it’s not news to those of us that have been paying attention
A niche page 3, no doubt, but I’m here for it
I don’t think meghan has actually done that though - she hasn’t complained about the downsides of fame, she’s complained about racist bullying.
(Actually I think in most cases people complaining about being famous are actually complaining about things that shouldn’t happen even to famous people, like having your phone hacked, not about benign stuff like being asked for selfies constantly)
Just the 32,000 comments on the Daily Mail lead article when I checked early this morning.
Totally normal country.
no surprise in Julie Burchill being openly racist, but also this family lawyer who has now deleted her account
Who the fuck are the nearly 700 people liking that first tweet, and what can we do about them
interesting, she’d been on the defensive all day until now
also did the whole ‘George Floyd was a thug who pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’ routine but ignored questions about why she’s friends with Rod Liddle who assaulted his pregnant girlfriend
So she’s chill with people who state openly that they (cw child abuse) couldn’t be teachers because they wouldn’t be able to resist having sex with girls aged from 13 upwards but somehow Meghan Markle is inexcusably evil. Yeah, fuck off right now.
I completely agree. I just think there’s a balance between a desire to monetise your celebrity and a desire to have a private life. But I shouldn’t have implied that that might apply to Meghan because I know very little about her.
I used to work with someone who was subject to a huge amount of press intrusion but who also had at times arranged with the press to cover events in their lives for a payday. To my mind that’s not hypocrisy, because it’s an agreement if you arrange it in a managed fashion, whereas if they’re taking photos of your kids on the school run it’s intrusion.
(I’m not having a go at you here, you’re just the last bit in the conversation! It’s complex and before I knew this guy I would have though it was total hypocrisy, but they gave me their perspective and I tend to agree)
Think it’s complicated and dangerous to invite the press for any reason tbh. Punters don’t see the line between an event and a personal life. No one is interested in seeing any old random’s wedding pictures for eg, but celebrities can sell them for millions because people are specifically invested in them as individuals. Not in their work or in their business or whatever but in whoever they perceive that celeb to be as a human. Any time you feed it, it’s going to grow because the line gets thinner and the public gets more used to access. You sold your wedding photos do what’s the big deal about wanting honeymoon privacy? Ok you sold both of those so now why can’t we see you at dinner or on weekend days out? And once it’s out there, people want more. I don’t agree with it but letting the press know bits of your personal life are for sale or negotiable seems really not worth any payday.
Agreed. I’m a pretty black and white thinker, and so I struggle to distinguish What Should Be (i.e. you as a person in the public eye agree to give them access to certain things, they fuck off and let you have your peace as a human being the rest of the time) and What Is (i.e. gutter shitheads and the prurient public want more skin every day, and hound you mercilessly). It’s not right that it happens, but your description is bang on.
I was scrolling through the paper headlines on BBC news, and just knew that DM would have to get some comment stuck in. Ugh. Just awful people.
If it turns out she did then ok I’ll concede I’m sorry
Initially read that as “but did they even ask her [the baby] [if she wanted to be born]?”, which would be quite existential for the Daily Mail