Prince Harry had a hilarious message to those trolling him and Meghan

[TallerSally]

So, this is a good one.

Harry, who according to some is suffering from plummeting popularity, has no friends, is an irrelevant non-entity and a 'Hollywood Loser', and is on the brink of divorce was last night sharing a platform with his fellow non-entities Bill Clinton, Jeff Bezos, Jerome Powell (Fed Chair), Sam Altman (OpenAI CEO, creators of ChatGPT), Sundar Pichai (Google CEO) and others at the New York Times DealBook Summit.

The conversation with the interviewer, Andy Sorkin, was textbook put-down to Harry's merry band of obsessive trolls around the world:

"Towards the end of the interview, Sorkin, 47, asked Prince Harry about how he grapples with the public fascination surrounding every aspect of his life — a scrutiny that not only highlights the positive causes he advocates for but also casts a harsh spotlight on his personal relationships.
"I Google Newsed you, and there were people fascinated by everything you're doing, all the time. They're fascinated by Meghan is in California right now, and you're here," Sorkin said, seemingly referencing the Duchess of Sussex's planned solo outing at the Paley Honors gala in Beverly Hills on Dec. 4. "And there's articles left and right about, you know, 'Why are you making, doing independent events? Why aren't you doing them together?' "
"Because you invited me, you should have known!" Prince Harry interjected, which made the audience laugh.
Sorkin then replied, "True. Is that normal for you? The second there's an article — she's in California, you're in New York — they say, 'Well, what is happening with these two, right?' Is that a good thing for you, in a way, that there's so much interest in you?"
"No, that's definitely not a good thing. Apparently we've bought or moved house 10, 12 times. We've apparently divorced maybe 10, 12 times as well. So it's just like, what?' " Prince Harry said with a laugh.
"It's hard to keep up with, but that's why you just sort of ignore it. The people I feel most sorry about are the trolls," he continued. "Their hopes are just built and built, and it's like, 'Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,' and then it doesn't happen. So I feel sorry for them. Genuinely, I do."

By the way, Harry also talked at length about his Archewell Foundation Parents Network initiative, to help promote mental health among kids, which is apparently well received, if donations to Archewell are anything to go by.

Enjoy!

https://people.com/prince-harry-addresses-speculation-marriage-meghan-markle-weve-apparently-divorced-10-times-8756364

Uh hmmmmmm

Same, I really thought I was well past crushes, but this man!!!!! And really, he's very age appropriate 😁

I hate zombie films and shows, they really freak me out and I find them horribly disturbing.

I watched every episode of The Last of Us.

I didn't think these court cases were holding anyone to account. That has already happened. Aren't these civil suits about level of damages payable? And that Harry's biggest risk is that the court awards him a lower lever than was originally offered? (In which case he has to pay both sides' costs)

Yep. He's being monumentally stupid to take it all the way to trial. He could end up effectively bankrupt, even before we get into the very real danger that something will come out during the arguments that he'd prefer to keep private.

Why does he have to 'address' a 'negative press onslaught'? Why give them that power? Why concern yourself so much about what random strangers say about you?

As for holding Murdoch to account, that has been done countless times. This is all old news now. Harry could settle out of court as the vast majority of civil claimants do, and as is very much encouraged for civil cases. Instead, he's using a public resource as a forum to air his own personal grievances.

I agree with others that Murdoch is not micromanaging his vast media empire because of some sort of grudge regarding the 5th in line.

Here's a hilarious bit of trivia about the Paley Centre - last year, guess who was appointed to its Board of Trustees alongside Tyler Perry?

Yes, that's right - Sean 'Diddy' Combs.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-paley-center-for-media-announces-new-members-to-its-esteemed-board-of-trustees-and-los-angeles-board-of-governors-301815332.html

@WinterCrow 😱

Ah, the Oprah interview! That feels like a fever dream now.

Still can't quite believe that Oprah took out a worldwide copyright ban on that interview. She could have made $$$$$ on replays; instead it's ended up costing her $$$$$$.

Either she or the Sussexes - or both - really, really wanted that interview memory-holed!

@MrsFinkelstein

"If Harry really wants to take on the trolls then he needs to start with his own supporters. The "Sussex Squad" are some of the most viscous and nasty trolls out there. And H&M have publicly associated with them and thanked them."

This covers it. He has the gall to talk about trolls.

IcedPurple In regard to Harry addressing the negative onslaught Givemespanakopita wrote this. That it needs to be done ‘pronto’. Ask her please. I was just musing on that part of her comment. I found it interesting and thought that H&Ms most recent positive stories in People (or is it US mag) was perhaps them doing so.

And I never said Murdoch was ‘micromanaging his vast media empire because of some sort of grudge against’ Harry. Your hyperbolic suggestion is ludicrous and it’s received as an attempt on your part to ridicule my opinion. Not my actual opinion, but the opinion you decided I had. Don’t bother. Hating Harry is a money maker for his news empire but it is just one of many things.

Apart from this, if ‘random strangers’ (as you put it) in this case aka ‘the media’ are constantly presenting negatives views of you to the world since you were a young teenager don’t you think it would upset you? Everywhere you go, everyone you meet has already formed some opinion of you based on what the media says about you. I wouldn’t like it to happen to me. Maybe you would be okay with that? Personally I found growing up to be traumatic enough without everyone knowing about my private life, or mistakenly thinking they knew about my private life.

@GiveMeSpanakopita I’ve been following Murdoch on and off since the 90s. He absolutely does influence the content of his news empire. I agree he’s not there every moment picking up his phone and telling editors how to respond. He doesn’t have to micro manage. What he does is employ the people who understand exactly the type of news he wants to promote/sell. They know what is expected of them. That is how the culture of his newspapers work. And also, he’s not past giving his editors a phone call either to direct them. He is not a hands-off media owner, as has been observed by quite a few of his past editors through the years.

Part of the reason Trump was elected president of the US was because of Murdoch’s championing of Trump via Fox. World leaders cultivate Murdoch because of his influence. Opposition leaders cultivate him also in order to help them get elected. Murdoch and Trump talked regularly.

Rupert Murdoch’s in court currently because he’s decided that his son Lachlan should be left the business to run as he sees fit after he dies because he believes Lachlan is most aligned with his political conservative views. His other 3 children Penelope, Elizabeth and James are fighting him in court to prevent Lachlan getting this sort of control.

Murdoch has been called a steamroller who steamrolls over any journalist ethics that get in his way.

"If Harry really wants to take on the trolls then he needs to start with his own supporters. The "Sussex Squad" are some of the most viscous and nasty trolls out there. And H&M have publicly associated with them and thanked them."
This covers it. He has the gall to talk about trolls.

Both ‘sides’ have vicious nasty trolls.

'Apart from this, if ‘random strangers’ (as you put it) in this case aka ‘the media’ are constantly presenting negatives views of you to the world since you were a young teenager don’t you think it would upset you?'

Harry had pretty much the most positive press of the rf until he started behaving like a two bob watch. The public clutched him to their collective bosom because he lost his mother. He was a cheeky, fun loving good guy. The only thing that buggered that up was the public being able to see the real Harry, beamed into our sitting rooms, hearing Harry, straight from the horses mouth.

It’s not ‘memory holed’.

Here’s the transcript: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14277841/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/

A transcript does not give the full story, doesn't provide the nuance of actually seeing the interview, the interactions, the faux incredulity, the look on Harry's face as Meghan mocks curtseying to his grandmother, Harry on the sidelines, juggling in the garden. It doesn't explain why Oprah has taken down what should have been one of the biggest scoops of her career. Is she embarrassed at being used? Embarrassed at coming across as naive and a useful idiot?

Apart from this, if ‘random strangers’ (as you put it) in this case aka ‘the media’ are constantly presenting negatives views of you to the world since you were a young teenager don’t you think it would upset you? Everywhere you go, everyone you meet has already formed some opinion of you based on what the media says about you. I wouldn’t like it to happen to me. Maybe you would be okay with that? Personally I found growing up to be traumatic enough without everyone knowing about my private life, or mistakenly thinking they knew about my private life.

If I felt that way, I wouldn't be making a commodity out of my personal relationships with my family and invading their privacy for money. And if I chose to put myself in the public eye, as Harry does, I would accept that not everyone has to approve of my actions and that it's pretty stupid to blame such disapproval on 'the media'. It's even more stupid to worry about what complete strangers who have no material impact on your life think about you. If it bothers you that much, it's probably best not to seek out public attention. But Harry does.

And I never said Murdoch was ‘micromanaging his vast media empire because of some sort of grudge against’ Harry. Your hyperbolic suggestion is ludicrous and it’s received as an attempt on your part to ridicule my opinion.

I'm not 'ridiculing' your opinion. I'm disagreeing with it. Harry is of very little importance to someone like Murdoch and he's not going to spend his day calling editors in various cities to plant 'negative stories' about him. He has much bigger fish to fry than the exiled 5th in line.

Leveson held the press to account. It could have gone further, but tbh it is now SM that needs regulation.

Harry's actions are about damages for what was done pre-Leveson, from a legal perspective. And then feeding Harry's ego in claiming to 'hold the media to account'.

I'm not 'ridiculing' your opinion. I'm disagreeing with it. Harry is of very little importance to someone like Murdoch and he's not going to spend his day calling editors in various cities to plant 'negative stories' about him. He has much bigger fish to fry than the exiled 5th in line.

I never said that Murdoch spends his day calling editors about Harry. It is ludicrous.

Are you deliberately trying to put words into my mouth?

I’m now politely asking you to refrain.

Quite possibly.

The day after HMTLQ died - once OW saw the scale of the global out pouring of respect for HMTLQ she hastily convened a live interview with Gayle King where she distanced herself from 'the bombshell interview' - maybe she wanted to be on the right side of history .... or at least keep her brand untarnished at that time. Worth having a look at her awkward back-peddling on YouTube.

However I also believe she just chases the $$$$$ and she is keeping close enough to groom MM for the next big dirt dump exclusive.

For anyone who doubts Murdoch’s influenced his editors:

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/special-report-rupert-murdoch-a-hands-on-newspaperman-idUSTRE76I1IT/

Here is some of the Reuters article:

“Former senior Murdoch employees in Britain, Australia and the United States say Murdoch is a hands-on media proprietor, as ready with an opinion on a story as he is to dispose of any editor who regularly takes a different stance from his own.
^^
Reports of Murdoch pressuring editors until their newspapers reflected his own political leanings are common -- if more frequent at his tabloids than at his quality publications. Sometimes, Murdoch does not even have to pick up the phone.
^^
"When I was last at News I was astonished how some editors would almost factor in Rupert even though he was 12,000 miles away," Bruce Guthrie, a former editor at Murdoch's Herald Sun in Melbourne, told Reuters.
^^
"You could almost see them thinking, 'what will Rupert think of this?'"

Is there any supporting evidence and legitimate sources that support the belief that Murdoch doesn’t influence what is written in his papers?

I do wonder if the people that are so obsessed by hating Harry and Meghan because of some twisted jealous thing put the same effort into working on their own lives they may not need to be eaten up by the hatred?

You are easily entertained OP if you think that is "hilarious".

he faux incredulity, the look on Harry's face as Meghan mocks curtseying to his grandmother, Harry on the sidelines, juggling in the garden. It doesn't explain why Oprah has taken down what should have been one of the biggest scoops of her career. Is she embarrassed at being used? Embarrassed at coming across as naive and a useful idiot?

That’s the Netflix documentary series ‘Harry and Meghan you are thinking of. It’s still streaming if you want to watch to see all that.

The late Queen withdrew her home movie family style documentary and did not allowed it to be televised again. But I’ve been told it occasionally pops up on you tube but that it also gets taken down pretty quickly. Maybe someone recorded the OW interview and it’s on you tube somewhere?

No, that's the Oprah interview.

The curtsey bit was NF, but the rest was OW from what I remember. And yes, OW seems to be unwilling to allow the interview to be seen. Possibly because she comes across as being very gullible.

You are you are objectively and factually incorrect on Murdoch's relationship with and influence over his newspaper stables. So, I can't say we'll agree to disagree, because it's a matter of fact vs non-facts. Um, enjoy and remain comfortable in your incorrectness, I guess?

Likewise it is a fact that Harpo Productions purchased a worldwide copyright ban on the H&M Oprah interview. Harpo has been cracking down heavily on YouTubers who try to show even small clips, and CBS hasn't been able to repeat it, nor has any other network. There's a reason for that. Whether it came from the Sussexes or Oprah (I suspect Oprah but that's just my opinion based on knowledge of how she operates) doesn't want that interview to keep being propagated in the public mind. Which is a big financial sacrifice for Harpo, cos I assume the original plan was to make bank off of constant repeats.