Hates Sites

[TicTacToes]

I’m very interested to know whether sites that are clearly pro Meghan and Harry are now considered ‘hate’ sites when they publish opinion pieces supportive of either of them. A case in point being Celebitchy where I’ve taken a gander at the articles which seem supportive of H and M and other celebrities, the latest article is kinda supportive of Taylor Swift. I see it’s been around for donkeys. Some of the comments, however, posted by people seem out there and I do not get the humour at all. Overall, it seems the ‘working’ British Royals are not thought well of so it may also have a Republican strain running through it. Anyway, be interested to know if there is a history to be aware of as I do not like hate sites and if this is rabidly communist or fascist it should be flagged up as such.

My one and only post on this crap, if you’re getting your info from a website that comprise the word of celebrity and bitchy and don’t see the problem of credibility that’s on you.
article that could have took seconds to google before spouting crap

celeb article

It’s a celebrity gossip website not a hate site. Honestly what do you think the DM are doing if not promoting a wildly conservative and royalist agenda? Are they a hate publication?

Whispers… yes the DM is a hate site.

If you don't like hate sites so much then why are you posting about them? I've never heard of them, have no interest in them as I'm not into the royals but, you're a Royalist?

Makes no sense to me; promoting something that you actively dislike.

Yes, I see little difference between the Daily Mail and Celebitchy in terms of gossip. Both seem to attract batshit crazy comments too.

These royal threads attract batshit hateful comments as well

I've seen horrible things about the RF (Catherine/William/Charles/Camilla) on here but nothing too bad about H & M. I've been on for possibly a couple of years - maybe less, so I'm prepared to believe that in the early days of Meghan there might have been worse stuff.

The 'anti-Meghan and Harry' posts (if we have to think of it like that) on MN recently I find to be calm, nuanced, well-informed and perceptive, with the interest being in the psychology of their behaviour and the wider effects it has on the RF and the UK. I don't see hyper-personal nastiness or viciousness towards them - it's all much more 'in regret than anger'. Yes, there's the occasional joke, but it's not what I'd call vicious.

In the relatively short time I've been reading them, the comments about the royals I find to be of a different order. I suspect that a different type of person is likely to make these comments - to put it crudely, people who tend to be more aggressive and less subtle - and sometimes, it has to be said, a bit dim in their lack of critical thinking. With some honourable exceptions they are much less articulate than the 'other side'.

The stuff about Catherine's absence before her cancer announcement was vile, and it was accompanied by horrible, drooling enjoyment and repetition of long-discredited rumours about the Wales's marriage and William's 'anger issues', as they like to call them. Really awful stuff which I won't repeat here.

It points up a big difference in the sort of posts which criticise Meghan and Harry. I guess all the 'H & M critical' regulars have heard the various nasty gossip about their relationship but I've never seen anyone repeat this stuff on here.

Just my experience of the MN RF discussions.

And on the subject of Celebitchy - it's unbelievable! What can I say? It's one of the craziest, crankiest displays of (mainly American, I suspect) ignorance, Anti-British prejudice, spite, revenge, hatred and conspiracy theorising you could ever imagine. I find it hard to believe such people walk among us.

Those contributors are seriously weird people, and as for 'Kaiser', who 'interprets' various British press pieces for them (they like that - they don't want to do their own thinking), that woman (it is a woman, apparently) needs either help or punishment!

Very helpful. 👍

It's weird that every single comment on every single article posted are pro Harry and Meghan and anti, many in an incredibly vitriolic way, members of the rf. It becomes obvious very quickly that most of the posters are US based and have little or no knowledge of the UK or the Commonwealth.

I would say it could easily be classed as a hate site purely because of the volume and one-sidedness of the commentary. Some of the comments are seriously horrible.

And as CoffeeCantata pointed out, their reliance on the spouting of Kaiser, whoever Kaiser is, makes the whole edifice rather cult-like.

Comments on Celebitchy are tightly controlled by Kaiser and her minions / apparently it wasn’t always like that.

There’s even a whole Reddit community for people who have been banned from commenting on Celebitchy for disagreeing with the group think.

It’s always been anti-Kate from the moment she started dating William, long before Meghan was on the scene.

DM is very biased, undoubtedly. And press regulation in the UK could do with a lot of improvement. But there is some regulation, and there are laws of libel to protect people, even.if those laws are not completely adequate.

There are no regulations or laws of libel for sites such as celebitchy.

All that. ⬆️

If you are fool enough to succumb to the utter shite on Celebitchy then it says an awful lot.

None of it good.

Celebitchy used to be a pretty run of the mill celebrity gossip site until Kaiser figured that pretending she was a huge Meghan fan would get her clicks - she's a Kate hater at her core, rather than a Meghan lover - that's just an expedient way for her to frame her dislike of Kate as punching up against evil salty Brit wiglet island, or whatever.

I had a look at the Harry and Meghan threads on tattle life. They are really awful. Especially in regards to the posts about Meghan. Kate is well loved on those threads but I highly doubt she’d want to be associated with any of them.

As the Duchess once said loving one does not mean having to hate the other.

And yet…

Salty Island and horse and buggy land, the latter being a dig at Royal coaches I guess. What’s wrong with horses and coaches. 😂😂

Fuck all wrong with salt either.

Kaiser is a loon. She scares the sh%t out of her followers.

😊

I used to get upset reading the awful stuff on Celebitchy - largely because of the virulent anti-British tone - based very much on cultural ignorance. The viciousness toward Catherine and William is off the scale. Oh - and the most shocking thing is that many of them claim they go to church! 😯Nice.

Of course I know that its contributors are a small and unpleasant minority, but really, they are vile. There's one " KellyBelle" who just drips hatred - I just cannot imagine how she lives her day-to-day life with that level of anger and malice inside.

Catherine's enthusiastic reception at Wimbledon has whipped them into a frenzy of vitriol, of course, so where the SS is concerned, this kind of reaction shouldn't be a surprise.

I genuinely read this on one post a week or so back: "Let's not click on any of those articles, folks. It's better that we let Kaiser interpret them for us." Terrifying!

From what I've gleaned, a lot of people left Celebitchy because of Kaiser and the imposed groupthink. Some allege that she was one of the loons obsessed with Benedict Cumberbatch who couldn't countenance him being with anyone, all edited and deleted now of course.

I have heard some awful rumours about Harry and Meghan, Meghan in particular and I'm sure most of the RF board regulars have also. I give them the sort of credence I do the awful rumours about Kate and William and wouldn't dignify them by repeating. Any criticism of M&H on here is usually based on documented words and behaviour that some of us find egregious. I think the real W&K opponents have to dig rather deeper into dirt, as they don't actually do anything objectively wrong.

Sorry - I seem to have lost the power to select a quote, so the whole of your post has appeared..

Yes, I agree - there's really very little foundation to the rumours about W and C, and I find that (on MN at least) those more sympathetic to W and C are far less willing to repeat internet rumours about H & M's relationship than the other way around! Wonder what this says about these demographics...

Any criticism of M&H on here is usually based on documented words and behaviour that some of us find egregious. I think the real W&K opponents have to dig rather deeper into dirt, as they don't actually do anything objectively wrong.

That might have something to do with Palace leaking stories about Harry, and not William.

This seems to have gone on since the early 2000s.

The heirs must be protected, so give the media and its consumers the spare. Harry said as much I think. Didn’t he say that the Palaces are in bed with the media?

MGM used ‘palace leaking’ in their defence against Harry’s assertions of phone hacking.

“Instead, MGN's lawyer claimed in a court document seen by Yahoo! News: "Many [of the articles] came from information disclosed by or on behalf of royal households or members of the Royal Family."”

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/prince-harry-stories-royal-family-daily-mirror/

This is the British Monarchy. There’s a long history of scheming and plotting. I find it hard to believe it suddenly ended sometime during the late Queen’s reign. No one understands ‘optics’ and creating ‘narratives’ better than this lot. They’ve been at it for a thousand years.

I see the married in women as the whipping boys in all this and that press and the public collude in this.

And it seems that the Press was told William was not ‘fair game’ in an article when he turned 18, but I can’t find equivalent for Harry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/809612.stm

“Five years ago, when Prince William went up to Eton, Lord Wakeham gave newspapers a strong warning to respect his privacy during his time at school.

In a speech to journalists, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission said the fact William would one day be King did not warrant intrusions into the privacy of a child.

On Wednesday, speaking in the same room, just off Fleet Street, he gave newspapers credit for their restraint during that period, pointing out the Prince's life at Eton had been largely free of paparazzi and intrusive stories.

But on leaving school, William loses much of the protection all children receive under the editors' code and Lord Wakeham acknowledged there would now be much greater media and public interest in all aspects of the Prince's life.
^^

He must absolutely not be 'fair game' - but at the same time, things will change

Lord Wakeham
^^
The recent pictures marking William's 18th birthday - for the press and television - aroused huge media interest, so much so that a dispute over the copyright of some of the pictures led to the resignation of the Prince of Wales's press secretary.

When the News of the World pre-empted the official photographs by publishing others which had not been approved, St James's Palace made its disapproval known to the Press Complaints Commission, though it has not yet made the complaint official.

Now he has left school, newspapers will have greater freedom to publish pictures of Prince William in public places, and to write stories about him.

But Lord Wakeham is determined there should not be a free-for-all.

He told journalists: "He must absolutely not be 'fair game' - but at the same time, things will change."

"He has left school, he is growing up and has become a young adult, he is increasingly becoming a public figure - and the way the press covers him will reflect that."

Responsible coverage
Lord Wakeham reminded journalists the editors' code - which was strengthened after the death of William's mother, Diana Princess of Wales - still applied to the Prince, as much as to anyone else.
^^

Lord Wakeham calls for continued paparazzi restraint

In particular, the PCC chairman pointed out newspapers and magazines must not publish pictures of the Prince taken in places he could reasonably regard as private, and must not subject him to harassment.
^^
If they ran stories about him, he said, they should be accurate - already several papers had suggested he was having relationships with girls he had never met.

It seems likely the papers will heed the warning. Already The Sun and The Mirror have declared in leading articles they have no intention of intruding on the Prince's privacy.”

^^
^^
^^
^^