4 hours later and the live blogs are still being posted to
, how long is this? Strange for the BBC to take such a stance on it.
---
She discusses writing op-eds about "self worth, being bi-racial, and volunteer work", and friends recall how her focus was gradually becoming activism. She is seen travelling to India and Rwanda to do "cause-driven work".
"That's what I was excited about. I wasn't trying to find the great indie film that's going to get me an Oscar. No, I just wanted to go and volunteer."
(In our experience, actors who bring up how little they care about winning Oscars tend to really, really care about winning Oscars, so take this with a pinch of salt.)
I'm not used to the BBC actually doing it's job and questioning rather than fawning.
Interesting little snippet from the coverage.
____________
"Harry refers, somewhat critically, to staff at news outlets who are known as "royal experts" or "royal correspondents", adding that the titles are intended to lend them legitimacy and credibility.
It may not surprise you to learn that no royal experts or newspaper editors are invited to defend themselves. Instead, Tim Burt, strategic advisor to the couple's production company, describes the symbiotic relationship which has historically existed between the media and the Royal Family.
"The royal rota is a system by which certain outlets are allocated slots to cover the members of the family," Burt explains as various newspaper logos are shown on screen.
"And however aggressive their previous coverage might have been, they still get the chance to be on the rota."
This is normal journalistic practice, and indeed what separates the profession from advertising. Journalists of all specialities have access to briefings and events regardless of whether their coverage is favourable or critical."
____________
Sounds an awful lot like sycophants only in Meg and Harry world. Do they consider themself to be above criticism? I thought snowflakes were an invention of the culture war.