Harry and Megan dubbed "fucking grifters" Part Deux

[Qbish]

Harry and Meghan slammed by Spotify executive after podcast deal ends | The Independent

The old thread got closed, just as I was trying to quote tweet someone! So I've started this one, because this shitshow is still rumbling on

I don't think he realised just how much work went on behind the scenes to protect his rep in the UK. The Palace PR machines are formidable. I honestly think he didn't realise this

I think this is very astute. He has been so focused on the media being unfair to him, so focused on his family leaking stories to stop stories about others, I think he simply doesn’t understand how it works, he’s so deep in his paranoia and victimisation mode.

it’s very obvious the palace has a strong relationship with the media that they nurture, it’s also very obvious that many stories that could have been published, were not. Media blackouts are very common.

he was overall portrayed as a happy go lucky chap, and was very popular with the public. Yes a few minorly intrusive stories Ie about, nazi uniform, drugs or Chelsey etc , but nothing major or that wasn’t true Ie he was to blame as he did it. But overall he was presented in a positive manner,

as was Meghan. Yes some crappy headlines made infamous now. But overall she was very well represented and was very popular at the time of the marriage.

now they’ve lost that royal protective shield. And they have being acting abysmally for about 4 years, fame hungry and money focused. With little talent to back them up. The American media is a whole different animal to what harry has expebefore.

He's gone a bit further than that. I suggest you look into Harry's partnership with the Aspen Institute. Highlighted in Matt Taibbi's investigation regarding the Twiiter Files and (what he calls) the Censorship Industrial Complex - censorship of social media at the behest of non government, non academic, but tax payer funded organisations like Aspen. The Aspen Institute produced a report in 2021 on "information disorder" and censoring the tech industry, co-authored/commissioned by, amongst others, Prince Harry.

I'm finding it hard to picture Harry reading Dickens and calling for a feminist interpretation of Miss Haversham's back story.

I can't imagine how much interest can be generated - never mind feminist input - into the story of a woman who, once jilted, chose not to go back out into the world, head held high, and say fuck the patriarchy and what people are thinking about me; but instead to lock herself away, stay in her wedding frock, refuse to have any of the wedding breakfast etc cleared away, and adopt a poor little girl to subject to mental abuse. Thus providing substance to the notion that a woman wronged by a man must have brought it upon herself, should feel ashamed, and is probably insane.

I don't know enough about celeb PR to comment. But yes absolutely that sort of horse trading goes on, but the difference between H&M and the deals you describe, is that Trump, Ben Affleck et al are huge bankable stars who can make a lot of money / wield considerable hard or soft power / have massive networks of clebes and business associates. So that gives them the weight to do those kinds of deals. I'm actually not sure that H&M have that kind of weight, or if they do, it's only through their connection to RF.

They tried to befriend O Winfrey and the Obamas but both have now distanced themselves.

Anyone drawing a spotlight to misinformation is doing a good thing in my book.

With the internet, misinformation is no longer confined to countries. It’s now disseminated globally. How much has say, something like QAnon contributed to divided societies and ‘off the wall’ beliefs? We saw what misinformation from the internet, and an ex president, as well as a cable tv station achieved re the January 6 insurrection that led to the deaths of 5 people - one a police officer.

The Australian Govt is working on getting legislation to parliament that makes social media owners liable for misinformation on their sites. I don’t know the details of it yet, but it could be a good thing. It seems to have fairly strong bipartisan support too. I do not believe in shutting down free speech. However, somehow or other we have to get back to it being free and responsible with recognition by those who want to speak freely(and that is all of us) that their words do have consequences (and that should be all of us).

(Whoops, it’s night time where I am. Time for bed. This old woman was up reading until the early hours last night did not get all her required sleep. Thanks for the conversation).

For all the complaining from Harry, Hugh Grant, Hacked Off etc, the UK press is far less powerful and fearless than it used to be. The rise of super injunctions followed by hacking scandal really did a number on their confidence imo.

They're also more sensitive to emotionally intrusive stories. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, something very sad and worrying happened with someone close to Tony Blair. I personally don't think it was a public interest thing but you could make a decent argument that it was because there was an Iraq War connection. Alistair Campbell basically rang up all the editors and had a man to man / heart to heart and appealed to their better natures. The story was pulled.

It's a bit harder to do that in the US - actually stuff that it's a lot harder. It can be done but there's a lot of horse trading that goes on. Alsp the US media landscape is a lot more fragmented in terms of ownership so it's harder to wield that sort of power quickly.

In conclusion, H&M are screwed.

It's not raving and ranting Nigel Farage and Piers Morgan from the UK that Harry has to concern himself about.

If he is pissing people off like Meghan McCain (an anti-Trump conservative commentator with a big reach), and potentially some 'big guns' like Elon Musk, over the Bill of Rights, the American Way, and censorship, then he'll come even more unstuck. Harry doesn't seem to be able to understand and analyse where power originates, and who has power over and power to and why. He sees 'the media' as having unfair power, yet never shows any true insight into the source of his own.

Harry will himself become just another raving and ranting 'talking head' for the $$$. He's already edging in on that territory to some extent.

We have our gossip sites in US but I don’t think they are as widely read or reaching as the Daily Mail, The Sun etc in UK. I’ve never seen the tabloids laying on the break room table in an office in US the way I always did in UK. And everyone knows they are absolute bullshit. Those were the ones reporting Jennifer Anniston was pregnant constantly. They have huge resources to fight in court if needed or pay people off. It’s not so much easier to get away with, they just figure some settlements into their budget and figure most celebs won’t bother to pursue anything.

I think what’s printed in US as gossip is just easier to laugh off and dismiss. No serious person reads any of it.

I don’t know @AutumnCrow. we have a president that just said “I’ve sold alot of state secrets” in front of another world leader. He is either daft enough to think that’s funny (and it is not, while his son’s business affairs and foreign ties are being credibly questioned), or as per usual, he does not know what he’s saying at all. Both are plausible and no one actually cares.

Harry is in exactly the right place for anything ridiculous he does or says to be laughed off and forgotten.

Thank you everyone for the chat most interesting.

we have a president that just said “I’ve sold alot of state secrets” in front of another world leader

Well he did say "all kidding aside ..." after it, but the very fact he thought this a subject to joke about says a lot about his state of mind (or lack of it)

Quite what the Democrats are doing nominating a clearly very ill man is beyond me, but I guess that's a matter for them

We should start a US politics thread...maybe Titled 'How the hell is American having to choose between two old men? And should politicians be retired at 70 because...seriously at that age they ought to be bird watching not having their fingers on the nuclear button'

No offense to bird watchers intended.

Yeah, but it was absolutely shocking. See the look on Modi’s face?

The DNC choose him him because he could win against Trump, that is all.

Now they will put him up again because they don’t have another viable candidate.

Meanwhile, the maniac Trump who was never a conservative has co-opted the Republican Party because he could.

It’s an absolute mess.

Then you really need to read Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys.

Unfortunately for H&M, Jean Rhys was a huge literary talent, and unless they're going to hire Shonda Rhimes, then they're not producing another Bridgerton.

As for Harry... at base, he's just very dim. That's not his fault, but Meghan seems to have encouraged him to think he has more intelligence than he does. Still, she's a grifter, and maybe that's how you get a Prince to fall in love with you.

I did indeed see Modi's expression, AliceOlive, and who can blame him?

What beats me is why Biden's loved ones aren't sitting on his head, trying to persuade him not to do this - or maybe they are, and he's beyond help

As you say, an utter mess all round; I realise many with ral integrity will go nowhere near politics, but America deserves better than this

I always thought Trump must not listen to anyone, even before he was openly a batshit, that hair was a sign that either no one could tell him, or he got told and didn’t care.

On a basic level, I think Biden is similar in that wouldn’t hear anything and his family are too deferential to even try.

Also, Biden has always been like he is; anyone suggesting it’s just old age needs to watch videos of him from the 80s, swearing he got a full ride scholarship and finished top in his class. He didn’t. We knew that back then. But today, all that matters is he’s a D and they could get him elected. It’s starting to feel like elder abuse, though.

I first saw clips of Biden being weird with kids here on MN, when he was first running for President. I guess he's kept away from children now when the cameras roll? It was very disturbing to watch children looking so uncomfortable being sniffed and touched.

And then ... Trump.

What a time to be alive.

I’ve never seen anything like it.

And, everyone working with or talking about Harry and Meghan voted for one of these people. Joe Biden can lie his ass off for decades, and Trump can Trump like he has and these men still each have a serious chance at the next presidency.

Does that put Harry and Meghan’s current position into context? They can always course correct and are loads less noxious than these two. America is forgiving, understanding, hardly anyone is ever permanently done here.

I don't know what you are suggesting here and yes I saw the videos, but I do need to say this is a massive deviation from the thread

Yes, that's really interesting. Thank you.

Funnily enough (or not!), I've pointed out a couple of time on another board's discussions that the US is nothing like the US culturally or politically or religiously.

I like the idea of people being able to make a fresh start, if it's genuine.

That's an interesting perspective, thanks!

Suits was a popular show, but it wasn't Friends and Meghan is not Jennifer Aniston.

She will make some money out of residuals, but nowhere near enough to fund a Montecito lifestyle.

@Qbish Wide Sargasso Sea is a somewhat different animal, imo. For a start, Antoinetta/Bertha was locked away against her will by Rochester. She had no agency over her marriage and as a married woman was completely in his control by law. The feminist message in WSS is borne out of that struggle. Also, we know little of Bertha's background from Jane Eyre, so Jean Rhys was able to use a lot of poetic licence to create a back story.

If the intention of H&M was to tell Miss Haversham's story prior to her non-marriage, it's not likely to be that interesting or feminist. Unlike Bertha, we know Miss. H's story, because Dickens wrote it. She decided to marry, against advice, a man who swindles her, so she's a bit dim/lovesick/wilful. Miss Haversham may have been jilted, but she was freed of male control as a result. Rather than embrace her freedom, or indeed seek out a true love, or restore her reputation, or replenish her fortune through using her wits, she chose purgatory. Nobody locked her away - she chose that path herself. And she also chose to live a life in suspended animation, and to emotionally torture a young girl, Estella, and subsequently, Pip (child abuse is not feminist).

She barely saw anyone once she locked herself away. H&M would have to completely throw Dickens' character as we meet her in GE out of the window to make an interesting character we would like and consider a feminist, and to justify the subsequent "life" she made for herself up to the point we meet her in Great Expectations. They'd have to turn her into Batwoman or something, crawling out of the window in disguise, seeking out the fiancé and brother who swindled her, and in the meantime, fighting crime and saving urchins and prostitutes on the mean Victorian streets, before returning home at dawn, slipping back into her wedding dress and single shoe, and moping about the house (because, of course, that's the best way to deflect attention from the true identity of Victorian London's lone lady crime-fighter).*

*That's my idea, H&M, if you are reading this, copyright.

BatHavisham, the Victorian night avenger - an idea that outGaimans Gaiman!