That Interview.

[@Lee]

You know, the one with Harry and Meghan being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey.
What are your thoughts on it? Did you watch it?

I'm still contemplating whether it's worth two hours of my life so basically asking if it's worth watching and why it is/ isn't.

[gadgetman]

My thoughts exactly:

 

 

[Westbury63]

Am I alone in filing it under 'who cares'!?

Edited 11 March, 2021 by Westbury63

[cheezemonkhai]

6 minutes ago, Westbury63 said:

Am I alone in filing it under 'who cares'!?

 

No...

 

Plus I saw a pre-clip advert where the interview started with the phrase "your truth" which to me was an instant turn off.

If it's your truth, is it the truth? That plus when anyone tells me it IS the truth before I've even seen/heard something, I tend to think what's the agenda, don't bother.

[Warmonkry]

 

8 minutes ago, Westbury63 said:

Am I alone in filing it under 'who cares'!?

Nope 

[Gaz]

10 minutes ago, Westbury63 said:

Am I alone in filing it under 'who cares'!?

 

Nope.

 

Gaz

 

[Westbury63]

Same with 99% of so called celebrity culture. I frankly don't care and most often don't recognise who they are anyway!

 

 

[Gissin]

41 minutes ago, Westbury63 said:

Am I alone in filing it under 'who cares'!?

nope 

billionaires talking to millionaires about their problems  although it's a shame about her car accident next month 

[Ttaskmaster]

Haven't seen yet, but will probably end up watching at some point. Everyone else is talking about it and if this, following on from Andrew's train wreck, is the beginning of the end of the Monarchy that many people seem to want, I feel it is my duty to bear objective witness.

[john999boy]

It's so nice to see the caring approach that Briskoda is renowned for! 

 

As for the subject of the monarchy in general; they contribute (in a wider sense) an awful lot to the general finances of the country as well as in other ways.

[gadgetman]

1 hour ago, Westbury63 said:

Am I alone in filing it under 'who cares'!?

Depends whether you feel the issues claimed should or shouldn't be investigated (racism, bullying etc) 

1 hour ago, cheezemonkhai said:

 

No...

 

Plus I saw a pre-clip advert where the interview started with the phrase "your truth" which to me was an instant turn off.

If it's your truth, is it the truth? That plus when anyone tells me it IS the truth before I've even seen/heard something, I tend to think what's the agenda, don't bother.

 

There are always 2 sides. 

 

The papers (mostly mail & express) have been picking on them for years, and the difference stance between Monday and yesterday by them over the bullying and racism claims explains a lot about why the interview even took place. 

 

As for being media on their terms, yes probably. 

 

Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't give anyone the right to hound them for stories or pictures. 

 

Say you or anyone reading won the biggest lottery win ever. Does that give the mail etc the right to follow you everywhere and coerce your friends and family to dig dirt to print on you? 

 

Yes they chose to be famous, but it doesn't mean they're 'owned' forever 

[PetrolDave]

I'm waiting for H & M to produce detailed evidence of their claims, it's easy for anyone to make general complaints but without the details those complaints just have to be treated as unsubstantiated whinging IMHO.

[gadgetman]

1 minute ago, PetrolDave said:

I'm waiting for H & M to produce detailed evidence of their claims, it's easy for anyone to make general complaints but without the details those complaints just have to be treated as unsubstantiated whinging IMHO.

A friend of theirs says they've seen emails between the couple and Palace officials and the couple are prepared to release them to prove many claims made. 

 

I think it was ITV news yesterday lunchtime she (the friend) was interviewed

[skomaz]

1 hour ago, Westbury63 said:

Am I alone in filing it under 'who cares'!?

 

Nope you're not - I'm fed up of hearing about it already - they made the choice to step back and fair play to them but to then do an interview like they did seems very hypocritical when they were trying to avoid the media...

[gadgetman]

1 minute ago, skomaz said:

 

seems very hypocritical when they were trying to avoid the media...

Not unreasonable to want media on their terms rather than the media's terms. 

 

Same applies to anyone, as I posted above 

[xman]

I'm concerned about the motives behind some involved in this interview and the intended/unintended consequences. Who's idea was it? Winfrey has made an obscene amount of money out of this, and furthered her position as Queen of TV in the US. She is no Jeremy Paxman, more like Jeremy Kyle, I suspect she badgered the couple, her influence was certainly not neutral. As a "friend" did she coach the couple beforehand?

 

I'm also concerned about the wider effect on Anglo American relations on a political level, given that Joe Biden and many other US politicians have commented on it in afaik a show of unanimous support of Meghan and considerable anti UK rhetoric.

 

 

Edited 11 March, 2021 by xman

[skomaz]

22 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

Not unreasonable to want media on their terms rather than the media's terms. 

 

Same applies to anyone, as I posted above 

 

Maybe so but I'd suggest that it would be naive of them to think that the media would come round to their point of view and not have a field day - which is exactly what they seemed to be wanting to step back from last year.

[cheezemonkhai]

45 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

Depends whether you feel the issues claimed should or shouldn't be investigated (racism, bullying etc) 

 

There are always 2 sides. 

 

Doesn't really depend, as they should be investigated of course. Racism accusations from the party and Bullying from other parties.

It is of course interesting to read that the bullying was basically brushed aside in "their truth", but yes, they should absolubtly be investigated.

 

Quote

The papers (mostly mail & express) have been picking on them for years, and the difference stance between Monday and yesterday by them over the bullying and racism claims explains a lot about why the interview even took place. 

 

Yes the papers have been picking on royals for years and yes they did seem to get a fair old chunk of that of late.

 

Quote

As for being media on their terms, yes probably. 

 

I'm not denying or supporting any claims, but leaving to get away from the media, then running to the media with a number of deals and interviews etc does sound a little strange.

 

Quote

 

Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't give anyone the right to hound them for stories or pictures. 

 

Say you or anyone reading won the biggest lottery win ever. Does that give the mail etc the right to follow you everywhere and coerce your friends and family to dig dirt to print on you? 

 

Yes they chose to be famous, but it doesn't mean they're 'owned' forever 

 

We're not in disagreement over that. The telephoto from 2 miles away photos are rediculous.

Kate got hit by it too, although she doesn't seem to be going on a public media interviews over it.

 

One thing I will add however is the Royals are funded in part by public money.

Crying that now they are not active royals they are not getting titles and income, feels a little rich.

Especially since they both have millions of their own and whatever they've made on this deal.

 

  

42 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

A friend of theirs says they've seen emails between the couple and Palace officials and the couple are prepared to release them to prove many claims made. 

 

I think it was ITV news yesterday lunchtime she (the friend) was interviewed

 

Give many people an hour with a linux mail server and it's pretty easy to deliver a mail that sure as heck looks like it's from whoever you like.

At the end of the day, email is not secure, it's akin to sending a postcard from where you are, with everything clearly on the back.

 

Nobody can verify it was really you (without full access to a lot of server logs and the original mail) and everything written is near enough public if you want to go looking.

 

 

Anyway, definately don't want to get into a tit for tat, but just wanted to point out that nothing is ever the whole truth when big media is involved.

 

 

Edited 11 March, 2021 by cheezemonkhai
clarifying

[Gissin]

I think this is a topic which is going to divide opinion, the points I took away from it were

• complaining why her son isn't  a prince - there is a law that states why from 1917 due to direct heirs to the throne once / if Charles is King he will be HRH prince exactly the same as euginie's child and is why they're not a prince /princess either yet..
• why do they not get protection from state - they are not longer performing royal duties that's why, the same as why celebrity's have to pay for their own private security.
• the remark about skin colour of the child, yes probably shouldn't have been said but who hasn't got a (potentially elderly) relative who's said something insensitive or questionable when it's possible that's  they just hadn't thought about it.
• this probably wasn't done at the best of times with Phillip in hospital and a global pandemic, previous riots due to race in America, there's bigger things in the world going on and this interview has not helped anyone.

that being said I think if she was struggling with mental health then help should be available, racism shouldn't be tolerated and I think they've/she's been unfairly treated and scrutinised and hounded by the media. 

 

 

[@Lee]

Well, I think the treatment of Meghan by the british press has been truly shocking and hypocritical. It appears to have caused the departure of Piers Morgan from the morning TV show GMB. He stormed off after being called out by the weather presenter it seems. It's also, it seems, caused another media departure; that being the head of the Society of Editors after an interview he did with Victoria Derbyshire.

I've no idea who asked the question of the colour of Archie but it's been denied that it was the Queen or Phillip. It was undoubtedly a dumb/ ignorant comment to make.

I agree that they are doing the right thing in getting the media on their terms. I think it's also a shame that the media haven't learned to just back off after hounding Harry's mother for so long. 

It seems William has now also waded in in defence of 'The firm'. 
 

Edited 11 March, 2021 by Lee01

[xman]

I predict this storm in a teacup will blow over once Tony Blair's mediation skills are deployed. 

[@Lee]

7 minutes ago, xman said:

I predict this storm in a teacup will blow over once Tony Blair's mediation skills are deployed. 

Is he involved? If not then your comment is irrelevant. 

[@Lee]

I can't see the article as it's behind a paywall. All I can see is it says 'Tony Blair style'. 
IIRC there was something mentioned about posting articles that are behind paywalls.

[cheezemonkhai]

From the small bit I can see, he isn't involved but they just might pay for their own security.

Not sure that's headline worthy 

[gadgetman]

5 minutes ago, Lee01 said:

I can't see the article as it's behind a paywall. All I can see is it says 'Tony Blair style'. 
IIRC there was something mentioned about posting articles that are behind paywalls.

And also about historical information as its been and gone (from Jan 2020)... 🤔 

Edited 11 March, 2021 by gadgetman