ZedLeg wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:58 am
drcarlos wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:51 am
ZedLeg wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:20 am
Aye, there are quite a few people putting together lists of articles comparing how the same stories were reported for Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle. Stuff like pregnancy announcement etc. There's definitely been a negative slant on the reporting of Markle since she became involved with the royals.
It has been noted that these people cherry picked the best of kate/worst of meghan articles to support that viewpoint. Plenty of negatives were written about Kate and she had her fair share of crap from the press and lots of positive written about Meghan too when she first appeared about how happy she made Harry (he certainly deserved it). The turning point was the wedding and how she seemingly treated her father, but we may actually get the truth there at some point.
The articles were reporting the same subject matter in the same papers, the most ridiculous one being articles about the way they held their bumps while pregnant.
You're basing your opinion of what's happened on nothing but press hearsay.
TBH I'd be less inclined to trust the person running to the Daily Mail to complain about a family member than the person who's not saying anything.
ETA Ultimately it's none of our business anyway. Part of the issue seems to be the entitlement of royal fans, people like Piers Morgan complaining that they didn't let people see their baby quickly enough is fucking creepy.
And Buzzfeed are the paragon of imparitality? They are like the most partizan site on the planet if they get a sniff of hyperbole/racism/homophobia/division.
I've just clicked through and actually read said articles on the bump instead of just relying on Buzzfeeds very negative partizan assessment of them both.
The Meghan article is actually largely positive with the positive contributers outweighing the negative by a massive 11 - 2 Margin, like I said it won't stop buzzfeed stirring the shit though will it by putting one of about two negative lines on their site and relying on people either not to remember or to click through to the articles.
The article on Kate was pretty positive too, but as she is a mum to 2 already and this was child 3 she kept away from the limelight so there were few photo ops.
Both positive on the whole though.
That was the first and biggest comparison and was a bit of a nothing burger, the second comparison gets worse as William was 'given an Advocado by a fan' as they knew that Kate had morning sickness and apparently they are good for it, The Meghan article is that she likes Advocado and they are linked to crime and such like. They are literally linked by the word Advocado and that's it, you'd have to be some sort of special mental gymnast to link the two it's utterly stupid (and why Buzzfeed is such a toilet). I haven't got time to look at the rest and break them down for you, but it looks like the aritcle has had the desired effect with the outrage mobs.