Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[ACO]

Meghan doesn't have to read it but her advisers would. You don't think that each time her estranged family were talking they didn't update her? Also she has a law team who pay people to look into stuff. I mean royal watchers can easily pull these articles up for free. You think professional on the clock couldn't?

 

[Osipi]

wait - i just saw this article below, yet i remember meghan claiming some months ago in an event how she 'never' read the news, 'never' checked social media on her, etc. now it seems she kept every single article by the daily mail that is not what she wants to hear. how does that work?

https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2019/11/15/noen2cgslou82nzpgi0g3mpjebpd6i

Perhaps Meghan, herself, doesn't go pouring through all the tabloids and social media reports written about her but I would imagine that her staff keeps close tabs on just what is going on and if needed, informs Meghan. While Meghan could well have been informed of everything going around in tabloid circles, she didn't let it get to her and considered it "white noise".

The time came though when enough was enough and she had to take action. It helped that there were records kept filed away somewhere for future reference if needed. She's a smart cookie and has a good team of lawyers that could easily dig these articles up themselves.

As its nearing the holiday season, I'm going to actually say that it looks like the MoS's goose is cooked.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

There is some implication that this legal team is going article by article and calling out the untrue ones. I sincerely hope that is not the case, because if it is, there is going to be a lot more said by the ones that are, by implication, true, than the ones that are proven to be false.

 

[Ista]

There is some implication that this legal team is going article by article and calling out the untrue ones. I sincerely hope that is not the case, because if it is, there is going to be a lot more said by the ones that are, by implication, true, than the ones that are proven to be false.

Yes, especially since most of the alleged inaccuracies are pretty small stakes--expensive bathtubs, yoga studios, etc. Those don't seem terribly important in the grand scheme of things, but apparently rankled enough to be included in the lawsuit. This then inevitably puts the focus on things that were published that are true, or will be assumed to be true if they aren't specifically refuted. So far as tracking down Meghan's father goes, isn't that pretty much what reporters do when they are trying to contact a source? I'm really wondering how all this is going to play out, and what the hoped for end result is. I still think there is the potential for this all to go very, very wrong, but I guess we'll see. Lawsuits have a way of being unpredictable.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Yes, I agree Ista, and I should clarify for others-- I do not mean to imply that Meghan (or anyone else) should have to turn a blind eye to "small," (relatively) incorrect things that were printed about her. I understand that these are necessary to include in the lawsuit because her legal team are painting a larger picture of mistreatment.

But now that it's become clear that even the "smaller" stories are going to be enumerated in the suit, it's going to become evident that some of the larger stories, with much more interesting implications, were true. While some will deny this logic, very few will believe that her legal team would go to the trouble of denying a story about an orange grove while leaving some of the much more sensational and harmful stories untouched. It's very unfortunate that Meghan is in this catch-22.

Incidentally, I think this is similar to the catch-22 Harry finds himself in. By fighting against stories that reporters gained access to by hacking his phone, he has to admit the stories (or at least their basis) are true when it might be far less comfortable not to do so. It is a terrible thing that he is being put in this situation.

 

[Dman]

As I said before, there are receipts to back up the claim that there was a major smear campaign launched against the Duchess and a lot of it has been laid bare for all to see.

 

[Curryong]

We don't know that more court documents regarding further lies aren't on their way shortly.

I don't think that falsehoods printed about her relationship with her father and the financial help given him etc are small potatoes. Nor do I believe that the painting of Meghan as 'Duchess Difficult' with staff, Samantha Cohen a case in point, is unimportant either. Nor the lies about Meghan's background or the making up of imaginary relatives.

And the Fail and others were painting the Sussexes as extravagant with yoga studios etc right on top of the twisted narrative the Press came up with over the refurbishment of the Cottage into a home for the couple. A huge row about millions spent. Sovereign Grant money mentioned at all? No, not really.

I'll be interested to know how the newspaper group is going to paint all this as in the public interest.

 

[MJudith]

I guess that is because "sensational stories" as you put it can hardly be denied as they do not rely on facts. How can you prove you are not at odds with your brother? These accusations are diffused and hard to refute. Even though Harry and william were seen having a good time at polo people did not believe they were not at war with each other.

It is much easier to prove that Meghan did not forbid people from parking in her backyard and tons of other small things.

And I do think it is the small things that lead to this big situation. If there was not at least an article a day telling and most of the time inventing stuff about Meghan, none of the "big stories" would have gained much support.

You can ignore one small thing but when they happen everyday it becomes hard to just shrug them off.

I think also the point is to point out ridiculous stories, stories that have no basis in reality. Relationships amongst family are much harder to define and thus much opened to interpretation. It is not a yes or no question

 

[Osipi]

With listing the small stuff that was printed that was exaggerated, twisted to mean something else or blatant lies made up to have a story to print, all points to the credibility of the MoS's intent to "doctor" Meghan's letter to her father to suit their own purposes and give weight to the fact that the MoS used her intellectual copyrighted property to their own ends and it wasn't a single incident that just happened with the letter. Its happened quite a bit of times over the years and they have the stories and the actual facts behind those stories to prove it.

All this makes the copyright infringement case stronger for Meghan's side.

 

[tommy100]

I understand why they have included references to the other articles but it will be used by some (wrongly) to suggest that only those articles are untrue. For example, it makes no reference to the articles of an apparent feud. Yes most likely that is because they are sticking to reports about things they can disprove more easily - is there a £5,000 bath? no. Case closed. However, once you got down the rabbit hole its hard to come back.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Anyone reading through these articles filed in this court case, and then jumping to conclusions, that the other not listed articles must be true then, would believe these articles regardless. Meghan and her lawyers obviously included these articles to support their claim, that publishing only half of Meghan's letter to her father, they had ill intentions, and were trying to paint Meghan in a negative, inaccurate light. And meghan/her team has proof to back up her claims. These articles also don't include other royals. They're about Meghan, articles painting her in a negative light constantly.

 

[MARG]

It is an ugly situation. By piling on what in isolation would be NBD, they set out to undermine Meghan and establish the narrative that Meghan is nothing but an American wannabe-celebrity Diva with a taste for the high life.

Having established the baseline, they then built on it with the bath, the parking lot, stressing out Catherine, driving staff out of their jobs, driving Harry and William apart, all seems believable to many.

I am not surprised at their well-planned attack . . . they needed a new "Diana V Sarah" to drive up sales.

 

[ACO]

Well the publications can simply provide proof their many articles were accurate just like it seems Meghan will provide proof against their claims.

It’s about highlight how credible they are especially with regard to the letter. They claim they didn’t edit it when it seems someone did. They omitted pretty specific things to paint a picture of Meghan.

They will all get a chance to defend their case.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Yes, I agree Ista, and I should clarify for others-- I do not mean to imply that Meghan (or anyone else) should have to turn a blind eye to "small," (relatively) incorrect things that were printed about her. I understand that these are necessary to include in the lawsuit because her legal team are painting a larger picture of mistreatment.

But now that it's become clear that even the "smaller" stories are going to be enumerated in the suit, it's going to become evident that some of the larger stories, with much more interesting implications, were true. While some will deny this logic, very few will believe that her legal team would go to the trouble of denying a story about an orange grove while leaving some of the much more sensational and harmful stories untouched. It's very unfortunate that Meghan is in this catch-22.

Incidentally, I think this is similar to the catch-22 Harry finds himself in. By fighting against stories that reporters gained access to by hacking his phone, he has to admit the stories (or at least their basis) are true when it might be far less comfortable not to do so. It is a terrible thing that he is being put in this situation.

Anyone reading through these articles filed in this court case, and then jumping to conclusions, that the other not listed articles must be true then, would believe these articles regardless. Meghan and her lawyers obviously included these articles to support their claim, that publishing only half of Meghan's letter to her father, they had ill intentions, and were trying to paint Meghan in a negative, inaccurate light. And meghan/her team has proof to back up her claims. These articles also don't include other royals. They're about Meghan, articles painting her in a negative light constantly.

That did not take long.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

That did not take long.

I'm confused here, why are you quoting your own and my posts?

 

[ACO]

Not to speak for HGHD but I’m guessing she is pointing out how people will dismiss how not attacking every story could play out. Personally I see Meghan’s team only mentioning stories directly about her while purposely leaving out the ones with others unless they clearly seem to give permission to be included aka Samantha Cohen and Ava Burgess.

 

[MJudith]

Not to speak for HGHD but I’m guessing she is pointing out how people will dismiss how not attacking every story could play out. Personally I see Meghan’s team only mentioning stories directly about her while purposely leaving out the ones with others unless they clearly seem to give permission to be included aka Samantha Cohen and Ava Burgess.

Well I personally do not understand this logic which seems totally absurd to me.

In a court of law, you don't attack every story you focus on the ones you can win, when you have won on the small cases and show how absurd these accusations were, you cast a shadow on the big allegations.
I guess it is a bit like "witness character" when you prove that someone is a liar on the stand thanks to small trivia in their life, to put into question their accusation in a bigger case.

 

[Pranter]

Possible more may come out too as things proceed.



LaRae

 

[Madame Verseau]

Right now I think the owners of the papers are a little nervous. They have a royal adversary that is ready to go to battle. Reputation ruin may be coming to the Mail in terms of subscriptions, ad revenue and online clicks are on the line If there is a massive court win for Meghan if could take a hit financially. To recover the owners would have to restore consumer confidence. I could see firings of the reporters who wrote the stories and the editors who green lighted them. Dad is not named in the suit but I could a narrative put out that Markle and the siblings lied and said reporters did not bother to fact check them and verify any document they submitted. If they were paid for intweviews see a spreadsheet or ledgers showing payoffs.

 

[ACO]

Well I personally do not understand this logic which seems totally absurd to me.

In a court of law, you don't attack every story you focus on the ones you can win, when you have won on the small cases and show how absurd these accusations were, you cast a shadow on the big allegations.
I guess it is a bit like "witness character" when you prove that someone is a liar on the stand thanks to small trivia in their life, to put into question their accusation in a bigger case.

I agree and that’s what they seem to be doing. Hearsay is hard to disprove but factual things reporting costs and items that don’t exist can be. They are discrediting the papers but showing many examples of things they can physically prove. As you point out it’s a smart tactic.

 

[MARG]

Rather like Piers Morgan was asked about this case this morning and in his hate rant, he included;

• That $3million plus of taxpayers money spent on Frogmore Cottage.
• Harry and Meghan are funded by the taxpayers.
• Not going to Sandringham and skipping the weekly walk to church was insulting to HM and shortchanging the taxpayers. They are paid to be seen going to church on Christmas day.

He knows the property is "a listed property" (includes the garden) and it will, therefore, cost much more to renovate and how the rotating renovations work, e.g. Buckingham and Kensington Palaces. He knows that the Sussexes are paid by the PoW and the Sovereign grant pays for their tours at the request of the government, etc.

 

[Madame Verseau]

@MARG - Piers Morgan has been one of Meghan's attackers over a course of a year, claiming she "ghosted" him after an alleged meet up in a bar. I will not be surprised the next court filings will have details the meeting and email correspondence between her and Morgan (if any) and tweets between them and he won't look good. I think he knows that is coming given the lawyers' strategy so he distracts with reovations and doing her "duty" to show up at Sandringham. Morgan used her father in interviews to attack her character. I know Meghan is keeping her dad out of this but her paternal family voluntarily gave damaging interviews about her. As I read the article the Mail is going to have to explain their sourcing and that includes the interviews. I still think the Mail's strategy is to claim the Markles lied and the paper took what they said in "good faith".

 

[Nico]

Right now I think the owners of the papers are a little nervous. They have a royal adversary that is ready to go to battle. Reputation ruin may be coming to the Mail in terms of subscriptions, ad revenue and online clicks are on the line If there is a massive court win for Meghan if could take a hit financially. To recover the owners would have to restore consumer confidence. I could see firings of the reporters who wrote the stories and the editors who green lighted them. Dad is not named in the suit but I could a narrative put out that Markle and the siblings lied and said reporters did not bother to fact check them and verify any document they submitted. If they were paid for intweviews see a spreadsheet or ledgers showing payoffs.

Ah ah ah ah nervous ? You're joking : it's pure gold for them. The main moto of the Mail is to sell, sell,and sell. Mail Online is the most visited website in the world. Any story is a good story, the truth doesn't matter, and they are sure ready to sacrifice one of their columnist to gain MORE publicity (remember Katie Hopkins ?).

And now seeing that the Sussexes are foolish enough to enter the dance, the owners must be celebrating big time with the prospect of HUGE profit from the good'ol clickbaits (because let's face it some people, people like you for that matter, will always be eager to post here , or on any social media, a direct link to any random Daily Mail story about the Sussexes).
So well done, you've just fed the beast, and it's hungry as ever. Good job.

"The never explain, never complain" moto is not cowardise , it's the most effective way to break this vicious circle, by distancing yourself from the heat of the action.

So now hold on to your hat because the pandora box is open and it's not gonna be smooth sailing for the Sterling Sussexes.

Good luck with that.

 

[Pranter]

The papers (owners and editors) would be foolish to not be nervous....this potentially is going to cost them a ton of money and lost positions possibly for some.


LaRae

 

[Nico]

The DM website has a ratio of around 13M visitors a SINGLE DAY.
You do the math.
They were even attacked by the First Lady of the United States and the legal costs were just peanuts in their ocean of profit. So no i guess they are not afraid, not at all.
The publicity around the Sussexes case will largely cover any costs and damages. That's how it works, that's how they play with your naivety, that's how, at the end, they always win.

 

[MARG]

I think this has the potential to become something a few are predicting, namely a major incident. At the very least I think the Levinson Enquiry is going to be revisited and the rules and recommendations sized up against the reality of what is actually happening.

I think time and "brave" new writers and editors has bred a carnivorous breed that survive on red meat and get away with it. I believe they think they are untouchable. However, does anyone remember 'The News of the World?

 

[_Heather_]

I also believe that Meghan, with earning her nickname of "Tungsten" from her father-in-law, will *not* consider an out of court settlement but take the case to court and rip the MoS to shreds reputation wise and monetarily wise.

Just out of curiosity, where exactly (with named sources) has this sickeningly sweet little tidbit been both reported and officially confirmed? I only ask because when other stories come out with unnamed sources (particularly those that are not so complimentary), rabid supporters of the Sussexes are quick to point out that they can't believed because the source is unnamed, we have no official confirmation, no one really knows what happens behind closed doors, etc. However, I honestly don't recall ever hearing her referred to as such in public by the POW or any other family member and I don't recall this coming from a "named source" so therefore the same standards of belief should apply, yes? Or does that change simply because it's rather more complimentary than some of the other stories?

Frankly I think we should probably take most stories regarding the Sussexes with a grain of salt because, while inevitably some will have roots in fact, others won't. That's how this all works. I just think we should be clear about which "unnamed sources" and "unofficial" stories we should believe and which we shouldn't, particularly when the only difference there seems to be that some are complimentary and some aren't.

 

[BaiSoSo]

Just out of curiosity, where exactly (with named sources) has this sickeningly sweet little tidbit been both reported and officially confirmed? I only ask because when other stories come out with unnamed sources (particularly those that are not so complimentary), rabid supporters of the Sussexes are quick to point out that they can't believed because the source is unnamed, we have no official confirmation, no one really knows what happens behind closed doors, etc. However, I honestly don't recall ever hearing her referred to as such in public by the POW or any other family member and I don't recall this coming from a "named source" so therefore the same standards of belief should apply, yes? Or does that change simply because it's rather more complimentary than some of the other stories?

Frankly I think we should probably take most stories regarding the Sussexes with a grain of salt because, while inevitably some will have roots in fact, others won't. That's how this all works. I just think we should be clear about which "unnamed sources" and "unofficial" stories we should believe and which we shouldn't, particularly when the only difference there seems to be that some are complimentary and some aren't.

For me, I look to see if the information is consistent with what has been said about Meghan (friends/colleagues with names, Meghan herself) and her history before I start to believe a story (good or bad). Meghan worked for 7 years on a show and even now after it has ended no one has said anything but good things about her. As have other people who have worked with her since joining the BRF. Even her father has gone on record saying she isn't a mean person. So I find it hard to believe that her personality took a 180* since joining the family and that she is pretty much mean to everyone as the tabloids would have you believe. That doesn't mean she is perfect and has not made any mistakes but I don't believe the mistakes have been that bad either. I do believe she will speak up for herself and her causes, I see that as something good, not bad.

I also look at the standards that Meghan is being held to compared to others in the BRF... such as broken protocols. If others in the family are able to do it and are praised for it I'm going to call it out when Meghan gets degraded for the same actions. An example is how Meghan has been claimed to be too political because she champions for women and criticized left and right but Camilla & Sophie also champion women's causes and there is barely a blink in the media and when there is, it is praise. I have a problem with those double standards.

As Meghan said in the interview she knew it wouldn't be an easy role but she expected it to be fair and for the media not say untruthful things, especially when they have been told they aren't true. I also expect the media to be fair, accurate and have integrity in their reporting as well. If they had been there wouldn't be this lawsuit happening right now.

Meghan has also said that if she truly makes a mistake she would be the first to apologize.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Hmmm. I'm sure it's tempting to sue but now the media is on their tail. It reminds me of when George Clooney went off on the media and they turned their back on him when he walked on the red carpet promoting his latest movie and wouldn't photograph him. I suspect this is why they're suffering from bad press - they made the media angry. I think they should have stuck to the "never complain never explain" mantra.


Having said that they aren't the only ones who went after the media. Kate and William also went after the media. The media does seem to have it out for Meghan and Harry and I'm sure it's hurtful to them. But the media even says bad things about the queen - it's part of being a part of the royals.

 

[Gawin]

Hmmm. I'm sure it's tempting to sue but now the media is on their tail. It reminds me of when George Clooney went off on the media and they turned their back on him when he walked on the red carpet promoting his latest movie and wouldn't photograph him. I suspect this is why they're suffering from bad press - they made the media angry. I think they should have stuck to the "never complain never explain" mantra.


Having said that they aren't the only ones who went after the media. Kate and William also went after the media. The media does seem to have it out for Meghan and Harry and I'm sure it's hurtful to them. But the media even says bad things about the queen - it's part of being a part of the royals.

I think there are times when the Sussexes should have followed "never complain never explain" but there is a difference between saying bad things and engaging in illegal activities. That's the reason for the lawsuits.