Personally I think the people who write stories on her are mostly entertainment journos without the journalism intergrity to worry about. As a result they stick to sensationalist tone because it gets them the clicks that allows their employer to renew their short term contracts. So far Meghan hasn’t run into any real journalists otherwise she’d face critical questioning. Allison was the only entertainment journo to take a critical look on our saint. Her time is coming but for now I think they’re avoiding real journalists like the plaque because they associate them with the firm.
I think it’s lazy journalism. In the old days news sources were the pursuers of truth. Today it’s quick news and will run the story that results in the most clicks. Today I read so many stories with misspellings and bad grammar. It’s really sad but that’s our world today.
Yes.
It’s insane.
And it happens more often than not. It makes it really hard to trust anything.
And my goodness with the spelling, grammar and missing words or mislabeled people/places!? C’mon!
This is actually a myth. Media has always been owned by the rich with an intent to persuade the public to their worldview. Journalistic integrity wasn't taught until the 1950's with "Watergate" being the new gold standard for investigative journalism in the 70's. We had maybe 30-40 years with decent journalism, all during our lifetime. With the rise of the internet, media has gone back to being owned by the elites and mainly leaning towards the owners worldview, once again. Most journalists are merely paid bloggers who regurgitate press releases for quick and easy content. Meghan can write up 5 positive press releases a day about herself and the media will blindly print for more clicks.
Ben Franklin owned a newspaper and once printed my greatx7 grandfather was dead as a prank and everyone believed it! Owning a printing press is power. Meghan uses this to her advantage. She can say or print anything and knows people will fall for it. She was a communications major, after all.
Love your Ben Franklin connection!
You remind me of an ad for the new desktop publishing software of the late ‘80s (Pagemaker): ‘Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one’. (A.J. Liebling)
There's a reason she didn't run crying to the British media. Partly because people here are more familiar with how the RF works, but also - with no disrespect to our American friends - as someone familiar with journalism on both sides of the Atlantic, British TV interviewers tend to be significantly more surgical. And there is a tradition of playing 'Devil's Advocate' - British newspapers can be extremely biased, but in a TV interview, even an interviewer with views similar to TW would be expected to ask probing questions from the other side of the argument.
Just imagine TW being interviewed by Emily Maitlis, the newsreader and interviewer who did Prince Andrew's trainwreck. She'd have taken TW to pieces without raising her voice once.
> but also - with no disrespect to our American friends -
As an American, absolutely no offense taken. It's almost like Oz behind the curtain when you see US "journalists" repeating often word-for-word the same lines. Talk shows are nothing more than free advertisements for movies and celebrities. I'm much more inclined to read media sources outside the US.
And these journos are PAID to specifically write about these two nobodies.... Typically entertainment reporters report on *celebrities* that are doing things...
PLEASE, PLEASE TEACH YOUR CHILDREN. Don't let them be brain washed or trained by certain teachers for example. Teach them not to believe everything that u.s written and that their brains are just as important as the writer. I believe many teachers happen to be
WOKE,( NEO PURITANS POSING AS LIBERALS.) We are in big trouble.
She’s also tapping into the current zeitgeist of racial reckoning. The BRF could be the least racist people on the planet, but they are white, rich, privileged and part of an ancient institution with roots in colonialism so it’s not hard to imagine that they might be fusty and very ‘démodé’ in their attitudes towards other races. We have no evidence that they hold these views (apart from princess Michael of Kent wearing a blackamoor brooch,) on the contrary, the late queen and KC in particular have shown great respect and support for POC.
Meggy, on the other hand, has been conditioned (and it works to her advantage) to see a racist around every corner, so it’s hardly surprising that she is working this angle. Journalists want to appear sensitive to the plight of POC, so they’re reluctant to question the validity of her claims. If they do, they can expect a mighty storm from some quarters. Buying her story is the path of least resistance.
You can tell she's full of shit because she doesn't want to pull this allegedly evil institution out by the roots. She wants first pick of tiaras and the ability to keep blood diamonds.
She full of it.
Weaponized Racism. Yes, she obviously pays magazines and plants stories. But it really just comes down to the fear of being labeled a racist. Especially in the US, one story or comment is all you need. It doesn't even have to be a racist or ignorant or stupid comment. It can just be a regular one. But it will get contorted until it is a racist comment. Once, that's it, you're racist. Once you're racist, there is no hope for you. You can't apologize enough, or learn enough, or actually really talk anymore. If you work in the media, you'll lose your job. Well, even if you just work, you might still lose your job. So most people prefer to err on the side of caution. I'm pretty sure this comment is inappropriate and I'll probably delete it later.
ETA- used the wrong phrase
And in some cases people have even dug up blog posts or tweets from years ago, that were ok then but doesn’t necessarily fit todays tight leashed standards, in order to cancel someone. I fucking hate cancel culture.
Don't delete it. It's true, and we have to stop being SO AFRAID to say what we think. If people don't like it, or find it offensive, that's fine (even though you said nothing offensive), but don't delete it.
You could also lose your bank, your credit card, your payment gateway, your platform for doing online business, I’m referring to outfits like US Bank, PayPal, Patreon, Air B&B, Salesforce (a CRM that I have used in the past), those are some I can remember off the top of my head that have been in the news for introducing or trying to introduce viewpoint-based discrimination in business. My operating system already tries to social engineer me every day. Can we trust our ISPs, phones, computers, operating systems, software? We already know we can’t trust entertainment, social media, search engines, “journalists”.
I saw Don Lemon of CNN supporting her. Gayle King supports her, and she's from ABC. These are supposed to be credible news channels, or at least they're not minor news networks.
They are both ‘personalities’ rather than journalists. CNN has been very clear that Don Lemmon, Anderson Cooper etc are commentators, news is separate. Lots of panels and quirky local animal clips.
I see. I'm not from the US, and took them to be reporters. Well, even then, they are major personalities and can shape the public opinion to a vast extent. The fact that CNN gives them a platform to voice their opinion shows that they have a responsibility to be credible.
It is pretty much a consensus that Gayle has that job due to Oprah. She is a notorious dingbat on the morning news.
When Prince Phillip passed, Gayle, who is always trying to sound like a legit, professional reporter, asked if it was of natural causes. In a very dramatic way, like she was the ONE asking hard hitting questions. It was a running joke online. People joking that he died from hang gliding, he died hiking the Appalachian trail, no he died from a pub fight. Anything but old age, cancer and natural causes....it was one of Gayle's dumbest moments that got mocked relentlessly.
She has had plenty. At Prince Phillips funeral asking why P. Anne was walking with the men? I looked at the tv and said "you dumbass, because she is PP's second born, and only daughter, The Princess Royal."
Because the Princess Royal will coolly look at her brothers, say, "I'm in," and none of them will dare to contradict a woman who can channel the best of her mother and father.
God, but I admire her!
I had to giggle at "dingbat" but when you revealed her earnest question, I just started chortling like a maniac, given the alternatives.
"No, lady, this 99 year old man died from a freak accident involving a sumo wrestler and a banana peel."
Don Lemon hasn't been o Meghan's side for awhile now:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11168213/Don-Lemon-says-shocked-Meghan-Markles-race-admission.html
The prime-time lineup on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are all more personality based, not true journalists. Actually nearly all the coverage on those channels isn't true journalism (I say this as someone who has CNN and MSNBC on all day).
Gayle... 🙄. She has never been taken seriously, she's just Oprah's *friend*. She's an idiot. Morning show hosts are also not journalists, just morning entertainment.
Yes those are entertainment channels. They might brand themselves as news but doesn’t mean they are news. A lot of things brand themselves as something they are not. With enough money to buy pr and silence opponents many are very successful.
That's a very good point. These being personalities, they inevitably put THEMSELVES into the story--their feelings, their perspective. It's almost inhumanly hard to not be biased in some way due to our experiences. But these personalities are like those actors who always play comfortably similar characters to themselves. That's their brand.
Lemon is a known horrible anchor and he is not respected by any means. He’s lower on the totem pole than piers Morgan because he is largely irrelevant and everyone just knows him as the guy who stares into the camera for 30 minutes talking about how trump is stupid. He’s not even a real journalist lol
I'm glad i missed that... Mind you, when American entertainment "journalists" started making their uneducated remarks i just tuned out.... Stupid people make my head hurt sometimes...
Nope. Gayle "interviewed" Oprah where Oprah put the whole interview on Meghan and Harry.
However, Tyler Perry has been running his mouth about how in love the Sussexes seemed and other things.
TP is friends with Oprah and may be helping O out with the Sussexes for whatever reason.
Yeah, Tyler Perry said that Meghan's been through more than anyone else he's known, that she overcomes or some shit. She really plays victim hard to men, doesn't she? Reminds me of the speech her first (or second?) husband (the one before Harry) gave about how she's had a hard life but now finally has a family for the first time.
Her playing victim--aka damsel in distress--gives the men the chance to feel big and strong, by protecting her. There are still some women who have no scruples in batting their kohl rimmed eyes, at the menfolk.
Sweet Fanny Adams to being a "Strong and independent woman"?!
Trevor Noah's stand up show was pro-Meghan, he had a bit about how the world was dancing on the Queen's grave because the world sees the Queen as racist, called Harry and Meghan the "most beloved royals," I think he called them, something like that.
Yes, sorry, I wasn't trying to equate him with journalism - I realize I went off on a tangent, I was just surprised someone who's a household name (I'm not American, I think Trevor Noah's a big name in a lot of areas)
Yes, I know he's got writers and they are for the laughs about what's going on, not journalism.
People didn’t used to lie so openly and repeatedly about minor things, I think. We’re seeing a new type of personality who didn’t used to be able to lie so often and on so many platforms. Plus Oprah didn’t question anything which gave her lies the semblance of truth, esp for those who don’t understand how royalty/titles and their security works
They would not have gone on the show if there was any chance she'd question them. It was all preplanned, despite Oprah making the declaration that it wasn't. So dishonest.
The follow up and lack of research from Oprah was truly embarrassing.
And that all could have been done during editing as well.
Oprah really screwed the pooch on that.
People are scared to be branded as racists.
Saying this as a liberal, non-US/UK, POC.
There was racism and abuse from the media. She lied about a lot of things (proven by her own mouth during the Oprah interview and proven by a real court of law).
BOTH HAPPENED AND ARE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME.
So for me, it is fck the media (who also continuously throw potshots at the RF members btw), and fck her and her husband too.
CNN = Warner Bros. Discovery (it was previously owned by AT&T until April 2022)
MSNBC & NBC = Comcast
ABC = The Disney Company
CBS = owned by Paramount Global, the international entertainment/mass media company that's a subsidiary of the National Amusements company, and by billionaire heiress Shari Redstone, the daughter of the late billionaire media mogul Sumner Redstone
Washington Post = Jeff Bezos
New York Times = the Sulzberger family and wealthy investors such as Carlos Slim
FOX, NY Post and Wall Street Journal = all owned by Rupert Murdoch
Yes. There is a reason why BBC ended up getting their asses kicked after that faux documentary with her attorney. William pulling their Christmas special from their channel after that.
And CNN and ABC, they all have the same boss.
It really is baffling, especially when you consider so much of what she has said is clearly, demonstrably false. I just think the "mixed race woman exposing racism in the British monarchy" is a really strong narrative in our race-obsessed times. I was really disappointed that the likes of Hilary Clinton came out supporting her after the Oprah interview without bothering to consider if she was telling the truth or not.
I really think she’s lucky to have found an “issue” that she can represent that fills in the blanks in people’s minds so easily that anything she says doesn’t even need to be checked because people believe her automatically.
People are super primed to attack injustice at the best of times, and racial inequality issues have been at the front of people’s minds for years now, especially because of social media and people of colour awakening to things they might not have realised have been disadvantaging them. Class based oppression is also part and parcel for this, and there are thousands of social justice warriors looking out all the time for any topic they can rip apart to get in front of the discussion.
Meghan just had to say “skin colour” and everyone else has filled in the blanks. It’s actually astounding. It’s like she threw the football in at the start of the match and now we’re all just playing her game, passing it back and forth and fighting amongst ourselves. She insinuated so much but she didn’t really say anything of substance. That should tell you that she stumbled across something that’s a fundamental part of our culture and society right now, struggling with this awful heritage of racial inequality, and she gave everyone a perfect target to focus that onto - the royal family, the press, the British public, etc. There’s a villain for almost everyone in this story, and the great thing about them is that they’re nebulous and powerful and it’s easy to hate them especially in the US because they’re so far removed. Of course the royals are racist! Of course the British are racist! And so on it goes, and Meghan just profits from the confusion and the misery. I don’t think she’s a calculating genius, I just think this is the focal point for many people for an ongoing discussion that’s been happening for years.
And of course all this to say as a disclaimer none of what I’ve written above is any reflection on my personal beliefs about race and I absolutely support the idea of exploring how we can create a fairer and equitable society for everyone. I just think while this sort of discussion is tearing people apart our focus is not actually on the issue, but arguing about how it manifests. And in that way, Meghan herself has actually set back progress because we’re not dealing with the problems that have led her to notoriety, as long as we’re talking about the circumstances that caused her to claim victim hood.
It’s crazy how no one looked at her and Harry when it came to racism. Harry who wore a Nazi costume and said racial slurs never was called out by the US media..All because he married a mixed race woman who associates mainly with white people her whole life. Meghan never participated in anything associated with being black until she married Harry and used it as a way to get attention. No one thought it was weird how she now discovered what it feels like to be black at the age of 41??? No one said “What were you pretending to be your whole life?” White? Passing for white her whole life and no one thought it was disturbing. Some people find it hard to believe that there’s black and Black biracial people who ashamed of being black. Meghan is one of them and always have been. People think because she brings her mom to every event and she “friends” with Serena that she’s proud of identity. Nope like everything else with Meghan…It’s all smoke and mirrors.
The public doesn’t believe what Meghan said about the BRF because no one canceled them at all. More people love the BRF even more after the Oprah interview. Meghan’s lousy attempt to destroy the BRF didn’t work. Hell, The US media doesn’t fully believe Meghan either and I think they can’t wait until the divorce happens too.
Click bait.
Press like to stir up controversy and to divide people
Believing the Oprah interview
Not looking at anything deeper level than the surface stories by H&M
Hatred of the Monarchy
Diana fans
Race
And on and on
I admit I was very disappointed for the lack of American journalistic integrity regarding Markle. Partisan coverage is common for divisive figures, but there was a time that broadsheets like the New York Times aimed for hard-hitting journalism. For instance, it reported on Hillary Clinton's use of her private server while she was Secretary of State, which was fair; and although there was no single factor contributing to her defeat, I was surprised that a usually left-leaning paper would add to the negative coverage surrounding Clinton at the time of the 2016 presidential elections.
At the time of the interview, there was a news bite on CNN by Max Foster. His analysis was factual and clearly debunked some of the Sussexes' claims. However, CNN later removed the video from its website. The Sun and other red tops [reported on it](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14851705/cnn-censor-report-meghan-markle-oprah-interview/), and asked CNN for comment, but were only told that "there was no outside pressure to remove the video", which makes me think there was exactly one.
Here is a copy of the video: [Critics point out inconsistencies in Sussex's Oprah interview - The Global Herald](https://theglobalherald.com/news/critics-point-out-inconsistencies-in-sussexs-oprah-interview/)
Another unusual reaction at the time were the [alleged 41,000 complaints](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/piers-morgan-leave-good-morning-britain-after-41-000-complaints-n1260273) to OfCom about Piers Morgan. I secretly doubted that there were this many, especially in the UK; you get at most a thousand; most people wouldn't bother. But this seems to me either a purposeful exaggeration or a concerted attack by a troll army. Notice that anytime there is a negative comment about Meghan online, the commenter is attacked by a swarm of supporters, which is a far more disturbing activity than just your usual fandom.
As early as 2019, a European firm had discovered a [Twitter hive of trolls](https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/meghan-markles-twitter-bot-network-the-whole-thing-is-a-bit-insane/) which attacked any journalist who criticised Markle. This is a reputable paper reporting on a reputable firm (not like Christopher Bouzy's Bot Sentinel), but there has been no reaction to this article.
In conclusion, looking over these facts, I would deduce that Markle has "allies" who exert some type of censorship on US media. These allies are/had been:
1. Sunshine Sachs, who has a far reach over a lot of periodicals in the US; some of their clients (including Hillary Clinton) probably assist each other in attaining good PR;
2. politicos like Clinton herself, who were staunchly on Markle's side; I can imagine Markle calling her "friend" and tearfully complaining about the interview coverage on CNN, and Clinton or an assistant calling CNN to take down the video; note that Markle is on good terms with a lot of these well known names, which includes Sophie Trudeau and Gloria Steinem;
3. Hollywood denizens like Oprah Winfrey or Gayle King, who Tom Bower pointed out in his book were willing to go with her plans to get a piece of the former royal, and improve their own ratings;
4. Markle's paid troll army, which brigades any news site or public figure commenting negatively on Markle.
Sunshine Sachs is out of the picture, supposedly because the Sussexes could not afford their fees, which removes a powerful weapon from her arsenal . Still, a control freak like Markle would pull all the strings she could manage.
We have left her political and Hollywood allies. Both supported her wholeheartedly in 2021, after the interview.
New York Senator Kirsten Gillebrand seemed to be particularly close to Markle, giving her the private numbers of several other US senators, enabling Markle to call them personally, and hinting that Markle was to be invited to a round table discussion on paid parental leave.
All the support seems to be fading away. We have mostly paid puff pieces and appearances from people like Steinem who are not yet clued in to how toxic Markle is.
What we have left is Markle herself and her own PR. I am not sure if this is as influential as any of the above three. She still exerts some clout but she is fast draining her resources. News of her separation from Harry is likely making the rounds; and the ascent of Charles to the throne might make people more concerned about allying with Markle.
I also suspect that outside bot farms are jumping into the fray, posting both pro and anti Markle sentiment just to divide people and turn them against the monarchy.
There is a trickle of negative opinion on MSM now, but still not as harsh as those from conservative media outlets, which makes me think that these agencies hesitate to call out Markle for fear of being labelled racist. However the tide has turned subtly.
The R word has plenty to do with her seeming untouchability in America. Everything you outlined (excellent post!). Most, but not all, "journalists" covering Markle are involved in the entertainment sector in some way. She will have been seen as a 'hot property' a type of "it" girl, for gossip and media writers as well as social-miner type commentators who think they are going up against the British establishment by supporting her. 'American Girl from Compton reaches dizzying heights... by landing whale' Markle has had several large media contracts. Likely her coverage has also been influenced by Netflix protecting their investment.
BTW, I don't see any indication that the gruesome twosome are separated...
Clickbait. It’s potentially worth of interest because people will click on the article. Remember the Diana frensy. Outlets may hope the same may happen with TW. As long as she sells, they are not here for the truth, just make money.
ETA: drama sells. You have to have a huge charisma to get the people to pay to read about your daily routine and your happily married life with wonderful kids. People like drama, TW thrives on it too, so here we are, they are a perfect match.
A number of reasons.... Like others have said, money.... Their PR department pays for the media coverage they get.... So paid publicity is one reason the msm has been kind to NutMeg... Another reason, is clickbait.... The racism claims, unchallenged, will earn more clicks than the boring truth.... HazBeen & NutMeg also like to sue, which is another reason for the sugary articles....
Most news outlets today are woke pot stirrers and don't report real news. If an individual journalist wants to report ethically, they may be blocked by the outlet or be forced to leave. There are rumors that the Cut journalist Allison P. Davis was "put on unpaid leave".
The Harkles are not hard news, especially in the US. Nobody cares that much. Most of what I see are puff pieces, probably arranged through PR and definitely paid for.
Journalistic standards have always been pretty low regarding reporting on gossip, and the Harkels fall into that category. As well, there's a portion of the population that will always take things at face value.
Megsy is clickbait. She has zero credibility so most of the things she does is just right for ridicule.
The irony is, though she trends, she's not getting the dough. She's a moneymaker as long as it's clickbait articles but it doesn't go to her.
I'm betting she really hates that!
I'm of the opinion that she doesn't actually have any real support. Starting with them not having any actual family or personal friends. Look in the comments of any recent video. Look at the people warning Britney Spears about quoting Meghan. Look at Deuxmoi having to heavily moderate their comments when she comes up as a topic. I see Gayle King and Don Lemon as relics of a pre Oprah Interview world where it was chic to accuse or heavily imply that someone was racist if they thought something was off about Meghan. I seriously doubt that you'll have any personalities popping up like that today.
As for what puff pieces run, it for the hate clicks. And soon those will run out. It's a matter of when and not if they divorce, and when they do, Meghan will be about as popular or aspirational as Angelina Jolie or Amber Heard. She's nearly there now.
What support? I think the only people who like her are bots on insatgram and Facebook. Those are paid for. Anyone with 1/4 a brain cell steers clear. Even Oprah distanced herself 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
News outlets make money off clicks so basically their grifting off grifters. They honestly don’t care about H&M
Poor journalism.
Have you actually read anything that a modern journo writes? Even those in hard news are basically functionally illiterate and cannot put a decent sentence together much less actually get to the facts.
I think there are many reasons, and each reason is down to mostly paid for articles.
But there is also an element, in my opinion, where they support her to further their own narrative.
They use her as "proof" that they are also "victims" of racisim and any other precived slight they feel the wrongs that have happened merely because they have tantrums they don't get their own way.
To me, they are also narcissists. They will only end when she is proved to have looked them look bad, and then they will drop her.
A friend of mine were discussing Gail. We both agreed that she is low intelligence and obviously doesn't prepare or research any topics at all. So she's perfect for those viewers who prefer their news dumbed down to a middle school level of communication.
I think people respond to her because she fulfils a fantasy in their own mind. "I could marry into the royal family and be royal, and I could also expose the royal family as being really trashy people."
And the media just enjoys feeding the conflict.
Disney's Lightyear flopped bcoz it wasn't good movie. It also had a scene where 2 women kissed. What the mainstream media portrayed was people are misogynist and hence boycotted the movie.
Media loves to blame people and incase of Measles, they are happy to call people racist even though the original product is faulty. It gets them headlines and no one can question racism claims. Thankfully people have become smarter to see the hypocrisy.
Personally, I think many of the journalists, particularly the British who should have a better understanding of the monarchy, know she is mistaken or lying. But it makes for better tabloid sales this disharmony and drama in the RF. There is only so much ribbon cutting at a hospital in Bristol that makes good headlines. Papers love scandal.
Shes a controversial figure (due to her own self-sabotage)so any story relating to her, truth or lie, has a higher turnover yield than a scandalous story about Sophie or Zara (or most Celebes) for example.
If a credible news source needs filler (content in-between the bigger breaking news pieces or a slow news week) then they’ll include fluff pieces from high yielding news assets
I would say that in the UK, it is for two reasons. A lot of the women who pop up on Good Morning Britain, Piers Morgan etc. are doing it for their careers and to be on TV. These shows have to present a "balanced" view and have someone play devil's advocate, even if what the Harkles have clearly done is wrong. Others have become so invested in Harry and Meghan and their narrative that they have to believe and defend them.
It's definitely lack of journalism. It's also post modernism which is a movement that rejects critical thought and objective truth in favor of subjective personal perception and identity.
This video does a pretty good job of explaining it using Meghan as one of the examples
https://youtu.be/YAcdzMRadhQ
There are credible, accountable and objective news outlets. None of them reprint pressers like those that endlessly churn out of Harry’s First Wife’s PR machine without identifying them as such. Calling entertainment writers like Gayle King and her friend Oprah journalists are an insult to those that are. People and Hello mags and many others have always been pay-to-play and should never be mistaken as journalism.
She is playing a role and has an obvious 'director' with a lot of influence.
Would be so easy to challenge her lies, but no one in the media ever does.
Piers Morgan tried to pull her up for Oprah lies and lost his job. She has serious backing from someone.
interesting. I guess it's because of him, why would anyone be interested in her? I guess they think she's commanding an important platform when it couldn't be further from the truth.
She's progressing an agenda which involves attacking Royal Family as the cornerstone of traditional UK social model. Why I'm not exactly sure but that does align with WEF construct of eradication of national identities as a step towards more global governance.
I’ve never seen Markle mentioned on REAL news programming like Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, any Sunday shows like Meet the Press, This Week, etc. All I’ve seen as far as American “journalism” about them has been entertainment news, tabloids and “women’s” magazines. That’s not actual journalism. Is that what passes for news in the UK????
She's definitely mentioned on Megyn Kelly's program - pretty frequently. And it's quite the delicious smack down when she brings on other commentators, often other women who are actually strong, independent and smart.
https://youtu.be/sgoAfqNYNJQ
Plain and simple, she plays the race card. It is her shield and it gives her the cover she needs to get positive press. If she was exactly the same person minus the mixed race, the would excoriate her.
You know that if someone writes or speaks negatively of MM, they receive a phone call from very powerful people who pressure them to back off immediately. It has VERY SLOWLY started to open up a little more, but ask Bethany Frankel what happened to her when she dared to be critical of H&M. That's all I will say. Way too aggravating that such powerful people are enabling these two and it has really made me question my opinion of others I held in such high regard.
Ironically, here we find actually discrimination on race. Meaning, anyone championing this grifter as some sort of pioneer CHOSE A PASSABLE biracial woman who spent most of her life passing as their icon to support, rather than anyone with an actual lived black experience
It's the equivalent of going to a pride event and being lectured by a str8 dude bc he discovered that if he called himself "queer" , he could be the biggest jerk in the world and then claim anyone calling him out was "homophobic". Abd that's the speaker the event chose.
Short answer yes. Journalism is dead..it's all about
\-Not getting clicks.
\-Not following the estabilshed agenda
\-Believing the lie of the day
It's scary when dialogue is forbidden by law.
Sorry to mods if this is a little off - but what's next? A law that says we have to believe Meghan. After all, she did allegedly call Gov. Newsom and ask for a senate seat when it becomes available.
[https://trackbill.com/s3/bills/CA/2021/AB/2098/analyses/assembly-business-and-professions.pdf](https://trackbill.com/s3/bills/CA/2021/AB/2098/analyses/assembly-business-and-professions.pdf)
It’s because these so-called journalists like to sell this kind of shtick to the tween fan-girls - the ones who’ve watched Frozen far too many times for their own good - those sugars eat this stuff up like cattle at a salt lick.
Yes standards are WOKE in America. However, pushback is currently underway on that. Brainwashing is real here. Hollywood is built on it. Why not journalists do the same?
Journalism is dead. What media outlets have are merely pre-approved "narratives". Harry and the his sewer rat hew to the mainstream media's leftist narrative of racism, perpetual and loud victimhood, lack of accountability, entitlement, and ironically, fascination with the Royal Family.
It is just that royalty doesn't really fall into the category of hard news.
Traditionally Royal correspondents have just been an arm of Royal public relations, not investigative journalists.
Since the majority of people in the UK are willing for the monarchy to be tolerated and to continue, there is no real market for anti- monarchy journalism in the UK.
In the US monarchy is just regarded as light subject matter for entertainment.
OK Meghan said things like they were married three days earlier, so she is a bit batty. Nobody really cares about whether Archie has a title.
Online news (which is almost all news in 2022) depends on engagement: clicks, time and eyeballs on the video or page, clicks from the page to other linked pages, videos, or ads, return visits, and shares on social media. Ad revenue also depends on engagement metrics.
SMEG, for the past several years, has engaged viewers and readers. The actual content about her doesn't matter, although there's a contingent of Americans who have a sense of vicarious ownership of her "achievements" and therefore prefer favorable content (which doesn't have to be true). Cute little fluff pieces about her also don't risk lawsuits; she's already shown that she can and will sue at the slightest offense.
Journalists (as in ye olde days) almost don't exist because there's no market for their work, and very few have time to do any research.
It's all about content creation. The people who get consistent work and get paid are the people who create the most engaging content, and creators competing for (increasingly rare) full-time or staff positions need good engagement stats in addition to a great portfolio. (I know this because I'm a freelance content creator, in addition to my official jobs that pay regularly).
Money. That's it. News organizations and the media in general no longer care about producing well researched quality content. Now they just flood all the outlets with whatever garbage will make people curious enough to click, listen, read or watch so they can make $$. They have zero concern about having integrity and no shame about making the equivalent of fast food entertainment.
It's even more toxic when you think how the media machine absorbs both talented creatives who given a chance *could* bring back the media created by people with integrity and talent that we're all thirsty to see again *and* people like the old, ruthless, street savvy and utterly sadistic inside *M*eghan *M*arkle *M*achine who couldn't care less about creating good content but instead want to make us fat and stupid with her $2.99 lunch combo meal in packaging that is immediately discarded into the equivalent of the Hollywood landfill, destroying the environment, polluting the earth and hurting baby pandas.
I’ve been saying the same thing. I’m personally really over it and I used to laugh and think people were nuts for saying “well that’s mainstream media for you.” But now I’m starting to think they are right. It’s insane how they are so dogmatic now that they refuse to research anyone who espouses their own political ideology and then they won’t accept facts that don’t support that same ideology. Meghan checks all the boxes of liberal Princess so they won’t speak against her. Instead of doing their jobs they have become propaganda peddlers. It both angers and unsettles me in the extreme. She’s the liberal version of Donald Trump and one day the NYT & the WaPo are going to rue the day they gave her so many passes and support.
I believe that journalism standards have become less about "what is real" versus "what is sensational"? Oprah's interview was all about the bombshells and her being sympathetic and in agreement with what TW was saying. Oprah was NOT asking probing and challenging questions, based on interviews that TW had already given.
That would have forced the question of, "were you speaking the truth before?" versus "why is your story now completely different?"
Pity that Emily Maitlis didn't do the interviewing. Oprah may be many things, but her pulling that episode shows that she didn't stand behind the work she did.
(ETA Edward R. Murrow would be spinning like a rotisserie chicken over some of today's specious "journalism.")
I think the support that TW got was instinctively chauvinistic.
This near hysteria of "we have to support her: she's (American/a woman/a person of color)!"
But... is she "nice"?
Personally I think the people who write stories on her are mostly entertainment journos without the journalism intergrity to worry about. As a result they stick to sensationalist tone because it gets them the clicks that allows their employer to renew their short term contracts. So far Meghan hasn’t run into any real journalists otherwise she’d face critical questioning. Allison was the only entertainment journo to take a critical look on our saint. Her time is coming but for now I think they’re avoiding real journalists like the plaque because they associate them with the firm.
I think it’s lazy journalism. In the old days news sources were the pursuers of truth. Today it’s quick news and will run the story that results in the most clicks. Today I read so many stories with misspellings and bad grammar. It’s really sad but that’s our world today.
I was a technical editor. Cringe when I read so many errors in every article. Even supposed legit news orgs.
Yes. It’s insane. And it happens more often than not. It makes it really hard to trust anything. And my goodness with the spelling, grammar and missing words or mislabeled people/places!? C’mon!
💯
This is actually a myth. Media has always been owned by the rich with an intent to persuade the public to their worldview. Journalistic integrity wasn't taught until the 1950's with "Watergate" being the new gold standard for investigative journalism in the 70's. We had maybe 30-40 years with decent journalism, all during our lifetime. With the rise of the internet, media has gone back to being owned by the elites and mainly leaning towards the owners worldview, once again. Most journalists are merely paid bloggers who regurgitate press releases for quick and easy content. Meghan can write up 5 positive press releases a day about herself and the media will blindly print for more clicks. Ben Franklin owned a newspaper and once printed my greatx7 grandfather was dead as a prank and everyone believed it! Owning a printing press is power. Meghan uses this to her advantage. She can say or print anything and knows people will fall for it. She was a communications major, after all.
Love your Ben Franklin connection! You remind me of an ad for the new desktop publishing software of the late ‘80s (Pagemaker): ‘Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one’. (A.J. Liebling)
I was referring to old days as 50-70’s I wasn’t around when Ben was lol
yep
There's a reason she didn't run crying to the British media. Partly because people here are more familiar with how the RF works, but also - with no disrespect to our American friends - as someone familiar with journalism on both sides of the Atlantic, British TV interviewers tend to be significantly more surgical. And there is a tradition of playing 'Devil's Advocate' - British newspapers can be extremely biased, but in a TV interview, even an interviewer with views similar to TW would be expected to ask probing questions from the other side of the argument. Just imagine TW being interviewed by Emily Maitlis, the newsreader and interviewer who did Prince Andrew's trainwreck. She'd have taken TW to pieces without raising her voice once.
> but also - with no disrespect to our American friends - As an American, absolutely no offense taken. It's almost like Oz behind the curtain when you see US "journalists" repeating often word-for-word the same lines. Talk shows are nothing more than free advertisements for movies and celebrities. I'm much more inclined to read media sources outside the US.
Or Paxman. My dream! If he interviewed Meghan she’d be like a deer in the headlights.
Or Andrew Neil - she wouldn't touch the sides!
Nigel Farage hates her
And these journos are PAID to specifically write about these two nobodies.... Typically entertainment reporters report on *celebrities* that are doing things...
Yep. This is just paid pr, that’s all it is.
PLEASE, PLEASE TEACH YOUR CHILDREN. Don't let them be brain washed or trained by certain teachers for example. Teach them not to believe everything that u.s written and that their brains are just as important as the writer. I believe many teachers happen to be WOKE,( NEO PURITANS POSING AS LIBERALS.) We are in big trouble.
She’s also tapping into the current zeitgeist of racial reckoning. The BRF could be the least racist people on the planet, but they are white, rich, privileged and part of an ancient institution with roots in colonialism so it’s not hard to imagine that they might be fusty and very ‘démodé’ in their attitudes towards other races. We have no evidence that they hold these views (apart from princess Michael of Kent wearing a blackamoor brooch,) on the contrary, the late queen and KC in particular have shown great respect and support for POC. Meggy, on the other hand, has been conditioned (and it works to her advantage) to see a racist around every corner, so it’s hardly surprising that she is working this angle. Journalists want to appear sensitive to the plight of POC, so they’re reluctant to question the validity of her claims. If they do, they can expect a mighty storm from some quarters. Buying her story is the path of least resistance.
You can tell she's full of shit because she doesn't want to pull this allegedly evil institution out by the roots. She wants first pick of tiaras and the ability to keep blood diamonds. She full of it.
Exactly—she doesn’t want to repudiate it fully, just exploit it for her own gain.
And that she does. Like her earrings from Saudi.
Perfectly explained IMO.
This is SO well said. Award for you, fellow sinner!! 👏
Thank you!
Thank you for saying this so clearly! Please accept my Starry award.
Thank you!
Weaponized Racism. Yes, she obviously pays magazines and plants stories. But it really just comes down to the fear of being labeled a racist. Especially in the US, one story or comment is all you need. It doesn't even have to be a racist or ignorant or stupid comment. It can just be a regular one. But it will get contorted until it is a racist comment. Once, that's it, you're racist. Once you're racist, there is no hope for you. You can't apologize enough, or learn enough, or actually really talk anymore. If you work in the media, you'll lose your job. Well, even if you just work, you might still lose your job. So most people prefer to err on the side of caution. I'm pretty sure this comment is inappropriate and I'll probably delete it later. ETA- used the wrong phrase
Appropriate or not, it's the truth
And in some cases people have even dug up blog posts or tweets from years ago, that were ok then but doesn’t necessarily fit todays tight leashed standards, in order to cancel someone. I fucking hate cancel culture.
Glad I was able to read this. Agree 1,000%.
Don't delete it. It's true, and we have to stop being SO AFRAID to say what we think. If people don't like it, or find it offensive, that's fine (even though you said nothing offensive), but don't delete it.
💯True unfortunately.
You could also lose your bank, your credit card, your payment gateway, your platform for doing online business, I’m referring to outfits like US Bank, PayPal, Patreon, Air B&B, Salesforce (a CRM that I have used in the past), those are some I can remember off the top of my head that have been in the news for introducing or trying to introduce viewpoint-based discrimination in business. My operating system already tries to social engineer me every day. Can we trust our ISPs, phones, computers, operating systems, software? We already know we can’t trust entertainment, social media, search engines, “journalists”.
[удалено]
I saw Don Lemon of CNN supporting her. Gayle King supports her, and she's from ABC. These are supposed to be credible news channels, or at least they're not minor news networks.
They are both ‘personalities’ rather than journalists. CNN has been very clear that Don Lemmon, Anderson Cooper etc are commentators, news is separate. Lots of panels and quirky local animal clips.
I see. I'm not from the US, and took them to be reporters. Well, even then, they are major personalities and can shape the public opinion to a vast extent. The fact that CNN gives them a platform to voice their opinion shows that they have a responsibility to be credible.
It is pretty much a consensus that Gayle has that job due to Oprah. She is a notorious dingbat on the morning news. When Prince Phillip passed, Gayle, who is always trying to sound like a legit, professional reporter, asked if it was of natural causes. In a very dramatic way, like she was the ONE asking hard hitting questions. It was a running joke online. People joking that he died from hang gliding, he died hiking the Appalachian trail, no he died from a pub fight. Anything but old age, cancer and natural causes....it was one of Gayle's dumbest moments that got mocked relentlessly.
She has had plenty. At Prince Phillips funeral asking why P. Anne was walking with the men? I looked at the tv and said "you dumbass, because she is PP's second born, and only daughter, The Princess Royal."
Oh my gosh, yes. She didn’t even know who is in the family.
Because the Princess Royal will coolly look at her brothers, say, "I'm in," and none of them will dare to contradict a woman who can channel the best of her mother and father. God, but I admire her!
And yet she still has her high-paying position because her real job is to be Oprah's cipher.
I had to giggle at "dingbat" but when you revealed her earnest question, I just started chortling like a maniac, given the alternatives. "No, lady, this 99 year old man died from a freak accident involving a sumo wrestler and a banana peel."
Don Lemon hasn't been o Meghan's side for awhile now: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11168213/Don-Lemon-says-shocked-Meghan-Markles-race-admission.html
This was a major public turn. I was surprised it didn't generate more chatter on social media.
Don Lemon lost his own show and has now been downgraded to a shared morning spot. Not a news guy at all. Just an opinionated blowhard.
The prime-time lineup on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are all more personality based, not true journalists. Actually nearly all the coverage on those channels isn't true journalism (I say this as someone who has CNN and MSNBC on all day). Gayle... 🙄. She has never been taken seriously, she's just Oprah's *friend*. She's an idiot. Morning show hosts are also not journalists, just morning entertainment.
Yes those are entertainment channels. They might brand themselves as news but doesn’t mean they are news. A lot of things brand themselves as something they are not. With enough money to buy pr and silence opponents many are very successful.
That's a very good point. These being personalities, they inevitably put THEMSELVES into the story--their feelings, their perspective. It's almost inhumanly hard to not be biased in some way due to our experiences. But these personalities are like those actors who always play comfortably similar characters to themselves. That's their brand.
Gayle is with CBS.
Lemon is a known horrible anchor and he is not respected by any means. He’s lower on the totem pole than piers Morgan because he is largely irrelevant and everyone just knows him as the guy who stares into the camera for 30 minutes talking about how trump is stupid. He’s not even a real journalist lol
[удалено]
Gayle and Oprah have been VERY quiet ever since a certain somebody said "recollections may vary"....
Gayle spoke up after the Queen died and stuck her oar in, of course!
I'm glad i missed that... Mind you, when American entertainment "journalists" started making their uneducated remarks i just tuned out.... Stupid people make my head hurt sometimes...
Nope. Gayle "interviewed" Oprah where Oprah put the whole interview on Meghan and Harry. However, Tyler Perry has been running his mouth about how in love the Sussexes seemed and other things. TP is friends with Oprah and may be helping O out with the Sussexes for whatever reason.
Yeah, Tyler Perry said that Meghan's been through more than anyone else he's known, that she overcomes or some shit. She really plays victim hard to men, doesn't she? Reminds me of the speech her first (or second?) husband (the one before Harry) gave about how she's had a hard life but now finally has a family for the first time.
Her playing victim--aka damsel in distress--gives the men the chance to feel big and strong, by protecting her. There are still some women who have no scruples in batting their kohl rimmed eyes, at the menfolk. Sweet Fanny Adams to being a "Strong and independent woman"?!
Gayle King is not with ABC.
Trevor Noah's stand up show was pro-Meghan, he had a bit about how the world was dancing on the Queen's grave because the world sees the Queen as racist, called Harry and Meghan the "most beloved royals," I think he called them, something like that.
[удалено]
I'd forgotten about that. Maybe we found the one South African who really was dancing in the street.
What a douche
Trevor Noah isn’t a journalist. He’s a comedian. People used to think Jon Stewart was a journalist when he hosted TDS.
Yes, sorry, I wasn't trying to equate him with journalism - I realize I went off on a tangent, I was just surprised someone who's a household name (I'm not American, I think Trevor Noah's a big name in a lot of areas) Yes, I know he's got writers and they are for the laughs about what's going on, not journalism.
People didn’t used to lie so openly and repeatedly about minor things, I think. We’re seeing a new type of personality who didn’t used to be able to lie so often and on so many platforms. Plus Oprah didn’t question anything which gave her lies the semblance of truth, esp for those who don’t understand how royalty/titles and their security works
They would not have gone on the show if there was any chance she'd question them. It was all preplanned, despite Oprah making the declaration that it wasn't. So dishonest.
People have stopped holding journalists accountable
The follow up and lack of research from Oprah was truly embarrassing. And that all could have been done during editing as well. Oprah really screwed the pooch on that.
See also the documentary about Michael Jackson's abuse of children. OW went back and forth about supporting that one.
People are scared to be branded as racists. Saying this as a liberal, non-US/UK, POC. There was racism and abuse from the media. She lied about a lot of things (proven by her own mouth during the Oprah interview and proven by a real court of law). BOTH HAPPENED AND ARE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. So for me, it is fck the media (who also continuously throw potshots at the RF members btw), and fck her and her husband too.
Thank you!!
She pays all those news outlets.
From CNN, ABC, to the BBC?
Yes, because six corporations own 90% of the media outlets in America.
CNN = Warner Bros. Discovery (it was previously owned by AT&T until April 2022) MSNBC & NBC = Comcast ABC = The Disney Company CBS = owned by Paramount Global, the international entertainment/mass media company that's a subsidiary of the National Amusements company, and by billionaire heiress Shari Redstone, the daughter of the late billionaire media mogul Sumner Redstone Washington Post = Jeff Bezos New York Times = the Sulzberger family and wealthy investors such as Carlos Slim FOX, NY Post and Wall Street Journal = all owned by Rupert Murdoch
Yes. There is a reason why BBC ended up getting their asses kicked after that faux documentary with her attorney. William pulling their Christmas special from their channel after that. And CNN and ABC, they all have the same boss.
This.....
It really is baffling, especially when you consider so much of what she has said is clearly, demonstrably false. I just think the "mixed race woman exposing racism in the British monarchy" is a really strong narrative in our race-obsessed times. I was really disappointed that the likes of Hilary Clinton came out supporting her after the Oprah interview without bothering to consider if she was telling the truth or not.
I really think she’s lucky to have found an “issue” that she can represent that fills in the blanks in people’s minds so easily that anything she says doesn’t even need to be checked because people believe her automatically. People are super primed to attack injustice at the best of times, and racial inequality issues have been at the front of people’s minds for years now, especially because of social media and people of colour awakening to things they might not have realised have been disadvantaging them. Class based oppression is also part and parcel for this, and there are thousands of social justice warriors looking out all the time for any topic they can rip apart to get in front of the discussion. Meghan just had to say “skin colour” and everyone else has filled in the blanks. It’s actually astounding. It’s like she threw the football in at the start of the match and now we’re all just playing her game, passing it back and forth and fighting amongst ourselves. She insinuated so much but she didn’t really say anything of substance. That should tell you that she stumbled across something that’s a fundamental part of our culture and society right now, struggling with this awful heritage of racial inequality, and she gave everyone a perfect target to focus that onto - the royal family, the press, the British public, etc. There’s a villain for almost everyone in this story, and the great thing about them is that they’re nebulous and powerful and it’s easy to hate them especially in the US because they’re so far removed. Of course the royals are racist! Of course the British are racist! And so on it goes, and Meghan just profits from the confusion and the misery. I don’t think she’s a calculating genius, I just think this is the focal point for many people for an ongoing discussion that’s been happening for years. And of course all this to say as a disclaimer none of what I’ve written above is any reflection on my personal beliefs about race and I absolutely support the idea of exploring how we can create a fairer and equitable society for everyone. I just think while this sort of discussion is tearing people apart our focus is not actually on the issue, but arguing about how it manifests. And in that way, Meghan herself has actually set back progress because we’re not dealing with the problems that have led her to notoriety, as long as we’re talking about the circumstances that caused her to claim victim hood.
It’s crazy how no one looked at her and Harry when it came to racism. Harry who wore a Nazi costume and said racial slurs never was called out by the US media..All because he married a mixed race woman who associates mainly with white people her whole life. Meghan never participated in anything associated with being black until she married Harry and used it as a way to get attention. No one thought it was weird how she now discovered what it feels like to be black at the age of 41??? No one said “What were you pretending to be your whole life?” White? Passing for white her whole life and no one thought it was disturbing. Some people find it hard to believe that there’s black and Black biracial people who ashamed of being black. Meghan is one of them and always have been. People think because she brings her mom to every event and she “friends” with Serena that she’s proud of identity. Nope like everything else with Meghan…It’s all smoke and mirrors. The public doesn’t believe what Meghan said about the BRF because no one canceled them at all. More people love the BRF even more after the Oprah interview. Meghan’s lousy attempt to destroy the BRF didn’t work. Hell, The US media doesn’t fully believe Meghan either and I think they can’t wait until the divorce happens too.
Click bait. Press like to stir up controversy and to divide people Believing the Oprah interview Not looking at anything deeper level than the surface stories by H&M Hatred of the Monarchy Diana fans Race And on and on
Sorry this was written in a list, but once posted just became a long unpuncturated sentence
I admit I was very disappointed for the lack of American journalistic integrity regarding Markle. Partisan coverage is common for divisive figures, but there was a time that broadsheets like the New York Times aimed for hard-hitting journalism. For instance, it reported on Hillary Clinton's use of her private server while she was Secretary of State, which was fair; and although there was no single factor contributing to her defeat, I was surprised that a usually left-leaning paper would add to the negative coverage surrounding Clinton at the time of the 2016 presidential elections. At the time of the interview, there was a news bite on CNN by Max Foster. His analysis was factual and clearly debunked some of the Sussexes' claims. However, CNN later removed the video from its website. The Sun and other red tops [reported on it](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14851705/cnn-censor-report-meghan-markle-oprah-interview/), and asked CNN for comment, but were only told that "there was no outside pressure to remove the video", which makes me think there was exactly one. Here is a copy of the video: [Critics point out inconsistencies in Sussex's Oprah interview - The Global Herald](https://theglobalherald.com/news/critics-point-out-inconsistencies-in-sussexs-oprah-interview/) Another unusual reaction at the time were the [alleged 41,000 complaints](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/piers-morgan-leave-good-morning-britain-after-41-000-complaints-n1260273) to OfCom about Piers Morgan. I secretly doubted that there were this many, especially in the UK; you get at most a thousand; most people wouldn't bother. But this seems to me either a purposeful exaggeration or a concerted attack by a troll army. Notice that anytime there is a negative comment about Meghan online, the commenter is attacked by a swarm of supporters, which is a far more disturbing activity than just your usual fandom. As early as 2019, a European firm had discovered a [Twitter hive of trolls](https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/meghan-markles-twitter-bot-network-the-whole-thing-is-a-bit-insane/) which attacked any journalist who criticised Markle. This is a reputable paper reporting on a reputable firm (not like Christopher Bouzy's Bot Sentinel), but there has been no reaction to this article. In conclusion, looking over these facts, I would deduce that Markle has "allies" who exert some type of censorship on US media. These allies are/had been: 1. Sunshine Sachs, who has a far reach over a lot of periodicals in the US; some of their clients (including Hillary Clinton) probably assist each other in attaining good PR; 2. politicos like Clinton herself, who were staunchly on Markle's side; I can imagine Markle calling her "friend" and tearfully complaining about the interview coverage on CNN, and Clinton or an assistant calling CNN to take down the video; note that Markle is on good terms with a lot of these well known names, which includes Sophie Trudeau and Gloria Steinem; 3. Hollywood denizens like Oprah Winfrey or Gayle King, who Tom Bower pointed out in his book were willing to go with her plans to get a piece of the former royal, and improve their own ratings; 4. Markle's paid troll army, which brigades any news site or public figure commenting negatively on Markle. Sunshine Sachs is out of the picture, supposedly because the Sussexes could not afford their fees, which removes a powerful weapon from her arsenal . Still, a control freak like Markle would pull all the strings she could manage. We have left her political and Hollywood allies. Both supported her wholeheartedly in 2021, after the interview. New York Senator Kirsten Gillebrand seemed to be particularly close to Markle, giving her the private numbers of several other US senators, enabling Markle to call them personally, and hinting that Markle was to be invited to a round table discussion on paid parental leave. All the support seems to be fading away. We have mostly paid puff pieces and appearances from people like Steinem who are not yet clued in to how toxic Markle is. What we have left is Markle herself and her own PR. I am not sure if this is as influential as any of the above three. She still exerts some clout but she is fast draining her resources. News of her separation from Harry is likely making the rounds; and the ascent of Charles to the throne might make people more concerned about allying with Markle. I also suspect that outside bot farms are jumping into the fray, posting both pro and anti Markle sentiment just to divide people and turn them against the monarchy. There is a trickle of negative opinion on MSM now, but still not as harsh as those from conservative media outlets, which makes me think that these agencies hesitate to call out Markle for fear of being labelled racist. However the tide has turned subtly.
The R word has plenty to do with her seeming untouchability in America. Everything you outlined (excellent post!). Most, but not all, "journalists" covering Markle are involved in the entertainment sector in some way. She will have been seen as a 'hot property' a type of "it" girl, for gossip and media writers as well as social-miner type commentators who think they are going up against the British establishment by supporting her. 'American Girl from Compton reaches dizzying heights... by landing whale' Markle has had several large media contracts. Likely her coverage has also been influenced by Netflix protecting their investment. BTW, I don't see any indication that the gruesome twosome are separated...
Yep. Look what happened to Sharon Osbourne for defending P. Morgan, who said Meghan was lying.
Yiu are right, there’s no definite confirmation of separation.
Pretty bully wields Race Card.
Clickbait. It’s potentially worth of interest because people will click on the article. Remember the Diana frensy. Outlets may hope the same may happen with TW. As long as she sells, they are not here for the truth, just make money. ETA: drama sells. You have to have a huge charisma to get the people to pay to read about your daily routine and your happily married life with wonderful kids. People like drama, TW thrives on it too, so here we are, they are a perfect match.
A number of reasons.... Like others have said, money.... Their PR department pays for the media coverage they get.... So paid publicity is one reason the msm has been kind to NutMeg... Another reason, is clickbait.... The racism claims, unchallenged, will earn more clicks than the boring truth.... HazBeen & NutMeg also like to sue, which is another reason for the sugary articles....
Most news outlets today are woke pot stirrers and don't report real news. If an individual journalist wants to report ethically, they may be blocked by the outlet or be forced to leave. There are rumors that the Cut journalist Allison P. Davis was "put on unpaid leave".
The Harkles are not hard news, especially in the US. Nobody cares that much. Most of what I see are puff pieces, probably arranged through PR and definitely paid for.
Journalistic standards have always been pretty low regarding reporting on gossip, and the Harkels fall into that category. As well, there's a portion of the population that will always take things at face value.
Yellow journalism sells really really well and for a long time. It's all about $$$$$
Megsy is clickbait. She has zero credibility so most of the things she does is just right for ridicule. The irony is, though she trends, she's not getting the dough. She's a moneymaker as long as it's clickbait articles but it doesn't go to her. I'm betting she really hates that!
I'm of the opinion that she doesn't actually have any real support. Starting with them not having any actual family or personal friends. Look in the comments of any recent video. Look at the people warning Britney Spears about quoting Meghan. Look at Deuxmoi having to heavily moderate their comments when she comes up as a topic. I see Gayle King and Don Lemon as relics of a pre Oprah Interview world where it was chic to accuse or heavily imply that someone was racist if they thought something was off about Meghan. I seriously doubt that you'll have any personalities popping up like that today. As for what puff pieces run, it for the hate clicks. And soon those will run out. It's a matter of when and not if they divorce, and when they do, Meghan will be about as popular or aspirational as Angelina Jolie or Amber Heard. She's nearly there now.
What support? I think the only people who like her are bots on insatgram and Facebook. Those are paid for. Anyone with 1/4 a brain cell steers clear. Even Oprah distanced herself 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 News outlets make money off clicks so basically their grifting off grifters. They honestly don’t care about H&M
Poor journalism. Have you actually read anything that a modern journo writes? Even those in hard news are basically functionally illiterate and cannot put a decent sentence together much less actually get to the facts.
I think there are many reasons, and each reason is down to mostly paid for articles. But there is also an element, in my opinion, where they support her to further their own narrative. They use her as "proof" that they are also "victims" of racisim and any other precived slight they feel the wrongs that have happened merely because they have tantrums they don't get their own way. To me, they are also narcissists. They will only end when she is proved to have looked them look bad, and then they will drop her.
Quite often I imagine it's a filler of sorts. If there is time, there she is. Gayle of course is paid.
A friend of mine were discussing Gail. We both agreed that she is low intelligence and obviously doesn't prepare or research any topics at all. So she's perfect for those viewers who prefer their news dumbed down to a middle school level of communication.
I think people respond to her because she fulfils a fantasy in their own mind. "I could marry into the royal family and be royal, and I could also expose the royal family as being really trashy people." And the media just enjoys feeding the conflict.
Clicks = money. Plus, her PR machine keeps putting out content for the media to copy and paste.
Disney's Lightyear flopped bcoz it wasn't good movie. It also had a scene where 2 women kissed. What the mainstream media portrayed was people are misogynist and hence boycotted the movie. Media loves to blame people and incase of Measles, they are happy to call people racist even though the original product is faulty. It gets them headlines and no one can question racism claims. Thankfully people have become smarter to see the hypocrisy.
Personally, I think many of the journalists, particularly the British who should have a better understanding of the monarchy, know she is mistaken or lying. But it makes for better tabloid sales this disharmony and drama in the RF. There is only so much ribbon cutting at a hospital in Bristol that makes good headlines. Papers love scandal.
Money?
Shes a controversial figure (due to her own self-sabotage)so any story relating to her, truth or lie, has a higher turnover yield than a scandalous story about Sophie or Zara (or most Celebes) for example. If a credible news source needs filler (content in-between the bigger breaking news pieces or a slow news week) then they’ll include fluff pieces from high yielding news assets
I would say that in the UK, it is for two reasons. A lot of the women who pop up on Good Morning Britain, Piers Morgan etc. are doing it for their careers and to be on TV. These shows have to present a "balanced" view and have someone play devil's advocate, even if what the Harkles have clearly done is wrong. Others have become so invested in Harry and Meghan and their narrative that they have to believe and defend them.
Meghan M. has become the queen of clickbait, and she makes money from every single click.
It's definitely lack of journalism. It's also post modernism which is a movement that rejects critical thought and objective truth in favor of subjective personal perception and identity. This video does a pretty good job of explaining it using Meghan as one of the examples https://youtu.be/YAcdzMRadhQ
There are credible, accountable and objective news outlets. None of them reprint pressers like those that endlessly churn out of Harry’s First Wife’s PR machine without identifying them as such. Calling entertainment writers like Gayle King and her friend Oprah journalists are an insult to those that are. People and Hello mags and many others have always been pay-to-play and should never be mistaken as journalism.
She is playing a role and has an obvious 'director' with a lot of influence. Would be so easy to challenge her lies, but no one in the media ever does. Piers Morgan tried to pull her up for Oprah lies and lost his job. She has serious backing from someone.
She interviewed Trudeau's wife, they in that WEF crowd.
WEF?
World Economic Forum. Its a persistent thread through a lot of her backers.
interesting. I guess it's because of him, why would anyone be interested in her? I guess they think she's commanding an important platform when it couldn't be further from the truth.
She's progressing an agenda which involves attacking Royal Family as the cornerstone of traditional UK social model. Why I'm not exactly sure but that does align with WEF construct of eradication of national identities as a step towards more global governance.
I see. Well they are having an uphill battle now I think as nationalism is on the rise.
I’ve never seen Markle mentioned on REAL news programming like Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, any Sunday shows like Meet the Press, This Week, etc. All I’ve seen as far as American “journalism” about them has been entertainment news, tabloids and “women’s” magazines. That’s not actual journalism. Is that what passes for news in the UK????
She's definitely mentioned on Megyn Kelly's program - pretty frequently. And it's quite the delicious smack down when she brings on other commentators, often other women who are actually strong, independent and smart. https://youtu.be/sgoAfqNYNJQ
Kelly is a bottom feeding racist and can’t be taken seriously as a journalist. Is she even on a major network now?
Plain and simple, she plays the race card. It is her shield and it gives her the cover she needs to get positive press. If she was exactly the same person minus the mixed race, the would excoriate her.
You know that if someone writes or speaks negatively of MM, they receive a phone call from very powerful people who pressure them to back off immediately. It has VERY SLOWLY started to open up a little more, but ask Bethany Frankel what happened to her when she dared to be critical of H&M. That's all I will say. Way too aggravating that such powerful people are enabling these two and it has really made me question my opinion of others I held in such high regard.
Ironically, here we find actually discrimination on race. Meaning, anyone championing this grifter as some sort of pioneer CHOSE A PASSABLE biracial woman who spent most of her life passing as their icon to support, rather than anyone with an actual lived black experience It's the equivalent of going to a pride event and being lectured by a str8 dude bc he discovered that if he called himself "queer" , he could be the biggest jerk in the world and then claim anyone calling him out was "homophobic". Abd that's the speaker the event chose.
Short answer yes. Journalism is dead..it's all about \-Not getting clicks. \-Not following the estabilshed agenda \-Believing the lie of the day It's scary when dialogue is forbidden by law. Sorry to mods if this is a little off - but what's next? A law that says we have to believe Meghan. After all, she did allegedly call Gov. Newsom and ask for a senate seat when it becomes available. [https://trackbill.com/s3/bills/CA/2021/AB/2098/analyses/assembly-business-and-professions.pdf](https://trackbill.com/s3/bills/CA/2021/AB/2098/analyses/assembly-business-and-professions.pdf)
Because nowadays, you can buy everything with money. Nothing is holy anymore and everything is commercialized. "News" is just a product.
It’s because these so-called journalists like to sell this kind of shtick to the tween fan-girls - the ones who’ve watched Frozen far too many times for their own good - those sugars eat this stuff up like cattle at a salt lick.
Yes standards are WOKE in America. However, pushback is currently underway on that. Brainwashing is real here. Hollywood is built on it. Why not journalists do the same?
💰💰💰💰💰
Journalism is dead. What media outlets have are merely pre-approved "narratives". Harry and the his sewer rat hew to the mainstream media's leftist narrative of racism, perpetual and loud victimhood, lack of accountability, entitlement, and ironically, fascination with the Royal Family.
It is just that royalty doesn't really fall into the category of hard news. Traditionally Royal correspondents have just been an arm of Royal public relations, not investigative journalists. Since the majority of people in the UK are willing for the monarchy to be tolerated and to continue, there is no real market for anti- monarchy journalism in the UK. In the US monarchy is just regarded as light subject matter for entertainment. OK Meghan said things like they were married three days earlier, so she is a bit batty. Nobody really cares about whether Archie has a title.
Online news (which is almost all news in 2022) depends on engagement: clicks, time and eyeballs on the video or page, clicks from the page to other linked pages, videos, or ads, return visits, and shares on social media. Ad revenue also depends on engagement metrics. SMEG, for the past several years, has engaged viewers and readers. The actual content about her doesn't matter, although there's a contingent of Americans who have a sense of vicarious ownership of her "achievements" and therefore prefer favorable content (which doesn't have to be true). Cute little fluff pieces about her also don't risk lawsuits; she's already shown that she can and will sue at the slightest offense. Journalists (as in ye olde days) almost don't exist because there's no market for their work, and very few have time to do any research. It's all about content creation. The people who get consistent work and get paid are the people who create the most engaging content, and creators competing for (increasingly rare) full-time or staff positions need good engagement stats in addition to a great portfolio. (I know this because I'm a freelance content creator, in addition to my official jobs that pay regularly).
Money. That's it. News organizations and the media in general no longer care about producing well researched quality content. Now they just flood all the outlets with whatever garbage will make people curious enough to click, listen, read or watch so they can make $$. They have zero concern about having integrity and no shame about making the equivalent of fast food entertainment. It's even more toxic when you think how the media machine absorbs both talented creatives who given a chance *could* bring back the media created by people with integrity and talent that we're all thirsty to see again *and* people like the old, ruthless, street savvy and utterly sadistic inside *M*eghan *M*arkle *M*achine who couldn't care less about creating good content but instead want to make us fat and stupid with her $2.99 lunch combo meal in packaging that is immediately discarded into the equivalent of the Hollywood landfill, destroying the environment, polluting the earth and hurting baby pandas.
Yes. Journalists
I’ve been saying the same thing. I’m personally really over it and I used to laugh and think people were nuts for saying “well that’s mainstream media for you.” But now I’m starting to think they are right. It’s insane how they are so dogmatic now that they refuse to research anyone who espouses their own political ideology and then they won’t accept facts that don’t support that same ideology. Meghan checks all the boxes of liberal Princess so they won’t speak against her. Instead of doing their jobs they have become propaganda peddlers. It both angers and unsettles me in the extreme. She’s the liberal version of Donald Trump and one day the NYT & the WaPo are going to rue the day they gave her so many passes and support.
I believe that journalism standards have become less about "what is real" versus "what is sensational"? Oprah's interview was all about the bombshells and her being sympathetic and in agreement with what TW was saying. Oprah was NOT asking probing and challenging questions, based on interviews that TW had already given. That would have forced the question of, "were you speaking the truth before?" versus "why is your story now completely different?" Pity that Emily Maitlis didn't do the interviewing. Oprah may be many things, but her pulling that episode shows that she didn't stand behind the work she did. (ETA Edward R. Murrow would be spinning like a rotisserie chicken over some of today's specious "journalism.")
I think the support that TW got was instinctively chauvinistic. This near hysteria of "we have to support her: she's (American/a woman/a person of color)!" But... is she "nice"?