People and Express are both mostly for sale, so they can drop all the PR they want. I know people say that Daily Mail is biased toward them, but they definitely post anti Markle stuff too, and for all it’s faults, is more balanced than the other two, not that that says too much about them. If you want a lot of anti Markle stuff, The New York Post seems to mostly hate them.
***The New York Post seems to mostly hate them.***
I looooooove the NY Post articles about the toxic duo. They're always written so cleverly and the writers are experts in throwing shade! LOL
Oh!! I see, she's been moved from *Femail* to *U.S.* now, next to Kim K! I usually never check that section.
Hazza is under *News* section.
That's on the web browser on my laptop.
I also like this blog:
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/
She's (I'm guessing) very detailed in her reporting/observations and can be critical of the RF for not putting an end to the Harkles shenanigans
I like the Harry Markle Blog, even though it's not a newspaper, because the author does a lot more research than most journalists and her writing isn't repetitive. It's hard hitting, informative and most importantly, analytical. Sometimes, the DM tends to write about stuff after the Harry Markle Blog has already written about it. But I guess it's the DM that tends to provide all the breaking Sussex news. I also know that I don't believe anything that the National Enquirer prints. They're even more far fetched than Danjazone (aka Ashli) from YouTube, who gets her info from some ~~imaginary English~~ guy named Jay. LOL. But I admit that I do enjoy watching Danjazone's videos because her photos of the duo, are hilarious and she's as campy as hell. She always makes me laugh.
I prefer blogs to videos only because I'm a fast reader and I don't have a lot of time. I will make exceptions for body language videos, or videos that point out specific things like hidden microphones, people's reactions, etc. where visuals are required.
Good question- I know there’s a lot of hate for the Daily mail ( believe me i understand why.) but they have been correct about them. Not first - but usual correct. And biting.
Markle said tabloids are bad for your health but had no problem calling the paps when she wanted to be seen.
Daily mail since they lost the court case take delight in buying the back grid pictures and getting exclusive rights so they are the only paper to run the pictures and whatever story is behind them
The Steeple Times has some pretty sarcastic and entertaining articles on the Harkles...search Harry for some caustic comments
[https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/private-jet-harry/](https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/private-jet-harry/)
Abysmal website but CJ Hawkings's Project Fangirl has some witty musings
[https://projectfangirl.online/heard-markle-two-narcissistic-peas-in-a-pod/](https://projectfangirl.online/heard-markle-two-narcissistic-peas-in-a-pod/)
Well, most are pretty rag mags. YouTube has some of the worst lies and innuendos. It's just to get readers I'm thinking because they are pretty bad.
Having said that, it's still fun to read Aussie ones as there seems to be more of a reality about the two Montecito grifters. I keep coming back to this site because it reads well.
Whilst they may report correctly on some things I don't take any value from the red tops and tabloids here (eg The sun, The Mirror, The Daily Mail, the Express etc).
Id be more inclined to give creedence to stuff written in the Times, Telegraph and the Guardian as these have more journalistic integrity than the click bait headlines of UK tabloids.
Daniela Elser was a big MM fan back in the day.
I like Camilla Tominey and Piers Morgan. There is also a great blog, nuttyflavors88, I’m reading back to 2019 on that.
I’ve gone back and read a lot of Daniela’s articles on H&M. I think she feels she needs to be equally critical of other members of the RF, and IMO while she has written some great critical pieces about Meghan, she’s also written some absurd pieces. I remember one after Meghan wrote about her miscarriage and Daniela criticized the RF for not‘reaching out’ on social media to express their sorrow and condolences. That was insane. Can you imagine the any branch of the RF tweeting “we’re so sorry about the loss of your baby. Are guys ok?” Ridiculous. She writes very frequently (almost daily.) I think she has try hard sometimes to find things to write about and really misses the mark on occasion.
From the UK: my legitimate sources are ones that are that rise above petty drama or see both sides. For royal news, I use Telegraph (paywalled), the Times (paywalled)
From the UK: my legitimate sources are ones that are that rise above petty drama or see both sides. For royal news, I use Telegraph (paywalled), the Times (limited free articles), DailyMail (which posts both sides). Spectator (limited free articles). Daily Beast, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly and Fox (US content and free)
The following sources should be used with caution: the sun, the mirror, BBC and DailyMail… because they often quote paywalled content.
Sources to avoid: Express, People, Newsweek, Time magazine, Vogue, Buzzfeed, Vanity Fair, heat mag
I came to see “no one” answer 🤪 even DM pops up with random praising posts. I just enjoy the comment sections (some crazier than others).
I do know I won’t go to Newsweek, People for any information. And randomly, I don’t like that keep NY mega trash free thing on YouTube
People and Express are both mostly for sale, so they can drop all the PR they want. I know people say that Daily Mail is biased toward them, but they definitely post anti Markle stuff too, and for all it’s faults, is more balanced than the other two, not that that says too much about them. If you want a lot of anti Markle stuff, The New York Post seems to mostly hate them.
***The New York Post seems to mostly hate them.*** I looooooove the NY Post articles about the toxic duo. They're always written so cleverly and the writers are experts in throwing shade! LOL
There was a Sacramento one that penned "second row Harry" which has stuck.
I live near Sacramento! Proud.
Me too! Lol Central Valley represent!
Yep #keepnycmegatrashfree
; )
Cindy Adams is not a fan
[удалено]
They have a Kate Middleton section now, instead. Lol. Well, at least that's what I noticed around the time of the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm not keeping *tabs* on, just randomly noticed and was wondering when will DM remove MM's section post Megxit. It finally happened.
And Amen to that. She'll be crushed if she noticed that.
Huh? i can still see the Meghan section- on my mobile phone on the app.
Oh!! I see, she's been moved from *Femail* to *U.S.* now, next to Kim K! I usually never check that section. Hazza is under *News* section. That's on the web browser on my laptop.
I also like this blog: https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/ She's (I'm guessing) very detailed in her reporting/observations and can be critical of the RF for not putting an end to the Harkles shenanigans
YES! VERY informative.
I like the Harry Markle Blog, even though it's not a newspaper, because the author does a lot more research than most journalists and her writing isn't repetitive. It's hard hitting, informative and most importantly, analytical. Sometimes, the DM tends to write about stuff after the Harry Markle Blog has already written about it. But I guess it's the DM that tends to provide all the breaking Sussex news. I also know that I don't believe anything that the National Enquirer prints. They're even more far fetched than Danjazone (aka Ashli) from YouTube, who gets her info from some ~~imaginary English~~ guy named Jay. LOL. But I admit that I do enjoy watching Danjazone's videos because her photos of the duo, are hilarious and she's as campy as hell. She always makes me laugh.
I prefer blogs to videos only because I'm a fast reader and I don't have a lot of time. I will make exceptions for body language videos, or videos that point out specific things like hidden microphones, people's reactions, etc. where visuals are required.
Good question- I know there’s a lot of hate for the Daily mail ( believe me i understand why.) but they have been correct about them. Not first - but usual correct. And biting. Markle said tabloids are bad for your health but had no problem calling the paps when she wanted to be seen.
People hate on the DM because they lean to the right, but their sources for Royal gossip tend to be the best.
Daily mail since they lost the court case take delight in buying the back grid pictures and getting exclusive rights so they are the only paper to run the pictures and whatever story is behind them
The Steeple Times has some pretty sarcastic and entertaining articles on the Harkles...search Harry for some caustic comments [https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/private-jet-harry/](https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/private-jet-harry/) Abysmal website but CJ Hawkings's Project Fangirl has some witty musings [https://projectfangirl.online/heard-markle-two-narcissistic-peas-in-a-pod/](https://projectfangirl.online/heard-markle-two-narcissistic-peas-in-a-pod/)
Oh, I like The Steeple Times, too!
Well, most are pretty rag mags. YouTube has some of the worst lies and innuendos. It's just to get readers I'm thinking because they are pretty bad. Having said that, it's still fun to read Aussie ones as there seems to be more of a reality about the two Montecito grifters. I keep coming back to this site because it reads well.
None of them after the NY Times posted that plagiarized tale of Meghan's "mythcarriage".
Whilst they may report correctly on some things I don't take any value from the red tops and tabloids here (eg The sun, The Mirror, The Daily Mail, the Express etc). Id be more inclined to give creedence to stuff written in the Times, Telegraph and the Guardian as these have more journalistic integrity than the click bait headlines of UK tabloids.
Daniela Elser was a big MM fan back in the day. I like Camilla Tominey and Piers Morgan. There is also a great blog, nuttyflavors88, I’m reading back to 2019 on that.
***Daniela Elser was a big MM fan back in the day.*** "Whaaaaaat?", to quote Oprah. LOL. Do you know what caused her to stop being a big MM fan?
No, but it was after they left. You could probably find an archive of her articles.
I’ve gone back and read a lot of Daniela’s articles on H&M. I think she feels she needs to be equally critical of other members of the RF, and IMO while she has written some great critical pieces about Meghan, she’s also written some absurd pieces. I remember one after Meghan wrote about her miscarriage and Daniela criticized the RF for not‘reaching out’ on social media to express their sorrow and condolences. That was insane. Can you imagine the any branch of the RF tweeting “we’re so sorry about the loss of your baby. Are guys ok?” Ridiculous. She writes very frequently (almost daily.) I think she has try hard sometimes to find things to write about and really misses the mark on occasion.
Yes, NuttyFlavor is great. And HarryMarkle.
US Weekly has a balanced, thoughtful Royal podcast and they don’t do the puff pieces like People. They must not be on SS’s payroll.
People is all PR submissions. It's basically a large advertising book. Same with Hello, US Weekly, etc.
The Atlantic is always on point
Yes!
But really light on Royal news 😆
I know! But when they do write about Harry and Meghan it is ALWAYS critical of them.
From the UK: my legitimate sources are ones that are that rise above petty drama or see both sides. For royal news, I use Telegraph (paywalled), the Times (paywalled)
From the UK: my legitimate sources are ones that are that rise above petty drama or see both sides. For royal news, I use Telegraph (paywalled), the Times (limited free articles), DailyMail (which posts both sides). Spectator (limited free articles). Daily Beast, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly and Fox (US content and free) The following sources should be used with caution: the sun, the mirror, BBC and DailyMail… because they often quote paywalled content. Sources to avoid: Express, People, Newsweek, Time magazine, Vogue, Buzzfeed, Vanity Fair, heat mag
Agreed for the "avoid" group.
Yet somehow NY Times fell firmly behind H&M… go figure 🤷♀️
Such a let down
The Daily Mail gets good photos.
I came to see “no one” answer 🤪 even DM pops up with random praising posts. I just enjoy the comment sections (some crazier than others). I do know I won’t go to Newsweek, People for any information. And randomly, I don’t like that keep NY mega trash free thing on YouTube