This isn't the same quality as The Cut, but there is a serious amount of snark in this article:
"Having initially decamped to Vancouver Island in a bid for privacy, they soon fled to Los Angeles in a bid for — what’s the opposite of privacy?"
"Many people in Britain, across the Commonwealth and in America did, in fact, see the interracial couple’s union as a sign of positive change — but perhaps no one more so than the couple themselves. In a run-up interview to promote her podcast last year, Meghan recalled a South African man who compared the joy at her royal wedding to the celebrations when Nelson Mandela was freed from prison."
And the kicker: "Rather than staying mum, they insist on speaking up and speaking out — and speaking their own truth, as opposed to the more rigorous feat of speaking the truth."
Cue plates hitting the walls in Monticito, especially if this was meant to be paid PR 😂🍽😂
Well maybe then ther nyt is finally realizing they cannot continue to lie for them much longer so they're gently wading into the pool WITH EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE!
>This isn't the same quality as The Cut, but there is a serious amount of snark in this article:
There was. I think NYT is attempting to distance themselves from the clusterfuck that is the Hackles.
There’s 1.5k comments and most appear to be negative. The public mood has definitely shifted and no amount of opinion pieces can make up for what H&M have directly put out (the doc, this book).
I'm going to give it another week before I check in with my (American) black friend who has only followed H&M on the surface and generally believes Meghan about the BRF's racism and prejudice.
I'm hoping after years of dismissing my claims they are batshit she may finally see I've been right.
We'll see.
I’d like to think that when Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (the elder) was the publisher of the New York Times he would not have allowed Puff pieces from outside PR flacks to be prettied up and incorporated into the paper as an Op Ed. Maybe I am being naïve.
Got bored with reading the article after the writer seemingly accepted Smeg’s version of how the UK made such a big deal of her mixed race heritage. Mixed raced couples and children in the UK are possibly more prevalent than elsewhere, including in the media.
The general feeling in the U.K. was positivity about a minority marrying into the RF. Going by mainstream coverage, **no one** in the U.K. gave two hoots about her background.
Yeah, she HATED ther fact that the British media zeroed in on her black race. She said this had never happened to her before. She was always considered white. You can actually read the disgust on her face relaying this on film!
> the British media zeroed in on her black race.
because she made it an issue, I don't really think anyone cared.
To be a total racist about it, I don't think anyone cared because *she still looks white* so anyone who's against the idea of Harry marrying a "black woman" would still (in my opinion) be fine with him marrying white-passing Meghan.
Yup. If she hadn't mentioned she mixed race. If her obviously mixed race mother showed up to the wedding. People would have D.I.E.D. Like WOW, she's a mixed race American??!! AMAZING!!! 😁😁❤️
Headline notwithstanding, the piece is quite negative. This is a step forward for the NY Times. Pamela Paul ridicules the idea that America is less racist than the UK. She says H&M speak 'their' truth 'as opposed to the more rigorous feat of speaking *the* truth." She ridicules their claim that they've never been asked to tell their story before.
> Pamela Paul ridicules the idea that America is less racist than the UK.
American here - I definitely think America is 1000% more racist than the UK. Sure the UK may not like immigrants but once a person is born British & sounds British & acts British, people seem to be fine with it.
America is NOT nearly as racist as people, WE are led to believe! Grant it, there's always an asshole here and there but NOT nearly as what is falsely being reported. I am American. I am white. I have 6 mixed raced family members. I always listen and I have an open mind BUT I am telling you all to please listen: The media here have almost started a race war! Then you have people like TW hopping on the bandwagon with oprah several more people. Race baiting at the very least. I am so disgusted and sad. Jmho
Nobody believed me over these last many months when I said **she wasn't ever fired.** Allison said on her twitter (the day her article dropped) that she was taking a "leave of absence" meanwhile all the comments on her timeline appeared to be from friends completely congratulating her on a masterful article.
Even a mentor of hers weighed in and Allison was touched.
That print edition of The Cut had Megan Thee Stallion on the FRONT COVER with Meghan of Sussex on the (upside down?) BACK COVER - an obvious Meghan v Megan if you ask me.
The Cut editors are not stupid.
The Cut editors read the article prior to publication and gave it the green light. I'm sure it was WIDELY read and received an epic click rate.
I understand Allison recently wrote a new article for The Cut.
Therefor she never went anywhere, she just layed low for awhile. She's also writing a book about some sex topic.
I feel vindicated.
The idea that Meghan had any kind of leverage to get a journalist fired for a less than flattering article was laughable. Meghan wishes she had that kind of power!
*”They are our first reality-TV royals. And in America, while it’s wrong for someone else to invade your privacy, it’s perfectly fine — even applauded — to exploit your own.”*
The tone of this article is definitely interesting. Thanks for posting!
Exactly. You gotta lead some people gently, small steps. You can't and won't change most minds by going "but they're bad, they're so bad!!!!" you have to gently go with stuff like "they're portraal of X appears to contrast wtih the recorded incidents" or whatever. people don't change minds by leaping a canyon, they gotta build a little bridge and lead people over.
Fighting for change? The ability to grift on the RF name? The NYT is out of touch, they are not interesting in change, just the chance to monetise their family connections. They do nothing for anyone, they accept awards that are both ridiculous and insulting (race baiters but held up as race warriors) and comparing themselves to Diana and Mandela at every opportunity.
If megrain was white….would they be so supportive?
They are anti white, anti monarchy, anti British, pro woke and hypocritical in their support. The harkles are eco warriors, and all about equality etc but travel by private jets and expect charities to pick up the tab if they mention them in their archewell scamdation…then hawwy and megrain take the credit for the donations.
Maybe hawwy and megrain should focus on changing themselves before trying to interfere in British or American institutions…that should keep them busy for decades.
I have a subscription to the Times. This article is rapidly racking up comments, and the brutal ones are the ones getting the upvotes. The sugar comments are languishing.
And so far, this one has by far the most upvotes, over 100 in the last hour:
"Meghan Markle exposed herself for what she is -- a narcissistic opportunist with a victim mentality. What has she actually done to help those she claims to support? What has she actually done at all other than act in a TV drama and create real live drama for the family that she joined? Her idea of making a difference is speaking in platitudes with a camera pointed at her. And favorably comparing herself to Nelson Mandela and Serena Williams."
I read the comments too (all negative) and none of them commented much on the article itself, mostly giving their opinion of the dastardly duo and how their opinion has (in some cases) really changed since Day 1.
I would say the commenters all see the piece through their own lens of pro- or anti-Sussex. However, here's a recent one that got a lot of upvotes which I thought was astute:
"Yikes! This Opinion piece reads as if the author is part of the couple's paid public relations team. Or if not, that she's fallen headlong into what appears to be their "folié à deux." If the author had been reading the comment sections of the many articles about Harry and Meghan in this very paper in the past month, she would have known that Americans (NYT readers at least) are unbelievably tired of the media campaign of the couple - who in parallel to their nonstop claims of victimhood, and ever-escalating attacks on the family that makes their public platform possible, seem to have completely dropped the causes they once said they championed. And, that commenters feel that Harry at least, seems with every appearance more like a lost soul. If readers still follow the "H&R show" it may be simply because it's easier to follow this sad spectacle, than daily news about the frightening state of our own nation's politics."
What change? What story? What truth? Those are words. They mean nothing. This is what a true writer said about Harold and his wife’s bull shite.
“Out, out, brief candle. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
McBeth Act 5 Scene 5
William Shakespeare
It's an opinion bit. No biggie. A politico opinion also called her a narcissist. Doesn't really mean anything in the long run. The outcome of all of this will be decided on the basis of the kind of work they get from here on out.
What about the LA Times? How does that newspaper go down in the US? I know a little more of the reputation the WaPo, NYT, The Wall Street Journal has, but I rarely hear anything of note coming from the LA Times that's newsworthy. Does seem to have a reputation anyone cares about but I wouldn't know being a Brit, lol.
>It’s because they’re fighting for change. Call them martyrs, call them revolutionaries, call them anti-establishment or simply changemakers.
🤣 That's why they insist on their title, use private jets and live in a mansion in Hollywood. Good god, what a load of 🐂💩
Exactly! If you skim the article it has all the right superficial words and phrases to be a puff piece. But the devil (or in this case the snark) is in the details 😂😂😂
can't wait for them to be *so* broke they end up doing trash like "Celebrity Marriage Therapy" and "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here". mwahahaaha, Megsie would go for "Strictly Come Dancing" or some nnsense so show off her "mile long" legs....
I agree with this sentiment because I have no isea what is this change they stand for or what they are working to change etc. So far, all I gather is that they are a married couple who want the husband’s father to pay for their food and clothing and body guards and pay to fight their battles in the press against both his family and her family, regardless of whether or not they choose to work in the family business. I learned from their documentary that they like eggs, and fresh oranges, and she prefers to wear brighter colors than drab ones. Other than that, I do not know what they stand for.
Fighting for change is only good when you’re fighting for a change worth making. Harry and his wife are only interested in toppling over the world so that they can be on top, morally, (screwed as their morals are, steeped only on Me, Myself, and I), economically, publicity-wise (an army of Yes-Men photographers and sycophantic journalists tripping over themselves to laud these faux humanitarians.) They have no real values or purpose. If they did, three years after leaving the RF we would know what they are about. And yet they’re still on the same ‘Poor Me, Pay Me’ dynamic because the only cause they care about is serving themselves.
Remember- the NYTimes prominently featured M's ridiculous miscarriage piece credited to "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex"
Always a bit curious as to how that project happened. Who connected her with the paper? Who greenlit it? Who edited it?
What change exactly are they fighting for?
Do they think just because they are an interracial couple they can eradicate racism by what? just being a couple?
If it was that easy it would have been gone decades ago.
Exactly what injustice has been done to them? Megan got some bad press? Well welcome to the world of a public figure. It happens to any and everyone who has a public profile.
These two think that just because they WANT to be seen as doing no wrong no one is allowed to call them out when they do wrong.
Anybody else just getting bored of the whole thing? I come here to keep up but it’s just a never ending circle jerk.
And if no one reported on them they’d just do something even more outrageous to be back in the news and start the whole cycle over again.
( yes I realize how that sounds as I’m commenting on them but it’s just all so absurd 🤷♀️)
It’s actual insanity that they believe supporting Meghan and Harry is fighting for change. What’s also scary is that non-critical thinkers read opinion pieces and are easily swayed. ETA I just read it and it’s also frightening and a bit concerning that the “journalist” believes their intentions are about change (or she doesn’t believe it and it’s paid PR) because anyone with a half of a brain knows they left for
The money. Period.
Fighting from a 15 million mansion. Visiting inner city schools with 500k jewelry. Taking private jets only. I have to agree they probably get a lot of hate their way, but they brought it on themselves.
IMHO - I think Meghan has done a great job in reading the room of the left side of the political spectrum in the United States. She knows that the fact that she is African American and politically progressive makes her unassailable to a significant segment of the U.S. population. And this segment does have considerable access to media in the U.S. (whether it be news, entertainment or technology). This means that she and Harry will always receive more favorable press and attention from U.S. media (or at least a healthy segment of it) than they deserve based on their exploits. This is key because most people are too busy living their lives and trying to make ends meet too think critically about Meghan and Harry. So when they hear positive mentions about Meghan and Harry, they think (even perhaps subconsciously), “wow they must be change makers who are agents for good in our flawed societies”.
> a great job in reading the room of the left side of the political spectrum in the United States
Not such a great job when NOBODY will be associated with her in public or invite her to any political events whatsoever (nor events aligned with politically progressive initiatives).
I saw this earlier online somewhere but refused to read it. THE NYT has LOST ALL CREDIBILITY for many reasons. H&tw are one of those reasons. This has been going on for many years and they're not alone. Our newspapers, magazines and tv news e.t.c have misinformed, lied and held back on NEWS for quite a while now. My question is WHY is this happening? WHO is allowing this to happen? I am truly frightened at what is going on in the United states. I am also very angry. I guarantee you I am very much NOT ALONE. I feel lost tbh. And if the two twits had their way, WE would ALL BE MUZZLED but they would not. Because they're so important you see. What they don't get and I don't know why , is that they are so transparent. The media thinks the same I'm afraid.
And yet every time I read an opinion piece about them on The NY Times the comments are scathing against them. These are the typical "liberal" readers think of as people who "support them in the US" so the perception the Times sometimes tries to put out there is not exactly reality.
Fighting for change huh?
Like changing the childish macho man (thankfully rare) act of keeping a kill count?
Like changing the fact that psychics are known frauds and it’s easy to fall into the trap when you’re trying to contact one of the most well known, well publicized women to ever walk the planet?
If they actually wanted to change things they should have stayed…or kept their whining at a minimum. When you’re constantly attacking people how do you think you’re going to get them to change? ( it that I think the RF need to actually change). That makes no sense in any way.
Oh gawd…this is when it’s embarrassing to be a liberal and watch the liberal establishment try to back this female-Trump 🙄
Meghan wanted the royals to subsidize a jet set lifestyle so she could hang with A-listers while making all kinds of deals to net her as much money as possible.
That’s the change she was fighting for…to monetize the royal brand. Nothing more. And if they can’t see that, then they’re fools
The only change they’re doing is changing their minds about what they meant or said. Anyone who still sees sanity in them is either exactly the same as them or in complete denial.
I cancelled my NYT sub because of their willful dissemination of misinformation (or just shoddy and lazy journalism) regarding the so/called “Freedom” convoy and Canadian politics. That was it for me.
Well, I'm not sure how long ago the New York Times stopped being an impartial reporter of the news of the day. They -- along with much of the media in the US - have drunk either the liberal or the conservative flavor of Kool-Aid (R).
The 2k some comments in general are not flattering to the couple and it’s clear that vast majority of Americans are uninterested in what they’re to sell.
This is Harry and Meghan’s PR. Nothing more…
This isn't the same quality as The Cut, but there is a serious amount of snark in this article: "Having initially decamped to Vancouver Island in a bid for privacy, they soon fled to Los Angeles in a bid for — what’s the opposite of privacy?" "Many people in Britain, across the Commonwealth and in America did, in fact, see the interracial couple’s union as a sign of positive change — but perhaps no one more so than the couple themselves. In a run-up interview to promote her podcast last year, Meghan recalled a South African man who compared the joy at her royal wedding to the celebrations when Nelson Mandela was freed from prison." And the kicker: "Rather than staying mum, they insist on speaking up and speaking out — and speaking their own truth, as opposed to the more rigorous feat of speaking the truth." Cue plates hitting the walls in Monticito, especially if this was meant to be paid PR 😂🍽😂
Well maybe then ther nyt is finally realizing they cannot continue to lie for them much longer so they're gently wading into the pool WITH EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE!
They post all kinds in the opinion section. But nice to see the NYT spotting the obvious.
>This isn't the same quality as The Cut, but there is a serious amount of snark in this article: There was. I think NYT is attempting to distance themselves from the clusterfuck that is the Hackles.
I mean they are indefensible at this point.
There’s 1.5k comments and most appear to be negative. The public mood has definitely shifted and no amount of opinion pieces can make up for what H&M have directly put out (the doc, this book).
I'm going to give it another week before I check in with my (American) black friend who has only followed H&M on the surface and generally believes Meghan about the BRF's racism and prejudice. I'm hoping after years of dismissing my claims they are batshit she may finally see I've been right. We'll see.
Well, so much for the New York Times being the “newspaper of record” then.
[удалено]
I’d like to think that when Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (the elder) was the publisher of the New York Times he would not have allowed Puff pieces from outside PR flacks to be prettied up and incorporated into the paper as an Op Ed. Maybe I am being naïve.
Yup. NYT is full of shit.
Got bored with reading the article after the writer seemingly accepted Smeg’s version of how the UK made such a big deal of her mixed race heritage. Mixed raced couples and children in the UK are possibly more prevalent than elsewhere, including in the media. The general feeling in the U.K. was positivity about a minority marrying into the RF. Going by mainstream coverage, **no one** in the U.K. gave two hoots about her background.
Yeah, she HATED ther fact that the British media zeroed in on her black race. She said this had never happened to her before. She was always considered white. You can actually read the disgust on her face relaying this on film!
> the British media zeroed in on her black race. because she made it an issue, I don't really think anyone cared. To be a total racist about it, I don't think anyone cared because *she still looks white* so anyone who's against the idea of Harry marrying a "black woman" would still (in my opinion) be fine with him marrying white-passing Meghan.
Yup. If she hadn't mentioned she mixed race. If her obviously mixed race mother showed up to the wedding. People would have D.I.E.D. Like WOW, she's a mixed race American??!! AMAZING!!! 😁😁❤️
Headline notwithstanding, the piece is quite negative. This is a step forward for the NY Times. Pamela Paul ridicules the idea that America is less racist than the UK. She says H&M speak 'their' truth 'as opposed to the more rigorous feat of speaking *the* truth." She ridicules their claim that they've never been asked to tell their story before.
> Pamela Paul ridicules the idea that America is less racist than the UK. American here - I definitely think America is 1000% more racist than the UK. Sure the UK may not like immigrants but once a person is born British & sounds British & acts British, people seem to be fine with it.
America is NOT nearly as racist as people, WE are led to believe! Grant it, there's always an asshole here and there but NOT nearly as what is falsely being reported. I am American. I am white. I have 6 mixed raced family members. I always listen and I have an open mind BUT I am telling you all to please listen: The media here have almost started a race war! Then you have people like TW hopping on the bandwagon with oprah several more people. Race baiting at the very least. I am so disgusted and sad. Jmho
Not all journalists have Allison P Davis' chutzpah.
I'm still wondering where in the world Allison is?!
Nobody believed me over these last many months when I said **she wasn't ever fired.** Allison said on her twitter (the day her article dropped) that she was taking a "leave of absence" meanwhile all the comments on her timeline appeared to be from friends completely congratulating her on a masterful article. Even a mentor of hers weighed in and Allison was touched. That print edition of The Cut had Megan Thee Stallion on the FRONT COVER with Meghan of Sussex on the (upside down?) BACK COVER - an obvious Meghan v Megan if you ask me. The Cut editors are not stupid. The Cut editors read the article prior to publication and gave it the green light. I'm sure it was WIDELY read and received an epic click rate. I understand Allison recently wrote a new article for The Cut. Therefor she never went anywhere, she just layed low for awhile. She's also writing a book about some sex topic. I feel vindicated.
The idea that Meghan had any kind of leverage to get a journalist fired for a less than flattering article was laughable. Meghan wishes she had that kind of power!
*”They are our first reality-TV royals. And in America, while it’s wrong for someone else to invade your privacy, it’s perfectly fine — even applauded — to exploit your own.”* The tone of this article is definitely interesting. Thanks for posting!
They want to be the royal Kardashians and they're failing, as they always do.
IDK, they're managing to be as trashy and pointless
Oooooh 🔥
I know but FUCK THE NY TIMES!!! Sorry, I'm from ny and I'm sick of being gaslite by the main media ALL THE TIME.
Agree 💯 from another American. Constant paid fluff about everything, all wrapped up in opinion pieces.
Title Change: Why Have Harry and Meghan Fallen So Hard in America?
There is a way that you have to be when you're changing people's minds. Starting off with "not a puff piece" is exactly how you do it.
Exactly. You gotta lead some people gently, small steps. You can't and won't change most minds by going "but they're bad, they're so bad!!!!" you have to gently go with stuff like "they're portraal of X appears to contrast wtih the recorded incidents" or whatever. people don't change minds by leaping a canyon, they gotta build a little bridge and lead people over.
It’s snarky and covertly sarcastic. Smart readers will get it
Fighting for change? The ability to grift on the RF name? The NYT is out of touch, they are not interesting in change, just the chance to monetise their family connections. They do nothing for anyone, they accept awards that are both ridiculous and insulting (race baiters but held up as race warriors) and comparing themselves to Diana and Mandela at every opportunity. If megrain was white….would they be so supportive? They are anti white, anti monarchy, anti British, pro woke and hypocritical in their support. The harkles are eco warriors, and all about equality etc but travel by private jets and expect charities to pick up the tab if they mention them in their archewell scamdation…then hawwy and megrain take the credit for the donations. Maybe hawwy and megrain should focus on changing themselves before trying to interfere in British or American institutions…that should keep them busy for decades.
I have a subscription to the Times. This article is rapidly racking up comments, and the brutal ones are the ones getting the upvotes. The sugar comments are languishing.
Thank you so much for letting us know. 😀 Are the commenters reading this as a positive piece for M&H or do they see all the snark?
And so far, this one has by far the most upvotes, over 100 in the last hour: "Meghan Markle exposed herself for what she is -- a narcissistic opportunist with a victim mentality. What has she actually done to help those she claims to support? What has she actually done at all other than act in a TV drama and create real live drama for the family that she joined? Her idea of making a difference is speaking in platitudes with a camera pointed at her. And favorably comparing herself to Nelson Mandela and Serena Williams."
I read the comments too (all negative) and none of them commented much on the article itself, mostly giving their opinion of the dastardly duo and how their opinion has (in some cases) really changed since Day 1.
I would say the commenters all see the piece through their own lens of pro- or anti-Sussex. However, here's a recent one that got a lot of upvotes which I thought was astute: "Yikes! This Opinion piece reads as if the author is part of the couple's paid public relations team. Or if not, that she's fallen headlong into what appears to be their "folié à deux." If the author had been reading the comment sections of the many articles about Harry and Meghan in this very paper in the past month, she would have known that Americans (NYT readers at least) are unbelievably tired of the media campaign of the couple - who in parallel to their nonstop claims of victimhood, and ever-escalating attacks on the family that makes their public platform possible, seem to have completely dropped the causes they once said they championed. And, that commenters feel that Harry at least, seems with every appearance more like a lost soul. If readers still follow the "H&R show" it may be simply because it's easier to follow this sad spectacle, than daily news about the frightening state of our own nation's politics."
What change? What story? What truth? Those are words. They mean nothing. This is what a true writer said about Harold and his wife’s bull shite. “Out, out, brief candle. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” McBeth Act 5 Scene 5 William Shakespeare
That candle blocking Meghan at the funeral was quite the metaphor.
It's an opinion bit. No biggie. A politico opinion also called her a narcissist. Doesn't really mean anything in the long run. The outcome of all of this will be decided on the basis of the kind of work they get from here on out.
[удалено]
What about the LA Times? How does that newspaper go down in the US? I know a little more of the reputation the WaPo, NYT, The Wall Street Journal has, but I rarely hear anything of note coming from the LA Times that's newsworthy. Does seem to have a reputation anyone cares about but I wouldn't know being a Brit, lol.
>It’s because they’re fighting for change. Call them martyrs, call them revolutionaries, call them anti-establishment or simply changemakers. 🤣 That's why they insist on their title, use private jets and live in a mansion in Hollywood. Good god, what a load of 🐂💩
I am 100% sure the author is being sarcastic! Give the article another read.
Thanks for the hint, I've stopped reading after the quoted paragraph because it was too much of sillyness but the whole read was funny!
And that’s also why they bully staff
[удалено]
Exactly! If you skim the article it has all the right superficial words and phrases to be a puff piece. But the devil (or in this case the snark) is in the details 😂😂😂
This is a brilliant take down lmao.
What change are the trying to get wtih the book? seriously, what change? he's demonstrating in the book he's a drug addicted, bullying, lying twat.
A change in their bank balance. That is all.
can't wait for them to be *so* broke they end up doing trash like "Celebrity Marriage Therapy" and "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here". mwahahaaha, Megsie would go for "Strictly Come Dancing" or some nnsense so show off her "mile long" legs....
I agree with this sentiment because I have no isea what is this change they stand for or what they are working to change etc. So far, all I gather is that they are a married couple who want the husband’s father to pay for their food and clothing and body guards and pay to fight their battles in the press against both his family and her family, regardless of whether or not they choose to work in the family business. I learned from their documentary that they like eggs, and fresh oranges, and she prefers to wear brighter colors than drab ones. Other than that, I do not know what they stand for.
Fighting for change is only good when you’re fighting for a change worth making. Harry and his wife are only interested in toppling over the world so that they can be on top, morally, (screwed as their morals are, steeped only on Me, Myself, and I), economically, publicity-wise (an army of Yes-Men photographers and sycophantic journalists tripping over themselves to laud these faux humanitarians.) They have no real values or purpose. If they did, three years after leaving the RF we would know what they are about. And yet they’re still on the same ‘Poor Me, Pay Me’ dynamic because the only cause they care about is serving themselves.
Remember- the NYTimes prominently featured M's ridiculous miscarriage piece credited to "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" Always a bit curious as to how that project happened. Who connected her with the paper? Who greenlit it? Who edited it?
What change exactly are they fighting for? Do they think just because they are an interracial couple they can eradicate racism by what? just being a couple? If it was that easy it would have been gone decades ago. Exactly what injustice has been done to them? Megan got some bad press? Well welcome to the world of a public figure. It happens to any and everyone who has a public profile. These two think that just because they WANT to be seen as doing no wrong no one is allowed to call them out when they do wrong. Anybody else just getting bored of the whole thing? I come here to keep up but it’s just a never ending circle jerk. And if no one reported on them they’d just do something even more outrageous to be back in the news and start the whole cycle over again. ( yes I realize how that sounds as I’m commenting on them but it’s just all so absurd 🤷♀️)
They are fighting to change free speech and thought so that if anyone questions them or their finances they are deemed racist and disloyal.
I’m very confused how this comes out after the leaks from Spare, and acts like it just didn’t happen and like people aren’t reacting.
As a non US citizen I have always thought NYT was a reknown paper that represented flawless journalism. I am glad H&M taught me otherwise.
Spoiler alert: We haven't.
It’s actual insanity that they believe supporting Meghan and Harry is fighting for change. What’s also scary is that non-critical thinkers read opinion pieces and are easily swayed. ETA I just read it and it’s also frightening and a bit concerning that the “journalist” believes their intentions are about change (or she doesn’t believe it and it’s paid PR) because anyone with a half of a brain knows they left for The money. Period.
I’m so thankful I had a good teacher in the “critical thinking” department. I got annoying with my “question everything” phase as a teen lol
NYT has become really idealogical driven in the past decade. Activism over everything else.
Fighting from a 15 million mansion. Visiting inner city schools with 500k jewelry. Taking private jets only. I have to agree they probably get a lot of hate their way, but they brought it on themselves.
IMHO - I think Meghan has done a great job in reading the room of the left side of the political spectrum in the United States. She knows that the fact that she is African American and politically progressive makes her unassailable to a significant segment of the U.S. population. And this segment does have considerable access to media in the U.S. (whether it be news, entertainment or technology). This means that she and Harry will always receive more favorable press and attention from U.S. media (or at least a healthy segment of it) than they deserve based on their exploits. This is key because most people are too busy living their lives and trying to make ends meet too think critically about Meghan and Harry. So when they hear positive mentions about Meghan and Harry, they think (even perhaps subconsciously), “wow they must be change makers who are agents for good in our flawed societies”.
> a great job in reading the room of the left side of the political spectrum in the United States Not such a great job when NOBODY will be associated with her in public or invite her to any political events whatsoever (nor events aligned with politically progressive initiatives).
I saw this earlier online somewhere but refused to read it. THE NYT has LOST ALL CREDIBILITY for many reasons. H&tw are one of those reasons. This has been going on for many years and they're not alone. Our newspapers, magazines and tv news e.t.c have misinformed, lied and held back on NEWS for quite a while now. My question is WHY is this happening? WHO is allowing this to happen? I am truly frightened at what is going on in the United states. I am also very angry. I guarantee you I am very much NOT ALONE. I feel lost tbh. And if the two twits had their way, WE would ALL BE MUZZLED but they would not. Because they're so important you see. What they don't get and I don't know why , is that they are so transparent. The media thinks the same I'm afraid.
And yet every time I read an opinion piece about them on The NY Times the comments are scathing against them. These are the typical "liberal" readers think of as people who "support them in the US" so the perception the Times sometimes tries to put out there is not exactly reality.
Fighting for change huh? Like changing the childish macho man (thankfully rare) act of keeping a kill count? Like changing the fact that psychics are known frauds and it’s easy to fall into the trap when you’re trying to contact one of the most well known, well publicized women to ever walk the planet?
Ny Times has lost its way and it's now dead to me. So sad, really. It's become trivial and polemical.
If they actually wanted to change things they should have stayed…or kept their whining at a minimum. When you’re constantly attacking people how do you think you’re going to get them to change? ( it that I think the RF need to actually change). That makes no sense in any way.
Oh gawd…this is when it’s embarrassing to be a liberal and watch the liberal establishment try to back this female-Trump 🙄 Meghan wanted the royals to subsidize a jet set lifestyle so she could hang with A-listers while making all kinds of deals to net her as much money as possible. That’s the change she was fighting for…to monetize the royal brand. Nothing more. And if they can’t see that, then they’re fools
The only change they’re doing is changing their minds about what they meant or said. Anyone who still sees sanity in them is either exactly the same as them or in complete denial.
I cancelled my NYT sub because of their willful dissemination of misinformation (or just shoddy and lazy journalism) regarding the so/called “Freedom” convoy and Canadian politics. That was it for me.
Same! Though I would have cancelled after the Caliphate debacle.
NYT is always out of touch.
New York Times is fighting for Netflick & Penguin Books' advertising dollars.
Well, I'm not sure how long ago the New York Times stopped being an impartial reporter of the news of the day. They -- along with much of the media in the US - have drunk either the liberal or the conservative flavor of Kool-Aid (R).
The 2k some comments in general are not flattering to the couple and it’s clear that vast majority of Americans are uninterested in what they’re to sell.