Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think anyone commenting without actually WATCHING the show needs to WATCH it first and than comment. The clips are dramatised and taken out of context. When you watch the show there isn?t more holes than a Swiss cheese plus they said there was a ?concern? about Archie?s colour which is different to being curious as to who he will take after colour wise.

Watch the show, then give feedback otherwise you are just as bad as the tabloids.

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ''I didn't watch it but I'm going to comment

> anyway despite not knowing the full context of

> what was said, and instead will form my opinion

> from the comments of assorted cultural keyboard

> warriors''

>

> What a fooking bunch of gossiping fishwives...:)


you're right. I am rather ashamed at myself. I blame intrusive social media and the institution that is the EDF (aka 'The Forum').

Good point re context - nobody can ever know that for certain as it is all recalled memory, some of which conflicted with Harry's recollection. Oprah wanted box-office and got it. It wasn't journalism, it was spectacle and reflects badly on the participants. It - the interview - has become like Brexit, ie. a coat hanger for any number of virtues and prejudices, so in that respect it was a success because everyone went away happy, content that what they saw and heard validated their existing beliefs.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn?t see it but I?m wondering why many are

> assuming the question of the colour of the baby?s

> skin was racist.

>

> The concern might have been what the baby would

> look like with ginger hair against possible shades

> of skin.

>

> 😬


"I haven't seen it, but let me tell you how this black person misunderstood racism"


Also, if the concern was actually hair colour, then they would have said "I'm concerned about the child's hair colour".


You'd likely win gold at the Olympics with that gymnastics routine.

You see it a lot in modern day 'journalism', especially contrarians like the spiked-online mob, who instead of working through context and nuances towards a conclusion, they start with a conclusion that fits in with their culture war narrative and work back from that. A distinct lack of original, critical thinking...

Just a thought, every little girl (yes there are exceptions) grows up wanting to meet a handsome princess fall in love and be a princess (I still have my Cinderella outfit 🤔)


Yet reality has struck Meghan when it happened to her and it has to be naive of her not to understand what marrying into the Windsor family would entail (sadly Princess Diana was a recent case from history)


But to air your dirty laundry in public on media talk shows doesn't bode well for future relationships with her now extended family and for Harry's relationship with them.


To help put her comments into context, let's not also forget her very public spats with her father pre wedding.

EDguy89 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> "let me tell you how this

> black person misunderstood racism"

>

How she herself feels/felt on hearing relayed news of someone else's conversation is one thing. Implying very unempathetically (in a public forum) what someone else 'meant' by a comment heard secondhand is quite another.


But the likely (my opinion) aim of manipulating the press and the public has been achieved...you've already labelled it as 'racism' without question....upon hearing it now 3rd-hand....

EDguy89 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> keano77 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Didn?t see it but I?m wondering why many are

> > assuming the question of the colour of the

> baby?s

> > skin was racist.

> >

> > The concern might have been what the baby would

> > look like with ginger hair against possible

> shades

> > of skin.

> >

> > 😬

>

> "I haven't seen it, but let me tell you how this

> black person misunderstood racism"

>

> Also, if the concern was actually hair colour,

> then they would have said "I'm concerned about the

> child's hair colour".

>

> You'd likely win gold at the Olympics with that

> gymnastics routine.


Fair enough EDguy89, but then I don?t have have an expensive PR machine behind me telling me the best buttons to press (racism, mental illness), when to get tearful, broken-voiced, when to put my hand on my baby bump etc. And when the storm reverberates around the world, release another black and white picture of the two of you with Archie set against a nature background.


That should get them eating out of your hand your highness.

It's just an over-blown case of "What our Whatsit said to our Whoever at Aunty X's funeral. And Uncle Z looked at me funnily". No good would come of writing that up for the local paper.


I think Oprah should tale some of the responsibility for airing this sort of tittle tattle if she prides herself on being a professional interviewer, rather than just out to make money, which has been her standpoint in the past. She must realise it would only cause damage.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Megan?s taken full advantage of a team planning

> and prepping this. It?s all about building a

> brand.... and public empathy is incredibly

> valuable


Yes, she?s fully clued up on image etc but other than that incredibly naive. Oprah, on the other hand, has been playing a long game.


My contender for who asked the ?what colour? question is one of the two airhead grand daughter princesses.

I do wonder what Meghan's longer game plan is?


Talk show host, book(s) , film on her life ,political role?


It seems to me that she is setting the stage up for something bigger in her mind.


Hopefully the Americans will tire of their story soon when it runs out of new shocking revelations about how the Queen trained the Corgis to poop in her shoes or similar and they will fade from public view after her fifteen minutes of fame.


Oh well back to the pandemic which is blighting real lives all around us.

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Hopefully the Americans will tire of their story

> soon when it runs out of new shocking revelations

> about how the Queen trained the Corgis to poop in

> her shoes or similar and they will fade from

> public view after her fifteen minutes of fame.


It's part of the "Culture Wars" in the US so it'll just move on in my view. I notice the group representing UK press (The Society of Editors) says the UK press isn't bigoted - a lot of people disagree with that.


CNN trying to link it all together in this article https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/09/uk/meghan-racism-uk-reaction-gbr-intl/index.html


and finally


"CNN will soon launch Royal News, a weekly newsletter bringing you the inside track on the royal family, what they are up to in public and what's happening behind palace walls. " LOL are they on a troll :)

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the Press Gazette tried to back up claims of

> the Society of Editors that UK media is not

> bigoted but a lot of people are disagreeing. Is

> the press the real problem here ?

>

> https://pressgazette.co.uk/bigoted-uk-press-harry-

> and-meghan-racism-claim-debate-media-coverage/


For every view there's a counter view (as has been demonstrated many times on the forum)


There will always be disagreeing with a public statement like the press is not bigoted but their disagreement doesn't make the statement incorrect but the statement may not necessarily be correct either.


My feeling is that things like this should be taken with a pinch of salt and the facts examined not the hysteria around the story.


The Piers thing for example attracted a lot of complaints to ofcom, but I have to question how many of those complaining actual saw him say it and how many are jumping on a social media bandwagon and complaining without actually having seen the event happening?


Their complaints aren't ant less important but would they have occurred if they weren't told about it? 🤔


We are becoming a society where we judge via social media based on what Karen put on facebook without examining the truth to draw our own conclusions.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...