I’m struggling to understand her take here. She’s reduced a pretty complex topic down to a quick, pithy sound bite which lacks any real substance.
it’s become part of a commonly accepted rhetoric that the media (specifically, tabloids) have “gone after” Meghan and Harry.
the 24K hits and the content of said hits, are two separate issues.
the royal family (and by extension, Harry and Meghan) are among the most privileged, wealthy and protected people on the planet. As individuals they are part of a deeply powerful institution, an institution that has millenia in experience of power and wealth and spinning propaganda. They don’t answer to anyone. They aren’t held accountable by the law. They have more power than the House of Lords and House of Commons. “The palace” commands
extraordinary power in the U.K and part of the reason it works is because they are low-key about it. They pretend they don’t have that power so they are palatable.
The only real rebuttal against this institution? The free press. The free press which has been historically, pretty favourable to the royal family. Media outlets are rarely, as a whole, openly critical of the RF except in extreme circumstances. The press for example, had their hands on
those recordings from Diana and Charles for years but didn’t release them until after they’d announced their separation. Why? Because the press have an understanding that they can’t print or publish anything to damage the royal family/direct heirs as it could undermine U.K. sovereignty.
Harry himself has spoken of “invisible contracts” with the media. In layman’s terms - the royal family have a balancing act between privacy, being open to public scrutiny and justifying their position in the democratic U.K.
the media is both one of the sole reasons they are accepted (“the generate good publicity, they raise awareness for charities”), but also a nuisance to the RF because it’s the only thing standing up to them.
so… what is Em’s point with the 24k hits? They are members of one of the most famous and influential families in the world; why wouldn’t they be written about? It’s in the public interest that they be written about, by a plethora of media outlets. Meghan and Harry accepted representative roles for charities and institutions, a key element of which is having the media write about it to give exposure to said charities. And not all of them negative. It’s hard to even say what percentage would be; it’s largely subjective after all.
but let’s assume the worst; every single one of those 24k hits was a critical article on Harry and Meghan for the sake of argument.
so what…? They have accepted a public facing life. They have undertaken activities which have been controversial and which is worthy of commentary and criticism. They continue to do so. Indeed, their entire career now relies on media and public interest. What would be the point in interviews, podcasts and tv series if… no one watched? No one listened?
the media, particularly tabloids, are definitely worthy of criticism. And if Meghan and Harry want to indulge themselves by pouring their hearts out to the world on public platforms, then that’s their prerogative. But they open themselves up to public criticism and scrutiny in doing so. Prince Harry has grown up in an institution that literally believes it has divine right to rule from god. That’s the bedrock for their existence. He’s enjoyed extraordinary power all his life - small wonder then, that he feels outrage at any criticism directed at him when he isn’t used to being stood up to, and likely doesn’t believe he even should be questioned or critiqued.
they’ve chosen Netflix as a platform because there is no rebutall against them using Netflix. British based U.K. platforms are subject to scrutiny and a complaints process via a media regulator (ofcom). Netflix is not. And also worth noting that reportedly, Harry and Meghan were happy to use
press material in their documentary - they are happy to expose their lives for public consumption it seems, but only so long as they control the narrative completely. A take that Em herself, would appear to espouse.
Em is highlighting how these two individuals have been written about as though that’s inherently negative, when it makes total sense that they would be written about.
she is presenting two very influential, privileged, wealthy people with large platforms, as somehow being poor victims. They aren’t victims. They aren’t powerless or voiceless.
it’s just Em - another wealthy, privileged and protected person - closing ranks with other members of the elite and thinking it somehow makes her enlightened or progressive. It doesn’t.
it boils down to Em feeling an affinity with Harry and Meghan. She doesn’t want to be critiqued, she doesn’t want to be reported on if it isn’t on her terms. She wants to enjoy all her wealth and privilege without having to answer to it. Fine - take that viewpoint. But for the love of god, don’t pretend it’s down out of progressiveness or kindness or moral superiority.
.... oh dear!
