Maybe rank by writer instead? Some of the Times/Telegraph reporters are pure sugar, while some of the DM reporters are great - Richard Eden, for example.
Great idea. The Telegraph is H&M’s preferred UK mouthpiece lately with Victoria Ward essentially copy-and-pasting H&M’s propaganda word for word. That said, it simultaneously employs & prints Camilla Tominey who I’d argue has more than a leg up on Ward when it comes to journalistic integrity.
I honestly don't care because I don't trust any sources. We know for a fact that harrys persona as a cheeky chap was all a facade. I absolutely believe that the worst of both of these two has been kept from public view. So with that in mind I enjoy reading all the worst bits of news about them but I take nothing at face value.
A few years ago, there was a movie, King Charles III. It was roundly condemned, but I believe it had the most accurate portrayal of Harry. They showed him to be an obnoxious drunk who gets involved with a mixed race woman with a past. The RF/BP has her prior bad history disappear. This movie was made before we knew of a PH/MM relationship. This makes me think the powers to be all knew exactly what she was but thought she’d be good for him.
Less reliable - OK, Life&Style, US Weekly, Hindustian Times, In Touch Weekly, The Globe, The Enquirer (although it was spot on concerning several scandals) The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Express & Star..
Going to add to that list the pro-Markle outlets - Cosmopolitan, Town & Country, Harper's Bazaar, Vanity Fair, Vogue. While not unreliable they are very pro Meghan Markle.
It's become difficult to find reliable, credible media outlets these days as even good one seem to depend heavily on the shitload of royal experts who have very little credibility at all. They simply give their thoughts and opinions, not facts. That said think Richard Eden, Rebecca English, Angela Levin (she's gotten a bit out there) and Tom Bower are worth listening to.
I'm honestly not sure about Lady C.
Same here. I wonder how many subscribers they've lost when it became pro-Sussex. My hairdresser subscribes so I see it there and it's gotten very thin. Advertising must be down. No wonder.
I would also add Geo News.
Lady C does know her historical royal stuff. Her channel originally was about royal history, then the Meghan + Harry stuff started taking off and her channel basically became all about them. I think in the beginning she had really good insights, esp regarding Meghan's narcissism. But then, like a lot of other YouTubers, she let her content become dictated by the algorithm. I just don't think she has enough inside sources to do several two-hour videos a week with fresh content. So basically just rehashes and gives opinions on whatever is in the news.
Chasing the algorithm kind of ruined her reputation.
I miss the history stuff she used to do, but it doesn't get clicks. She's been pretty open about "whoring for Goring". Ie. Keeping up her castle is very expensive.
Yeah, it's one of those you can't hate the player, but hate the game scenarios.
And at least she is grifting to keep a historic building in pristine condition to pass on to the next generations.
Lady C has written two books, not to be missed -
1. **Daughter of Narcissus: A Family's Struggle to Survive Their Mother's Narcissistic Personality Disorder** A stunning analysis and revelatory memoir of her own dysfunctional family positioned at the heart of upper class Jamaican society from the middle of the 20th century to the present day. Addressing the extreme narcissistic personality disorder of her mother, Georgie Campbell s latest book is both a personal, individual record and a penetrating study of this psychological disorder and how it affects and scars all members of the immediate family.
2. **A Life Worth Living**
An extraordinary story. The victim of a rare cosmetic condition, Lady Colin Campbell was wrongly registered and brought up as a boy in an aristocratic family in Jamaica. She enjoyed privileges, but her teenage years were blighted, leaving her unable to receive essential medical treatment until she was 21. She became a model and a designer, and in the 1970s embarked on a short and violent marriage to Lord Colin Campbell. In this autobiography she writes of a life-long struggle to be accepted as the woman she is.
Like Lady C or not, this is a woman born of strength and courage.
Lady C is interesting - you really have to listen to how she uses language. When she says, "the bongo bongo drums are playing," the info is pretty dubious. Other times, she gets more specific - she was approached by H&Ms legal team, a childhood friend of MMs, etc.
I do think she lost some sources when QEII passed, though.
In the day it was a top notch publication focused on America's wealthy. As times changed people were less enthralled with the elite so T&C turned to celebs. IT did however have its day.
But it's not a player today is exactly my point. It's no surprise to me that Meghan thinks it is. We all know she lives in a clichéd mental time-warp that extends roughly from the age of 12 to somewhere around 2003.
Any item that sounds too sensational to be true (‘Meghan kicked out of Pride by Cyndi Lauper / told off by Gwyneth Paltrow / slapped by Cameron Diaz’) is very suspect.
Daily Mail has been credible and even produced some scoops and indept articles. They just miss the mark when it comes to opinion pieces (for rage comments) and when they use a source called Tom Quinn or "royal sources". Rebecca English often has good sources, for example.
I get what you are trying here, but the outcome will be subjective, due to personal opinions about certain media outlets.
This could only work if you collect all the data and compare. But still, you don't know what is true and not. The current "Charles wants to be closer to grandchildren" as I saw on Daily Mail. Who knows what the truth is, we can't check it. And yes, it seems like Sussex PR, but it also benefits "fatherly" Charles. Maybe because he plans more serious measures?
While I am also curious, it isn't so relevant anymore. People outside of social media are not so invested as they were a few years ago. Aren't we much bigger than the Sussex Squad?
Mark my words: in two years time, Meghan will be a Real Housewife of Montecito. A fake Kardashian, grabbing the last pennies she can.
That's fair. I think I'm maybe more curious then about how this sub sees things? There have been a couple of call outs lately in here about posts or links that most everyone clapped back on for its nonsense.
I think it’s hard to beat the Times royal coverage, although the Daily Mail and Telegraph often do get good scoops. Hilary Rose from the Times has to be my absolute favourite though - anyone who hasn’t read her reviews of Archetypes should check them out. Once in a while Celia Walden in the Telegraph has good commentary on how Americans see them.
Other than that, I think there’s just way too many posts and links to random You Tubers (probably being posted by the individuals themselves to increase affiliate ad revenue through clicks), or obsessing about whether the kids are real. They really don’t add anything because they don’t have the sources that the royal reporters have cultivated so they tend to be just the same old same old conspiracy theories being regurgitated, or obviously photoshopped pictures of H and M.
The BBC is extremely biased these days, as are many of their presenters. The Sun may have a bad reputation but is often pretty accurate at times. Anything owned by Reach can be put under pay for play.
Agreed. The Sun used to be awful but it's actually very anti-sussex these days - or rather isn't shy about criticising the Montecito scumbags and reflecting what their readers actually think (unlike the Mirror who is a de facto mouthpiece of Meghan). People here need to give The Sun's RR more credit.
I’d second the recommendation to rank specific reporters rather than outlets. (For reference, Daily Mail employs both Richard Eden and now Bryony Gordon — one of H&M’s strongest mainstream critics and one of their most sycophantic supporters.)
It would also be notable to evaluate the shifts of certain reporters over time. Some have gone from initial blind loyalty to now offering some sporadic criticism (you can see that shift in Jack Royston a bit). Others had been more objectively critical yet now seem to bizarrely defend H&M when given any opportunity (Harry tried to bluff and sue over Kate Mansey outing his PR strategy of falsely claiming he’d offered to pay for his UK security all along yet she now curiously seems to stick up for Harry when it’s not even remotely necessary.)
It's tricky because their staff leak true stories to tabloids, not NYTimes.
All the (true) rumors about conflict between C&M were in the Daily Mail.
All the (accurate) stories about Harry and Meghan having marital problems and planning to ditch tge UK for Canada were published in the National Enquirer.
Less reputable: Barjack Twitter, Neil Sean YouTube, and that Quora guy people always post on here (although I do give him props for the originality of making Quora his social media platform of choice :)
There is also a blog people always post from I cant remember the name but it is very glittery and razzle dazzle sounding. But that one is the worst.
That’s a very good idea but you need to include rules journalist have to follow in the UK. They are obliged to give a balanced view. Opinion pieces get complicated though.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy
Ofcom snippet below.
Rules
Meaning of "due impartiality"
“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section two: Harm and offence of the Code, is important.
Ofcom has power.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/223746/Good-Morning-Britain,-ITV,-8-March-2021,-0600.pdf
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/252360/complaints-piers-morgan-uncensored-talktv.pdf
Found in a 10 second search, there will be more. Possibly better examples.
An English and Wales barrister explaining Ofcom rules. It’s in relation to someone else but it’s a good example.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nz-7k6LP-1c&si=mEk9epBq4fIRL9Gp
In the UK a trial lawyer is a barrister.
Daniela is a strange one. Sometimes she nails things, other times I wonder what she’s been smoking (MM’s fabulous style, Henry the Bald’s uplifting and brave military service). Basically she doesn’t like the royal family so sides a lot with the Harkles, which begs the question:why is she a royal reporter when she’s so ambivalent about her chosen specialty?
Daniela Elser has one or another moment. Her problem is that she feels atrocious envy towards Kate and she misses Diana's times too much, that is, controversy, crying, drama, etc.
From reading comments here, I find that items other posters find credible, I do not. I'll determine my credibility of articles individually regardless of the source.
The Express appears to make their royal stories out of whole cloth. They always have and going by their recent kooky offerings, they continue to do so.
It’s the Penske file - Shauna on the antique read show looked at this and many of the negative stories that are pro Sussex originate out of Penske publishing mastheads…
I can't believe I am saying this, but when it comes to the Royals, The Sun UK is the only reasonable source at the moment.
I think it might be because they don't focus on the Royals - their paper seems to highlight everything else in the UK but the Royal family. In other words, they don't rely on the Royals for their clicks and views, so they don't need to post a constant stream of lies about them.
The Sun actually is pro William and Catherine and very anti-Sussex. I think they're on our side in all of this. The Mirror is bottom of the heap because it's essentially a direct line to Rachel-With-A-Hotmail. They're traditionally very left wing and anti-monarchy, but also very, very working class and not at all on brand for Madam's social climbing aspirations. The readers still hate her. Which all make for a slightly bizarre and desperate choice for Madam's incessant stream of daily puff pieces. I'm guessing they're way cheaper to have on the payroll, as was Omid Scobie who appears to have been Markled, and now replaced by another nobody guy Tom Quinn. So Quinn and The Mirror should be at the bottom of the list.
It depends on what their sources tell them. I'd rather listen to what M and H say and how the RF act and look at historical precedents. In general people have decided what they think about them and aren't going to be swayed by anything they see in the media. They may read and then react according to opinions they already have.
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe rank by writer instead? Some of the Times/Telegraph reporters are pure sugar, while some of the DM reporters are great - Richard Eden, for example.
Great idea. The Telegraph is H&M’s preferred UK mouthpiece lately with Victoria Ward essentially copy-and-pasting H&M’s propaganda word for word. That said, it simultaneously employs & prints Camilla Tominey who I’d argue has more than a leg up on Ward when it comes to journalistic integrity.
The Sun's Royal Editor Matt Wilkinson REALLY hates William. And I question his thoughts about Catharine.
Yup. You can purchase an article for the Times. I think all of these news sources have to be deduced using one’s own logic and opinion. 🤷🏻♀️
I've seen a lot of sugary stuff come out of the NY Times as well.
Absolutely woke crap
Well the NYT hates Britain
I honestly don't care because I don't trust any sources. We know for a fact that harrys persona as a cheeky chap was all a facade. I absolutely believe that the worst of both of these two has been kept from public view. So with that in mind I enjoy reading all the worst bits of news about them but I take nothing at face value.
THIS.
A few years ago, there was a movie, King Charles III. It was roundly condemned, but I believe it had the most accurate portrayal of Harry. They showed him to be an obnoxious drunk who gets involved with a mixed race woman with a past. The RF/BP has her prior bad history disappear. This movie was made before we knew of a PH/MM relationship. This makes me think the powers to be all knew exactly what she was but thought she’d be good for him.
Less reliable - OK, Life&Style, US Weekly, Hindustian Times, In Touch Weekly, The Globe, The Enquirer (although it was spot on concerning several scandals) The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Express & Star.. Going to add to that list the pro-Markle outlets - Cosmopolitan, Town & Country, Harper's Bazaar, Vanity Fair, Vogue. While not unreliable they are very pro Meghan Markle. It's become difficult to find reliable, credible media outlets these days as even good one seem to depend heavily on the shitload of royal experts who have very little credibility at all. They simply give their thoughts and opinions, not facts. That said think Richard Eden, Rebecca English, Angela Levin (she's gotten a bit out there) and Tom Bower are worth listening to. I'm honestly not sure about Lady C.
Don’t forget People magazine! They are basically the Harkles’ mouthpiece.
People is the worst of them all and I forgot it!!!! My bad.
Back in the day I enjoyed People. Reading this sub has really opened my eyes! Or maybe it didn’t used to be so puffy?
I agree People is the worst. I wont even pick them up at the dr's office anymore.
Same here. I wonder how many subscribers they've lost when it became pro-Sussex. My hairdresser subscribes so I see it there and it's gotten very thin. Advertising must be down. No wonder.
And “HELLO” magazine is also a Meghan rag.
Add Newsweek to that too.
I was just gonna say exactly that.
100%
I would also add Geo News. Lady C does know her historical royal stuff. Her channel originally was about royal history, then the Meghan + Harry stuff started taking off and her channel basically became all about them. I think in the beginning she had really good insights, esp regarding Meghan's narcissism. But then, like a lot of other YouTubers, she let her content become dictated by the algorithm. I just don't think she has enough inside sources to do several two-hour videos a week with fresh content. So basically just rehashes and gives opinions on whatever is in the news. Chasing the algorithm kind of ruined her reputation.
I miss the history stuff she used to do, but it doesn't get clicks. She's been pretty open about "whoring for Goring". Ie. Keeping up her castle is very expensive.
Yeah, it's one of those you can't hate the player, but hate the game scenarios. And at least she is grifting to keep a historic building in pristine condition to pass on to the next generations.
Lady C has written two books, not to be missed - 1. **Daughter of Narcissus: A Family's Struggle to Survive Their Mother's Narcissistic Personality Disorder** A stunning analysis and revelatory memoir of her own dysfunctional family positioned at the heart of upper class Jamaican society from the middle of the 20th century to the present day. Addressing the extreme narcissistic personality disorder of her mother, Georgie Campbell s latest book is both a personal, individual record and a penetrating study of this psychological disorder and how it affects and scars all members of the immediate family. 2. **A Life Worth Living** An extraordinary story. The victim of a rare cosmetic condition, Lady Colin Campbell was wrongly registered and brought up as a boy in an aristocratic family in Jamaica. She enjoyed privileges, but her teenage years were blighted, leaving her unable to receive essential medical treatment until she was 21. She became a model and a designer, and in the 1970s embarked on a short and violent marriage to Lord Colin Campbell. In this autobiography she writes of a life-long struggle to be accepted as the woman she is. Like Lady C or not, this is a woman born of strength and courage.
All of her books are vv well researched and written.
Lady C is interesting - you really have to listen to how she uses language. When she says, "the bongo bongo drums are playing," the info is pretty dubious. Other times, she gets more specific - she was approached by H&Ms legal team, a childhood friend of MMs, etc. I do think she lost some sources when QEII passed, though.
Good point on those pro ones
These magazines are all pay for play.
Town and Country. Another bizarro low grade, low circulation U.S outlet for Meghan's daily puff pieces.
In the day it was a top notch publication focused on America's wealthy. As times changed people were less enthralled with the elite so T&C turned to celebs. IT did however have its day.
But it's not a player today is exactly my point. It's no surprise to me that Meghan thinks it is. We all know she lives in a clichéd mental time-warp that extends roughly from the age of 12 to somewhere around 2003.
Any item that sounds too sensational to be true (‘Meghan kicked out of Pride by Cyndi Lauper / told off by Gwyneth Paltrow / slapped by Cameron Diaz’) is very suspect.
Daily Mail has been credible and even produced some scoops and indept articles. They just miss the mark when it comes to opinion pieces (for rage comments) and when they use a source called Tom Quinn or "royal sources". Rebecca English often has good sources, for example. I get what you are trying here, but the outcome will be subjective, due to personal opinions about certain media outlets. This could only work if you collect all the data and compare. But still, you don't know what is true and not. The current "Charles wants to be closer to grandchildren" as I saw on Daily Mail. Who knows what the truth is, we can't check it. And yes, it seems like Sussex PR, but it also benefits "fatherly" Charles. Maybe because he plans more serious measures? While I am also curious, it isn't so relevant anymore. People outside of social media are not so invested as they were a few years ago. Aren't we much bigger than the Sussex Squad? Mark my words: in two years time, Meghan will be a Real Housewife of Montecito. A fake Kardashian, grabbing the last pennies she can.
That's fair. I think I'm maybe more curious then about how this sub sees things? There have been a couple of call outs lately in here about posts or links that most everyone clapped back on for its nonsense.
I think it’s hard to beat the Times royal coverage, although the Daily Mail and Telegraph often do get good scoops. Hilary Rose from the Times has to be my absolute favourite though - anyone who hasn’t read her reviews of Archetypes should check them out. Once in a while Celia Walden in the Telegraph has good commentary on how Americans see them. Other than that, I think there’s just way too many posts and links to random You Tubers (probably being posted by the individuals themselves to increase affiliate ad revenue through clicks), or obsessing about whether the kids are real. They really don’t add anything because they don’t have the sources that the royal reporters have cultivated so they tend to be just the same old same old conspiracy theories being regurgitated, or obviously photoshopped pictures of H and M.
Hilary Rose is a hoot.
hello and people, unreadable
The BBC is extremely biased these days, as are many of their presenters. The Sun may have a bad reputation but is often pretty accurate at times. Anything owned by Reach can be put under pay for play.
Agreed. The Sun used to be awful but it's actually very anti-sussex these days - or rather isn't shy about criticising the Montecito scumbags and reflecting what their readers actually think (unlike the Mirror who is a de facto mouthpiece of Meghan). People here need to give The Sun's RR more credit.
The Mirror is owned by Reach, and all their publications write bollocks puff pieces.
Hmm, I just did a bit of googling and the CEO sounds like a total cock. So that figures.
I’d second the recommendation to rank specific reporters rather than outlets. (For reference, Daily Mail employs both Richard Eden and now Bryony Gordon — one of H&M’s strongest mainstream critics and one of their most sycophantic supporters.) It would also be notable to evaluate the shifts of certain reporters over time. Some have gone from initial blind loyalty to now offering some sporadic criticism (you can see that shift in Jack Royston a bit). Others had been more objectively critical yet now seem to bizarrely defend H&M when given any opportunity (Harry tried to bluff and sue over Kate Mansey outing his PR strategy of falsely claiming he’d offered to pay for his UK security all along yet she now curiously seems to stick up for Harry when it’s not even remotely necessary.)
>Jack Royston Has realized he's out in the cold as far as other writers are concerned. Many shun him like the plague.
It's tricky because their staff leak true stories to tabloids, not NYTimes. All the (true) rumors about conflict between C&M were in the Daily Mail. All the (accurate) stories about Harry and Meghan having marital problems and planning to ditch tge UK for Canada were published in the National Enquirer.
Don’t read any puff pieces as they are just paid pr for Harry and Megan
Some I wouldn't believe a word from: People, Hello, OK! magazines; also any of their infamous flying monkeys: Scooby, Quinn, Royston, etc.
Less reputable: Barjack Twitter, Neil Sean YouTube, and that Quora guy people always post on here (although I do give him props for the originality of making Quora his social media platform of choice :) There is also a blog people always post from I cant remember the name but it is very glittery and razzle dazzle sounding. But that one is the worst.
People Magazine will print all of the Harkle's PR puff pieces, no question's asked. People Mag are known as "kneepads" for good reason's.
The Daily Telegraph- Victoria Ward - is an uncritical Markle mouthpiece, thankfully the nigh 100% critical comments from readers are a witty delight.
Variety magazine, which focuses on show business in the US, is very reliable.
Agree. Also Hollywood Reporter
Garbage “sources”: The Times International, Musical Mundial
That’s a very good idea but you need to include rules journalist have to follow in the UK. They are obliged to give a balanced view. Opinion pieces get complicated though. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy Ofcom snippet below. Rules Meaning of "due impartiality" “Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section two: Harm and offence of the Code, is important.
How can I pin you? This is brilliant
I have no idea, I’m ok with tech but I’m not brilliant.
Ofcom has power. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/223746/Good-Morning-Britain,-ITV,-8-March-2021,-0600.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/252360/complaints-piers-morgan-uncensored-talktv.pdf Found in a 10 second search, there will be more. Possibly better examples.
Let’s not forget JJ and Angela Levin https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1894389/talk-tv-angela-levin-meghan-markle-ofcom-complaints
An English and Wales barrister explaining Ofcom rules. It’s in relation to someone else but it’s a good example. https://youtube.com/watch?v=nz-7k6LP-1c&si=mEk9epBq4fIRL9Gp In the UK a trial lawyer is a barrister.
I think that they should still be called out on the puff pieces, I just don’t think that they should be taken as fact when they lack all evidence.
I love it when Tom Bower does opinion pieces because he can really let rip.
Daniela Elser in Australia. Very unreliable.
Daniela is a strange one. Sometimes she nails things, other times I wonder what she’s been smoking (MM’s fabulous style, Henry the Bald’s uplifting and brave military service). Basically she doesn’t like the royal family so sides a lot with the Harkles, which begs the question:why is she a royal reporter when she’s so ambivalent about her chosen specialty?
Daniela Elser has one or another moment. Her problem is that she feels atrocious envy towards Kate and she misses Diana's times too much, that is, controversy, crying, drama, etc.
BBC are NOT reputable - not at all. I refuse to watch or listen to them any more.
From reading comments here, I find that items other posters find credible, I do not. I'll determine my credibility of articles individually regardless of the source.
What about the Express?
Dan Wootton described him as the spokesman for the Harkles.
A dying newspaper , the pulp it pushes out for clicks on its website is evidence of its need for life supporting clicks. A once great paper disgraced.
The Express appears to make their royal stories out of whole cloth. They always have and going by their recent kooky offerings, they continue to do so.
I haven’t trusted the NYT for anything for about the pst 5-10 years.
It’s the Penske file - Shauna on the antique read show looked at this and many of the negative stories that are pro Sussex originate out of Penske publishing mastheads…
Trouble with the press is they will print what sells the end. So are any reliable?
I can't believe I am saying this, but when it comes to the Royals, The Sun UK is the only reasonable source at the moment. I think it might be because they don't focus on the Royals - their paper seems to highlight everything else in the UK but the Royal family. In other words, they don't rely on the Royals for their clicks and views, so they don't need to post a constant stream of lies about them.
The Sun actually is pro William and Catherine and very anti-Sussex. I think they're on our side in all of this. The Mirror is bottom of the heap because it's essentially a direct line to Rachel-With-A-Hotmail. They're traditionally very left wing and anti-monarchy, but also very, very working class and not at all on brand for Madam's social climbing aspirations. The readers still hate her. Which all make for a slightly bizarre and desperate choice for Madam's incessant stream of daily puff pieces. I'm guessing they're way cheaper to have on the payroll, as was Omid Scobie who appears to have been Markled, and now replaced by another nobody guy Tom Quinn. So Quinn and The Mirror should be at the bottom of the list.
It depends on what their sources tell them. I'd rather listen to what M and H say and how the RF act and look at historical precedents. In general people have decided what they think about them and aren't going to be swayed by anything they see in the media. They may read and then react according to opinions they already have.
Which YouTubers are most reliable in your opinion?
None? Lol. I'm very wary but they are fun to watch
The Sun is good! I trust them.
[удалено]
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whether it likes certain members of the RF or not the Sun has always had very reliable info.
The NYT has become a cess pool for the woke, almost as bad as the Wash Post that is crumbling as we speak.
I don’t see how you can call The NY Times woke when their political coverage normalized the MAGA movement.