Liz Jones has written critically of Meghan ever since 2019, like most of the British media. And even five or six years ago many of Jones’s supposedly favourable comments about her were covertly sarcastic. Look at the rags she writes for!
It doesn’t mean she was wrong in some of what she said. The dress was ill fitting, probably inappropriate for the event .
Could I ask why you view any favourable comment re Meghan as sarcastic, you have said this before earlier in the thread about British media.
By the way it needs to be remembered that as far as I know the Hollywood Reporter is not part of that. I think they recently printed an article on the couple.
Yes. There are "rags" everywhere, not just in the UK. And many of those "rags" serve a useful purpose here when they are publishing sugary sycophantic stories about how wonderful H&M are; they will use any media they can to get themselves praised. In days gone by they'd probably have paid the town criers of the land to shout
"Oyez, oyez! Harry and Meghan are wonderful people!" if they could have, and list all their "virtues" for the world to hear; unless of course they were otherwise engaged, PH perhaps making close friends with a butt of malmsey wine and MM maybe waiting for a very special French visitor with a particular skill in swordsmanship
Joking aside, and back in the modern and more civilised (?) world, it's important IMO to recognise that here in the UK we cottoned on to what PH and MM were doing pretty much before the rest of the world twigged, and only then after the pair engaged in certain behaviour for the world to see and hear, and gave themselves away.
Consider in tandem with this, the UK media's less than complimentary recent past, and it is very easy to find a stick to constantly beat them with.
And with the greatest respect Curryong, if PH were ever honest enough to admit there were actually times when the UK media (and elsewhere) were likely very kind to him, in what they
didn't publish, perhaps this loathing of them would not be quite so acute? I suspect his memory is rather selective on that point. As it is, much of his self-described "dragon slaying" is closely linked with his continued insistence that they are to blame for the tragedy of the past, whilst dismissing other more obvious contributors to that sad event. It is of course his right to have that opinion, and I suspect he held it long before the doings at
The News of the World came to light and unfortunately that gave his quest for "revenge" further impetus; but it doesn't mean he is necessarily
right.
It's easy to forget his brother went through the exact same nightmare, and no doubt has his own very personal feelings about what happened and about the UK media, but the key here is that he has kept those pretty much to himself and dealt with the whole issue in a very different and (I believe) a more healthy and balanced way.
The UK media undoubtedly has its flaws, and the past disgraceful behaviour of some of their people cannot be denied or excused, but the biggest issue it has today IMO, is they are now overly fond of publishing worthless "puff pieces" and overly cautious about getting closer to the truth in terms of what is really happening, because they are afraid to risk getting sued by rich and powerful folk who want to control the narrative and hide their own less than admirable behaviour. And that is a very dangerous thing in itself.
www.dailymail.co.uk
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(943x783:945x785)/Meghan-Markle-Childrens-Gala-Los-Angeles-100624-06-b30d8dbaf2e44a189ac4765db49e64fa.jpg)
people.com
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(733x323:735x325)/meghan-markle-nelson-family-childrens-hospital-los-angeles-gala-100724-1-f69537c7a4bb48db8160e5f1d6e860b4.jpg)
www.hellomagazine.com
] article!
