea of interviewing Putin about his traumatic childhood on a podcast is - what do you think? Oh? Oh really? I didn’t know about the totally irrelevant court case in a foreign country against a random tabloid that doesn’t impact the WSJ in any way. Oh gosh I mean I could try to put a negative spin on Netflix not being totally satisfied with their output but that could be tough I’ll be honest.”

What’s even more annoying: the piece is actually quite neutrally written, it’s the facts which are negative! Things weren’t as easy as they expected. That’s plain as day.

Very good post.

I'm curious if any of the 'fake news' brigade could point out what they consider to be the factual inaccuracies in the article.

Excellent post by tigger2022

I think most folks kinda know this now though. It’s not stunning news

its being reported they are “working” on a Netflix sequel to great expectations. I strongly suspect there is a contractual commitment there being met and Netflix is just attaching them to it to fulfil the contractual obligation. The work is being done by the folks qualified to do the work and m&h are doing no work at all.

I will admit to being surprised by their narcissism. They genuinely seem to think as they have titles this is enough, they shouldn’t do any actual work. And the rumours harry thought he was big enough to interview Putin and trump on their child hoods or the pope on religion, is utterly mind boggling. It’s the most narcissistic thing I’ve read. That he thinks those men would agree to be interviewed by him. Wtaf.

@tigger2022

I also worked on a (News Corp) tabloid when I was younger and find the conspiracy theories about Rupert & his minions personally choreographing a character assassination of the Sussexes across the scattered corners of his empire equally baffling. They really are not that important.

What we have in the WSJ piece is a rather dry presentation of some uncomfortable truths (the Taylor Swift snub is possibly the most damaging revelation in PR terms, although the parts about their working ethos would be more harmful to future deals).

In terms of any critical opinion pieces in the Murdoch press, these simply reflect the fact that many people are critical of them and the criticism is hardly confined to News Corp. I'm really not sure what their defenders expect.

Yes, that is a good post @Mummyoflittledragon

Harry is even more of an idiot than he's already displayed himself as if he thinks his personal crusade against the press is going to lead to kinder coverage of him and Meghan. I don't think he appreciates the power of Rupert Murdoch and how much damage Murdoch can do to their ambitions through relentless negative press coverage across multiple different media platforms in the US, the UK and Australia, which surely are the main markets for anything that Harry and Meghan would be flogging?

This is the reach of Rupert Murdoch [from Wikipedia]:

Through his company News Corp, he is the owner of hundreds of local, national, and international publishing outlets around the world, including in the UK (The Sun and The Times), in Australia (The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, and The Australian), in the US (The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post), book publisher HarperCollins, and the television broadcasting channels Sky News Australia and Fox News (through the Fox Corporation).

This past couple of weeks have shown us just what a dangerous enemy Harry's made by going after Murdoch and his publications. Now, you might think it's only right that someone is questioning the power of such a monopoly, but Harry (and Meghan) now rely on others hiring them in order to bankroll their very expensive lifestyle, so it's a very risky strategy.

I also worked on a (News Corp) tabloid when I was younger and find the conspiracy theories about Rupert & his minions personally choreographing a character assassination of the Sussexes across the scattered corners of his empire equally baffling. They really are not that important.

I don't know that they're personally choreographing a character assassination, but anything about H&M always gets broadcast far and wide, because they're a very divisive couple and one that a lot of people love to hate. That article in the WSJ yesterday got picked up by the Daily Mail overnight and is now their lead story on Sunday morning - another publication that loves to skewer them. And these are ALL publications that Harry is suing. So do they want to discredit him? I think that's a given.

Hardly news, given they were publicly called grifters by someone from Netflix I think. What a pair of spectacularly self obsessed idiots. Not sure they will get sympathy from anyone, and quite rightly. They could have had a perfectly nice and privileged life as part time 'working' royals, country estate, taxpayer funded security, fame, etc. But they have burned their bridges.
They should give up their royal titles, that ultimate symbol of all they now profess to despise, and shut up. They're beyond embarrassing.

The WSJ takes accuracy and fairness incredibly seriously - far more so than any British paper - at least in its news pages (the editorial pages are from a completely separate team and a law unto themselves).
This means that the stories often end up being rather dry and stodgy, but they most definitely don’t sensationalise or shill for any particular side.