Jump to content

Spare a Moment for H&M, Part 3


Tywin et al.

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

The difference is that papers like enquirer have little to no influence. The English tabloids do.

Is the better analogy TMZ or some of the other more online/TV-based sources?  We have influential tabloid journalism for sure, I just feel like it isn't as much in print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Is the better analogy TMZ or some of the other more online/TV-based sources?  We have influential tabloid journalism for sure, I just feel like it isn't as much in print.

Not remotely. TMZ is a relatively small fish in a large pond. 

I think theres a misconception with the word, "tabloid". The English tabloids are more like the local Sun newspaper than they are the Enquirer. Historically, they printed some trashy stuff but they've also done substantial reporting as well. The difference is that they are huge and nationwide; not just local.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tee hee..

Jeremy Clarkson hit with Meghan backlash as 3 female stars refuse to go on Millionaire

A Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? celebrity special has been shelved after female stars refused to work with host Jeremy Clarkson.

At least three female stars made it “very loud and very clear” that they did not want to be on TV with the host.

The household names were due to appear on a charity celebrity series of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? hosted by the motormouth, 62, after he made disgusting comments about the Duchess of Sussex.

Filming in Manchester was postponed this month with the official line that it was on hold due to “scheduling issues”.

But behind the scenes of the ITV show there was chaos as stars started backing out, fearing that their charity causes might be caught in a furore.

A source said: “ITV were left with no choice but to postpone the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Tee hee..

Jeremy Clarkson hit with Meghan backlash as 3 female stars refuse to go on Millionaire

A Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? celebrity special has been shelved after female stars refused to work with host Jeremy Clarkson.

At least three female stars made it “very loud and very clear” that they did not want to be on TV with the host.

The household names were due to appear on a charity celebrity series of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? hosted by the motormouth, 62, after he made disgusting comments about the Duchess of Sussex.

Filming in Manchester was postponed this month with the official line that it was on hold due to “scheduling issues”.

But behind the scenes of the ITV show there was chaos as stars started backing out, fearing that their charity causes might be caught in a furore.

A source said: “ITV were left with no choice but to postpone the show.

I had no idea how much I would enjoy the slow motion cancellation of Jeremy Clarkson. 

It seems that attacking Meghan Markle is the the 21st century equivalent of getting into a land war in Asia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I had no idea how much I would enjoy the slow motion cancellation of Jeremy Clarkson. 

It seems that attacking Meghan Markle is the the 21st century equivalent of getting into a land war in Asia.

Americans are natural insurgents 

Very dangerous against "superior" forces

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 3:24 PM, DanteGabriel said:

I had no idea how much I would enjoy the slow motion cancellation of Jeremy Clarkson. 

It seems that attacking Meghan Markle is the the 21st century equivalent of getting into a land war in Asia.

Keep in mind, Clarkson has an estimated net worth of £50million and estimated annual earnings in the low eight figures. Not to mention how well connected he is. Just before the Megan article came out he had lunch with the Queen Consort, don'cha-know.

This is not someone who's going to have any trouble keeping the pool heated. He could easily start a patreon account and a youtube channel and be quite successful and have creative independence. 

Richard Hammond is mum on the subject. James May recently made some comments.

https://variety.com/2023/global/news/grand-tour-james-may-jeremy-clarkson-meghan-markle-1235506268/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hmm, a news report popped up on my phone saying the couple are moving back to the UK.

The despicable UK.

I will say it again. Who. Fucking. Cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, good. Samantha Markle Grant is suing them. H+M will have be deposed in a Florida court. The questions they have to answer (under oath) are kind of insane: Did SG drive you to school as a kid? Is King Charles a racist? This is so fucking stupid. And on the taxpayers dime no less.

At this point, if someone suggested this was being bankrolled by the English press to generate clickbait for their readers, I wouldn't be surprised. 

https://archive.ph/JkM9U

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Holy shit.

 

Really interesting but I feel like the presenter wimped out a bit in the end. Illegality matters whether or not the media landscape is in the process of moving on from the legacy press. Some discussion of Harry needing to raise public opinion against the tabloid press to succeed in his aims but none about whether the relentless press attacks on Harry and Meghan serve the interests of media companies that are being sued by the prince.

Also, should we only be critical of the media where actual illegality can proved? What about unethical behaviour, targeting of individuals or groups for character assassination, intrusive, relentless invasion of privacy, framing a narrative in a dishonest or misleading way, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Also, should we only be critical of the media where actual illegality can proved? What about unethical behaviour, targeting of individuals or groups for character assassination, intrusive, relentless invasion of privacy, framing a narrative in a dishonest or misleading way, etc?

Warning, this will piss you off. These people are sadists.

ETA:

Regarding what you said about the court case, these guys should be terrified. If it turns out they lied to the Levinson Inquiry, they could be facing jail time, not just monetary damages.

And Elton John is one of the most successful recording artists of all time. His net worth is estimated to be around $300-$500 million. Do you think he cares about court costs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a hearing today regarding Markle Grant v. Markle.

Some highlights:

Though Samantha is suing (in part) because of comments made in the Oprah interview, her lawyers did not include a transcript of the interview with their filing. This is a point of some discussion because Meghan doesn't actually say some of the things they claim. Something tells me Sam's layers didn't graduate at the top of their class. 

 

"...but with discovery". Tell me this isn't a fishing expedition to generate more clickbait.

The Judge will deliver a written decision on whether or not to dismiss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

 

"How dare you sir!! My Instagram Loving Bitch Wife has always wanted her privacy!! To hell with Canada!!"
/cdn-cgi/mirage/68f913271635d22c8dad2252a3fddc53c6bcd90f6f6e469ee4697d387ebe2066/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_rofl2.gif

 

Hmm, you lasted just over two weeks.

Impressive.^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...