Tag Archives: Meghan Markle

December 20, 2022 · 06:10

Creation of thoughts

This started 2 days ago for me. An actress posted a clip on Twitter. I read it and gave my view on this and I got blocked. Fair enough, not everyone agrees with my assessment. That is until last night I saw the news on SBS (at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/jeremy-clarkson-said-he-wanted-to-see-excrement-thrown-at-meghan-markle-his-daughter-wasnt-happy/nzwukmwpn) there I saw the clip was from from Jeremy Clarkson. The article gave me more. And also reenforced that my view was almost spot on. 

It was the clip from Dan Walker that supported my view that there were red flags all over the place. Optionally the same I saw. The reference to Game of Thrones season 5 episode 10 was clearly on top. So not only are the thoughts of Clarkson plagiaristic to say the least, the fact that he sets a medieval view in todays world. Now lets be clear, Harry and Meghan are for all intense and purposes royals and I am a royalist. I do not care for reality TV, no matter who brings it. I did not watch the episodes just like I avoid the Kardashians. I do not hate the Kardashians, I think that  reality TV is for those who forget to live and I am not one of those people. Then the idea of hatred to that ‘cellular’ level. I personally believe that unless you personally know a person this level of hate is not real, it is optionally a mental condition, but like I wrote to the actress (name not important) that this is a determination that needs to be made by professionals. But the allegedly delusional setting gives me that there are mental health issues in play. Am I right?

That is under debate, but I believe that a professional needs to assess it, until then Jeremy Clarkson has become an optional danger to the royals and he needs investigating by MI5 and Scotland Yard. The change of endangering a royal makes that essential. Yes, we saw messages that the column is now removed, which gets me to the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64029690) where we see ‘Jeremy Clarkson says he is ‘horrified’ over Meghan column’ an hour ago, this is not sincerity, this is damage control.

I see the damage control as an essential act when over 12,000 people wrote to complain, but I reckon that is merely the UK, A-listers tweeted the column and the damage is a lot larger than we can see at present. It goes to the degree that I think that MI5 and Scotland Yard needs to investigate a little more and in a wider field. Endangering royals is what I perceive to be a serious crime and “I put my foot in it” does not hold any bacon as I see it. A column is not written in seconds, it is not on the trail of a simple typo, or an oops moment. This took time and it festered, the mention that he lies in bed at night contemplating it makes it wore and it instills the thought to others. The additional worries are seen with ““Everyone who’s my age thinks the same way,” he added. “But what makes me despair is that younger people, especially girls, think she’s pretty cool. They think she was a prisoner of Buckingham Palace, forced to talk about nothing but embroidery and kittens.”” I do not, but mostly for other reasons. The issue becomes that this should not have met with approval of the editor of the Sun, which as far as I know is edited by Victoria Newton and Keith Poole. So both could have stopped this from print and the fact that Clarkson was overwhelmed by a scene from the Game of Thrones should have impacted their block even stronger. 

It gets to be worse when you realise (I did not initially) that the referenced Rose West was a serial killer who, along with her husband Fred, murdered at least 12 young girls over 20 years. That makes it a lot worse, the fact that a Royal is hated more than a mass murderer? I have no real thoughts on the two royals as I do not know them, I have no real intent on getting to know them, I have a life and it is slightly ruled by my desire to sell my IP before I retire. It is a setting of priorities, personal priorities, it is that simple. 

Yet what also happened just now is that SBS and the BBC have not mentioned the Sun (other than casual) or the editors/chief editor of the Sun. This all passed the barge and was published. There is no pointing fingers at a columnist here, yes the brunt of the blame will be on Jeremy Clarkson, but the Sun and its editors do not get away with clean hands here. They are at least in part to blame, whether it was for visibility, digital dollars or whatever reason, they are now part of this and the media protect itself, no matter how disgusting their peers are. 

I wonder if any attention will be pushed in that direction, I doubt it, but we could all remain hopeful.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 16, 2021 · 13:35

Is it your taste?

Taste is a peculiar thing, it is more than personal at times and sometimes it is massively selective, I for one loved to try my new girlfriend having a Chicken Vindaloo (before I went to Australia), or an Indonesian restaurant. You see, I need to know that she at least likes the dishes I love. I had an ex who hated pizza and therefore I ended up not having pizza for a year. And that setting of taste (and balance) continues over a larger field. So when the BBC gives me ‘GB News: Several brands pull advertising from news channel’, it gets me in two ways (both with happiness), the first is seen in “it has faced criticism from campaigners such as the group Stop Funding Hate, who say its launch brings highly partisan Fox News-style programming to the UK”, yes it all seems nice, but haters will be haters and the choices some channels make are at times proven to be hateful, the other media makes sure that it is hateful. And this can happen in a whole range of ways and the media is all over that part. For the largest reasons they do not want another mouth eating from the digital advertising dish. 

Andrew Neil (chairman) gives us “In an opening monologue to viewers on Sunday night, Neil said GB News would aim to “puncture the pomposity of our elites in politics, business, media and academia and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture for the threat to free speech and democracy that it is”” is not hateful, yet the part I have stated several times in the past and even yesterday is seen in “puncture the pomposity of our elites in media and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture”, I did not phrase it like that, but it does fit. Consider these two parts, the first is an alleged attack on Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist no one cares about and the media is hounding it for the longest time, more importantly the UN is helping push the media agenda on this via some essay writer called Agnes Calamard. Yet the actions of Martin Bashir, who as seen by a lot of people as a massive reason of het divorce and ultimately led to her death is pushed outside of the media limelight, moreso as an inquiry showed him to be manipulative using forged documents and he is not even arrested (not even pro forma). Andrew Neil has a point, will he have a case? Time will tell, I remain skeptical of nearly all media outlets that are not presented by trained journalists, morning entertainment channels giving us filtered information.

The second part is actually not good for Andrew Neil. We see Kopparberg and Octopus Energy cancelling what they had seemingly placed, as such even as the channel is only now on the air, these people did not do their due diligence, and even I cannot call whether GB News is actually hateful. Yet there is a place in the media for Fox News, not my favourite channel but I believe that we can only see actual news when we are not depending on Al Jazeera and Reuters. In this the other side of that coin is that Kopparberg, Open University, Ovo Energy and Ikea had made suspensions hiding behind “not knowingly booked slots on the channel”, implying that they advertise without investigation, as such, how stupid is that? I believe that there is more behind that. I would speculate that not unlike the old PS2 versus Dreamcast issue in 1999, some media outlets might have stated that if you are with them, you cannot be with us. I can never prove that, but I was a witness to the PS2-Dreamcast event. So it is not too far-fetched. 

Oh and by the way, so far there is the indication that GB News and Andrew Neil is getting more news flak from other media that Martin Bashir so far has. I wonder why that is, especially after these same sources had no issues posting whatever speculative (not evidence) based posting on the Jamal Khashoggi case. Do not take my word for that, investigate yourself! I do not care whether you watch GB News, that is your choice, I merely wonder how much of the news media has not been trustworthy for the longest of times and that includes the views of Piers Morgan. You see I avoided the interview for my own reasons, he had a point of view, and I am not judging him to be valid or invalid, it was a point of view, he is allowed HIS point of view and we see thousands of complaints on a point of view. So how many complaints did these people lodge against Martin Bashir? And that was before I saw ‘Meghan Markle’s claim ‘doesn’t add up’ – ‘Strange’ remark in Oprah interview picked apart’ from the Express (at https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1447782/meghan-markle-oprah-winfrey-interview-queen-elizabeth-II-prince-harry-lee-cohen-news-VN). There we were given “Mr Cohen pointed to a moment in the Oprah Winfrey interview where Meghan said she was unaware of needing to curtsy the Queen and did not know the words to the UK national anthem. The political writer found it “odd”, stating he was given stringent protocol training when he met the Queen and questioned whether the Duchess of Sussex was overall willing to learn the new customs”, it is a point of view, but that also gives a rather large nudge towards Piers Morgan optionally might having a case. As I avoided the interview I cannot really say, but who else had that part Mr Cohen stated? Why was the rest of the media not all over that? Was it the ‘Awwwww’ moment? Now take these elements and you will see that there might be place for someone like GB News. Will it be on my list? Not sure, I will look at it initially via YouTube (as I am on the other side of the planet for now), yet its future will not be depending on the advertisers, it will largely be depending on the quality of journalism and that part is left out of the media consideration, at least the dozen articles I saw and none mentioned that part, I wonder why that is, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 6, 2021 · 18:41

Et tu, Guardian?

We all have views, we all have issues and we all have believes. Some are agreed upon, some are debatable and some are just silly. You, I, we all have them in all three categories. I for one do not claim to be any different here. A lot of them involve family, freedom, security, loyalty, intelligence, connection, creativity and humanity. Yet these are the big eight. We have some version of a belief here and it seems that some are not allowed the freedom part. For me this all started a little over two years ago. Piers Morgan got attacked online for a view he had. Now, I had no real issue either way, but the attack was seemingly unrelenting, as such I started to follow him on Twitter to see what made him such a danger. As such I learned that he was not that much of a danger, he came across as reasonably intelligent and a little bit of a clown, a funny one at that. I saw (on YouTube) his views on Monaco, Dubai and Shanghai, three places I was least likely to visit and I saw three often light presented views on paces that were fun and educational to watch. Educational? Well, I knew nothing before and little more afterwards, I also saw a nice side to Dubai which was unexpected. So when the initial interview with a couple was given, with several sides, I backed off, I still haven’t see it (reason to follow). Piers Morgan made personal statements in this as one is allowed and it came with a charade of accusations and no less then 41,000 complaints (in a place that has 68,000,000 people, and he walked off. 

There was something with the wife of Ozzy Osbourne on the Talk and now she is off her show as well. Something did not sit well and I almost regret staying away from that interview. 

The Interview?

No not the movie with Seth Rogan, the interview with Prince Harry and his wife. My issue is that the media to the largest degree uses the Royal family for click bait and to watch flames go up again and again, a distasteful view of the media exercising its right to speech and expression, it has been going on for well over a decade. As such I keep away from most of these events (it is impossible to avoid them all), I personally belief that the royal family is intentionally targeted (beyond the click bait needs). For this we need to see that the media has its own version of the truth. It adheres to shareholders and stake holders and after that it sets the story to the need of the advertisers, only if none of the three are a part, we get the goods as is. That is my personal belief, and I feel that I have been shown correct on a number of events. Yet this is about Piers Morgan, and he had an issue of disbelief on the interview. He stated against it and felt that the setting and the facts presented were incorrect. OK, we has a dissenting voice. I believe it was his right to disagree, yet in all this we see an explosion of opposition against his presence pretty much anywhere. Why is that? I personally belief, and I have had this believe for some time that the stakeholders abhors monarchy. You see, monarchial views are set to the need of ALL the people, non monarchial views are set to the people that matter and that difference is rather big, especially in this Covid age. These stakeholders are there to make sure that their enablers and facilitators have a better view, because that is what they need. A setting to flame more completely, and the media is their number one part in this. 

So any opposition to royal attacks is a danger to their agenda, and Piers Morgan was not having any of it, it was HIS view. So as the Guardian now attacks his view too, isn’t it interesting that a reporter gets top call here? We need to consider the New Daily who gives us ‘Bitter Piers Morgan launches another tirade at ‘delusional duchess’ Meghan Markle’ (at https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/royal/2021/04/06/piers-morgan-meghan-markle/). Here we see “In his first TV interview since he departed the breakfast TV show, Morgan told conservative US news personality Tucker Carlson on Monday (US time) that he stood by his comments, accusing Harry and Meghan of the “most extraordinarily disingenuous smear, hit job” on the royal family”, we also get “Morgan accused Meghan of lying in the interview “I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says,” he said. “I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.””. We are given his view and he is allowed them, so far is there any clear support for the statements “she was ignored when raising concerns about her mental health and that racist comments had been made before the birth of the couple’s son, Archie”? Then we get Alex Beresford (a weatherman) giving us “I understand you don’t like Meghan Markle; you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this program – a number of times. And I understand that you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle, or had one, and she cut you off”. As such we see a little more like “the Sussexes’ Winfrey interview was “tacky, tasteless, disingenuous, and I’m afraid, I believe, in some cases, downright lying on a global scale”” whilst the article ends with “For support with mental health issues, contact Life Line on 131 114 or beyondblue on 1300 224 636”, isn’t that nice?

My issue remains that Piers Morgan is used as a wave of flammable articles, the interview by Oprah Winfrey isn’t held up to the cold light of day and we see a form of group deterrent against Pier Morgan. The Guardian who gives us “He cast aspersions on her claim that negative press and lack of support from the royal household had left her suicidal, and that a request for help with this had been rebuffed by a senior person in the monarchy” (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/06/piers-morgan-claims-he-has-universal-support-of-the-british-public). So when we look at ‘negative press and lack of support from the royal household’, well when it comes to royalty, all press is for the most in a negative light and what evidence is there agains ‘support from the royal household’, that becomes a she said, she said debate and when does that support anyone except the media needing click bait?

No one is investigating the evidence, not me, I abhor royal interviews, the media can set the pass in too much of a negative view, I believe that Oprah Winfrey is of good character, she has proven that often enough, yet in this the interview is set in an emotional premise and she is universal queen there, there is a reason she is valued at $2.6 BILLION dollars, she is the best and millions flock to her show, emotions get you there and emotions better be real and be valued, I reckon that her pre talks got her the setting she needed and the interview did the rest. I believe her to be real and to be genuine, I am not sure about Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex in this. 

No matter how that pans out, and consider that the media steered clear of evidence towards the ‘lack of support from the royal household’, as well as any evidence regarding the ‘left her suicidal’ part. So when I saw “let me just state on the record my position about mental illness and on suicide. These are clearly extremely serious things that should be taken extremely seriously”, of course Piers Morgan is right, it is serious, and that too gets painted over. So far, outside the realm of interviews, I believe that Piers Morgan is on the money for a lot of things and when his joining new TV startup GB News surpasses Good Morning Britain, I reckon that they will have a larger issue than they ever banked on. 

And consider for yourself, why anyone will have such a go at one reporter with a dissenting voice?  Yet a mere hour ago we see ‘New information exposes a total contradiction in something Meghan claimed – and the revelations don’t stop there’ (source: news.com.au), so how come no one was fired there? Oh, sorry, they didn’t walk off. The fact that we see “the deal did not go ahead and in the later months of last year, the Sussexes announced they had signed deals with Netflix and Spotify that have been estimated to be worth $180 million”, all whilst another source gives us “he’s turned into this whiny brat in his mid-30s complaining his dad isn’t still financing everything he does” shows is 180 million reasons and no one is looking into the matter? One interview sets a 180,000,000 stage? Yes, I reckon something is going on and the more genuine Megan Markle, Duchess of Sussex is, the better return of value that this 180,000,000 becomes, a decent motive right there, yet the media is steering clear from that part, or so it seems and the people are not asking questions, because (as I personally see it) the emotional whirlpool has not been siphoned enough and those enjoying the windfall can live with Piers Morgan becoming a casualty of war, a greed driven war no less.

That I how I see it and watching the interview was not needed, as I personally see it. So feel free to investigate the media and what they present, in that also watch the presented evidence and you will be surprised just how the emotional articles go.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 23, 2021 · 20:34

One view is not another

There was a scene and I took it in to some degree and I merely cast it aside the other. It was all about Meghan Markle, a lady who became Meghan, Duchess of Sussex after she married Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. I am for the most part a royalist, just like my grandfather was before me, the only part that is not equal is that he was British and participated in WW1, I did not. Yet, I remain royalist in nature. So when the interview was on, I avoided it, my reason was that for the most, I do not trust the media, they adhere to shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers and they will use whomever they can to achieve what needs to be achieved and for the most, they see royalty as cannon fodder for their cannons. Yet, I do not attack media people directly unless it is about a specific article, and for the most part that viewpoint is in my scope. So when Piers Morgan went the other way regarding the Duchess of Sussex, I merely shrugged, so many articles, so much media, there will be views on both sides of the field, it is unavoidable.

As such I went on my merry way, that partially changed after the show on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, when his remarks also set the stage for him leaving the show. So when we see ““Who did you go to?” he said. “What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report. “The fact that she’s fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible“” I initially shrugged, the media will take one side or another, it is what the media does and whether this falls into their personal views is a matter of debate, there is little option for me to change my views, I have seen thousands of articles over the last 10 years and that is the stage I am stuck in. 

And then Amol Rajan (in the BBC article) gives us “There is a culture war going on, and Piers Morgan’s job on Good Morning Britain has fallen victim to it. That’s different from saying Morgan himself is a victim of it; in some ways he has been a beneficiary. But when the public position of a star presenter and a broadcaster’s CEO are in sharp contrast, about such a sensitive subject, at a time of such heightened tensions, something has to give. Tonight, it did.” In this take particular notice of ‘when the public position of a star presenter and a broadcaster’s CEO are in sharp contrast, about such a sensitive subject’ this is where we see that some stakeholders call the CEO, this is not about him versus him, this is an optional example of Piers Morgan versus THEM, them being the people who prefer that the UK becomes a republic, there is more easily made profits that way, that is how I feel. And this is not a new point of view, I have been warning about the media, their shareholders, their stakeholders and their advertisers for years and the people get to see that freedom of speech and freedom of points of view does not hold water when the CEO has an opposite view. And in reality ITV’s Good Morning Britain is not a news organisation, even if they mention that they bring the news, it is as I personally see it a ‘catering entertainment program’. And it seems that Piers Morgan in this case had enough.

It does not matter that I stayed away from the interview. We all know that Oprah Winfrey is an absolute master in playing on emotions, it made her very very rich and her dedication to her causes and how it inflamed Americans have made her even richer. Sincere dedication cannot be feigned, it can only be real, making her an even more precious commodity. 

So is Piers right or wrong? That does not matter, I actually do not care, but it was his view and there are plenty accepting his view and to those stakeholders that view is detrimental to their needs. In a stage where everyone is bitching about their right to speak, getting rid of the person not agreeing to your views is something entirely different, it is called censorship. What struck me is ‘Meghan Markle among the 41,000 people who filed a formal complaint against Piers Morgan’s comments’, you see when you look at the big picture, we see that this amounts to 0.06% of the population, we cannot get the BBC to give the British people the goods on what is actually happening in Yemen (the Iran involvement part), a setting that has caused the death of well over 100,000 people in a population of formerly set to 29 million, as such we are getting inflamed by the wrong numbers. It does not matter whether Piers Morgan is right or wrong, it was HIS point of view, as such the stage is calling for a lot more questions on the amount of stakeholders that ITV’s GMB at present has, this is how I personally see it, I will let you make up your own mind. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,