Harry makes the perfect simple point regarding online Media

[Budi]

Prince Harry:

“Have you noticed online how the truth is paywalled but the lies are free?”

Link to tweet

Yup. The Lies are Free.
Propaganda mass messaging works just like that. It doesn't even have to be true. Just repeated en masse.

[BannonsLiver]

1. Yes because unfortunately

It costs money to pay journalists to report things. They don’t get free rent, groceries etc.

[CrackityJones75]

14. That is true but misses the point

Or maybe it underscores the point?

[berni_mccoy]

40. The other way to look at it: propaganda is subsidized by those who push it

While the truth is paid for by those who seek it.

[BannonsLiver]

46. Well

When I got laid off from a large metro paper after 15 years I can assure you I had zero shits to give about any of that. Dollars and cents, Holmes. Dollars and cents.

[dawn5651]

2. not all truthful media is behind a paywall....and as far as that goes that oprah interview

that hazmat and megain gave was so full of lies it was pathetic. so he is a fine one to speak about untruths.

[Duppers]

3. Which?

And proof?

[dawn5651]

22. how about you do a fact check of each of the lies.

read something beside us media. because they lied...

[BlueLucy]

32. You are the one asserting they lied.

Prove it. I don't think they lied in anyway. Meghan did indeed get bombarded with racially charged negativity.

[LittleStar]

35. First Post!

First - I've been a lurker for years - I only get my 'mainstream' news here, maybe DailyKos - but I also have my own interests I research etc.

I'm not singling you out BTW - just you asked 'proof' - first - not surprisingly I'm a liberal feminist democratic socialist.
I try not to become 'politicized' - but that's what's gone on we aren't polarized - we are all 'politicized' - including 'our side'.

I have a deep interest in history & such & therefore know quite a bit about the Royal Family & a deep respect for them, & the UK, their traditions etc. - Queen Elizabeth & Prince Philip are/were both incredible & both kicked some Nazi butt - I am forever grateful to them.

Anyway! Look - I think most Americans have innate biases against the RF, & also a lot of hooey with regard to Princess Diana - I think there are a lot of knee jerk reactions......
I think I'm probably more versed in the reality of the RF that most Americans, & I get most of us do not give much of a f*ck, right?

But let's not be 'like them' & go off with opinions that are not grounded in facts - let's not assume someone is speaking truth just because they 'look or act like us' kinda thing - let's not just preach to the choir, you know?

I don't read things & make urls, or anything - this stuff is in the common domain, news articles, news clips, markle's interviews, markles writings including her own blog, also biographies that have the sources in them - so forgive me for not having some kinda link for each thing - maybe I should start doing so....if Markle truly tries to ingratiate herself in democratic politics: I just might!

Long winded sorry - but, yeah: Markle did tell many lies in that 'interview' - and one source you can trust is CNN right - they had, I think within a week of that O 'interview' a bit of an expose on it - now, it got buried, renamed etc - that was pressure, just as so many journalists were pressured, if not outright fired, or resigned if they dared to question her 'truth'

That should deeply disturb all of us....

You asked:
1) The married three days before they, um married - literally saying the Archbishop is on some kinda speed dial & came over & married them - well of course he was forced to respond because that would be illegal! He did respond - he said they had 'a conversation'.

2) Archie wasn't a given title Prince because the RF are racists - um, nope & what a vile disgusting nasty accusation - it would not have mattered who Harry married - his children would not be born with titles Prince or Princess (Archie does have honorary title Queen bestowed as gift however)

3) security was 'cut off' like a punishment - NOPE - when you aren't a working royal things are different, they don't get security anyore than the rest of non-working royals do

4) Daddy cut them off: NOPE - not at all, & the yearly report on the RF etc (just blanking on what it's called) proves the RF right, & H a liar: they were very well-funded by Daddy despite their own private millions

5) Markle had no idea who the RF were, or Prince Harry - actually she wrote about them on her own blog, & she claims to have a degree in international relations (not sure that isn't also a lie though) - yeah, incredibly preposterous claim (lie)

6) She had zero preparation for her new role as a working royal - again google is your friend - & she herself spoke of the family & being prepared in the engagement interview (she also said how wonderful, supporting & welcoming they were) - there were stories from places who specialize in British traditions & they were quite proud they'd worked with her

7) No one can speak to her mental state but she lied about the circumstances of that weekend - conviently her make-up buddy deleted his twitter/instagram posts however you can still find them, as all is eternal in internet-landia - dove tailing with this is the nonsense that the RF would not like the 'look' of mental health issues - for Gawd's sake they head numerous charities, organizations - Harry himself was part of this, he had his own therapy by his brother's suggestion - Hell the Queen has had therapy - it doesn't quite wash does it? Markle being denied help as she wanders the halls in search of HR - she was also pregnant - she'd have the best possible care. HOGWASH I say

Okay -there's more in that 'interview' but you can find it all online....

I want to address her preposterous letter to senators - again too much to go into

But mainly she says she worked a 13 in CA at a Fro Yo shop to 'make ends meet' LOL!!!!
Wow, this is when I truly wonder about her - I think she's just some con artist....anway:
TRUTH: her father was a well-respected, award winning lighting director in Hollywood - very solid career: he won the lottery: he spent it on her education
She was going to 20,000 a year private schools, ballet & tap classes, japanese food in Santa Monica, yearly trips to Mexico & Hawaii, her father when she was 15/16 took her & a friend on a trip through Europe (famously as it would be pictured in front of Buckingham Palace), horse back rides, etc. yeah real rough childhood......

What Ive said is fact-checked in biographies about her, her own words in interviews and/or her blogs....

Working Royals do not enter politics & they do not make any personal money of any kind - non working royals can do as they wish, & IF they have titles: they do not use them - such as both Princess Eugenie & Princess Beatrice - they've normal lives, jobs etc: but they go by Eugenie York & Beatrice York etc

It is absolutely wrong & very bratty & against protocol for Markle to cold call senators (in general) saying 'hi, this is Meghan Duchess of Sussex' or for that matter Harry investing in things & calling himself "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex"

Yeah, they sure cling to those titles - thats because they don't have anything else, they don't have any particular talent, intelligence nor creativity & they sure as heck cannot listen to any advice.

This is waaay long - sorry, but - you asked
& I appreciate you - not trying to make my first post nasty.......nothing personal - just getting this off my chest I guess...
I value this site so much & all who contribute - thanks for reading!!

Editing - forgot - CBS on that 'interview' very deliberately & knowingly altered newspaper headlines to back Markle's claims - that's just wrong - they also claimed they were all UK papers, when in fact some were other countries: including the US - but none of them were racist toward Markle - again there's plenty about this - I think these papers who were maligned are seeking a lawsuit - I don't know where that stands

[niyad]

37. That rf (royal family?) that you are extolling?? Would that be the one that treated

Prince Harry's mother so badly?

Just as an aside, most feminists do not trash other women without cause.

[Duppers]

38. Wow! Thank you!

That was very enlightening...and appreciated. I do indeed see your points here....and you are right, I haven't read that much about them and I admit to a bit of prejudice about *any* institution called royal.

I lived in England over 2yrs, in '89-'90 and '91-'92 and had the occasion to listen to an after HighTable discussion on the royals from someone who had a casual association with one of them. I'll just say that it didn't enhance my opinion of them.


Btw, that's a most impressive first post! Welcome, LittleStar!

[JanMichael]

44. Very few people calling themselves a "democratic socialist" support the concept of royalty.

Not sure why you added that.

[Lucinda]

7. nonsense

[dawn5651]

23. so you say...but i don't lie i have zero reason to.

[paleotn]

48. Not saying you are or you're not, but....

even those without any obvious reason to lie still do so. Like I said, I'm not say you are. I just don't like bad logic.

[Budi]

8. What a load of bs, stop reading Piers Morgan ffs.

You refer to Harry as Hazmat?

Gtfoutta here.

[dawn5651]

24. to his family he is hazardous...how about you not telling me what to do..i don't tell you what to do

[Budi]

28. Says who? "He's hazardous". Piers Morgan is a racist fk & as far as ..

...Harry & his family goes, you know nothing about their relationship other than what the drama drueling tabloid press shoves out for clicks, likes & profit.

Perhaps his decision to take his young family & flee the racism allowed to run rampant in the British press towards the woman he married, was a foreshadowing of his children's fate as well. One that he simply chose to remove them from.

I couldn't have grown up & lived under such tabloid scrutiny all the while having to perform for that same press as protocol required.

Face it, that family he left across the pond has its own issues.
He remained close to his grandfather up to the day he passed on, as well as his gramdmother, & as for William, his fate is destined for a place which isn't the direction Harry will ever go.
His father & Camilla are the 2 that I doubt he minded leaving behind.
He was close to his mom.

Harry did all that was required as a Royal & loyal to his country. And he did it respecrfully well.

I am anxious to hear him speak out because the issues he advocates for are those that he always has, on a humanitarian basis, as well as on the national stage.

I wish Harry & his young family the very best as they find peace & personal happiness wherever they choose to make their home.

I see Piers Morgan is now in his natural environment at Fox News.

Says all ya need to know.

[2Gingersnaps]

42. Thank you!

Very well stated.

[2Gingersnaps]

43. I'd say his family was pretty hazardous to him.

His father is a world class cad. His uncle is a damn disgrace in anyone's family. And the nasty names are uncalled for. His mother was fed to the wolves. He tried to move his wife and his children from the circumstances that took his Mother's life. He can't help what he was born too, but he could man up and walk away, good on him.

[KentuckyWoman]

9. hazmat? megain?

You should make friends with someone in the all caps world. They have a few to spare.

[dawn5651]

26. whatever....i have been typing in small case since my first puter.

[MontanaMama]

10. Can you give an example

of the purported lies they told?

[dawn5651]

25. when it was said that prince charles cut the money off

untrue...he paid for that fancy house hazmat and megain are living in.

[Budi]

30. And you saw the receipts? Wow. That's some priviledge

How bout furniture? Did dad buy that too?

Or was this purchase from the trust that has been Harry's all along?

Maybe check with Charles for us & let us all in on the scoop.
Or we could just ask Piers!

[MontanaMama]

31. Source?

Any point that you feel the need to make might be taken more seriously if you could use Harry and Meghan’s proper names instead of infantile slurs. Yawn.

[Beartracks]

45. I know, right? Gives the impression one is grinding an ax, not minding the facts.

[róisín_dubh]

47. Good god, you need to grow up with the name calling.

I'm no fan of the royal family, except the historical element of it.

But you're debating like a child and it makes you look incredibly silly...among other things.

[KPN]

11. Well ... I dunno. I think Harry spoke in general.

As a generalization, it was pretty legit and really quite insightful. Though, yeah, generalizations always oversimplify, like statistics — which typically fail to recognize the real significance of and to individuals in a cohort group.

[MustLoveBeagles]

12. What the hell are you talking about?

[BlackSkimmer]

29. No kidding.

Oprah scrubbed that off the internet pretty damn quick too.

Somehow they also managed to get the CNN piece that exposed the lies scrubbed also.

[luv2fly]

39. Hazmat and megain?

Okay so you like your cute little names for Harry and Meghan, which seems to make it clear you don't like them. So where's your proof of their lies please?

I won't be holding my breath.

[Hekate]

4. This should go viral

[unblock]

5. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised. But I am. Very insightful.

[SergeStorms]

6. A paywall for the Kremlin's propaganda farm.....

would look highly suspicious.

[llashram]

13. ++lies sell

to the willing...

[txwhitedove]

15. Indeed. For example, FOX News has been free over airways for too many years.

[dawn5651]

27. cbc is free. :) they are incredibly factual..

[Initech]

16. He speaks the truth!

[Pepsidog]

17. We are already at a huge structural disadvantage because of Fox and other rw media and any real

news is behind paywalls. It’s not like having WAPO and other new sources available to everyone will make a huge difference but it would help. There were probably 5 articles I wanted to read that I couldn’t because of paywalls. Even guys like Seth Abramson teases stories behind a paywall. I know Seth works like a dog a deserves to be compensated for his work but surely Dems can figure out how to compensate important news sources that are behind paywalls. What don’t we have our own Koch Brothers out there with canned progressive legislation.

[Budi]

19. Because we don't own the Corporate Media. Not TeeVee nor Social.

Nor do we have the full engagement of foreign enemies as those like the KOCHS have.

Nor would we.

[BlueJac]

18. Yes, money for nothing and lies for free!

[Picaro]

20. Wow

I really, really like that. that pretty much sums it all up.

[BobTheSubgenius]

21. That's a pretty astute observation on Harry's part.

As was stated, it's a generalization, but those kind of abound in the world of commentary. It takes a lot of words to create laser focus, and you speak to a smaller and smaller target as you narrow that focus.

[Poiuyt]

33. He should come to DU!

It's free!

[KY_EnviroGuy]

34. Harry is generally right but there are exceptions.

The Guardian UK was my emotional salvation during tRump's 2015-2016 circus of lies campaign. They were the only outlet I found that systematically documented and called out his lies week-by-week.

More accurate:

“Have you noticed online how the truth is too often paywalled but the lies are always free?”

KY

[Evolve Dammit]

36. He has a unique perspective and as much right to speak his mind as anyone. n/t

[2Gingersnaps]

41. Like FOX on basic cable,

which is why I cut the wire, will NOT contribute to that!