If he was in the news we would be talking about him, there are several threads around the time of his car crash interview and when he was headlining if you care to look back

Good point

it’s very “DIVA MARIAH REFUSES TO STEP ON PAVEMENT”

People shouldn't wait for the news stories to tell them what to think, people should be outraged at what we know about Andrew, we should be demanding a full independent investigation, we should be demanding action for the Royal family protecting a peadophile, but no, there's some idle gossip about Meghan to be angry about and that's so much worse....

But he isn't in the news because he's being protected and it's swept under the carpet, that's the point which vile and disgusting. I seriously doubt this amout of obsession and hateful energy that Meghan gets will happen to Andrew.

It's so typical of the UK. 'Rupert Murdoch isn't telling us to be mad about it, so we're not mad about it.'

I know what you are saying. Can you imagine though, if all this had surfaced prior to the Wedding, just imagine the Racial accusations that would have been made. I believe it IF it did happen it was hush hushed to protect her....and since the Royals are now being accused (it looks like) of not protecting her and silencing her...its a bit of a kick in the teeth for the others involved at the time.

It's worrying behaviour.

There's also more important stuff going on than Meghan Markle doing an interview who is also pregnant and will be attacked on international women's day.

Much as I'm skeptical of the GBP on a wide range of topics, and I don't think this is entirely wrong, I would say in this case it's one playing into the other - the public aren't disinterested in stories about Andrew, they would lap up those front pages, but the media NOTICEABLE shy away from it. It's "there" because they couldn't get away with not reporting on it at all, but there is a clear effort on their part to keep the reporting on him to a minimum. Someone has their grubby fingers all over it (and not just Andrew). Whereas Meghan is clearly considered "press fair game". Partly because she's female, I'm sure, but in this case I think the clear major difference is that she's "not actually Royal Blood". Same two reasons she has to soak up most criticism of Harry, as well as her own.

If you mean Andrew, its her husbands Uncle, not brother.

Well yeah, that too! :laugh:

It also amazes me how people can whine about Meghan doing an interview during a pandemic but don't really say anything about Piers Morgan Life Stories where other celebrities talk about their troubles during a pandemic

But it's the public's fault for not demanding more, we should be outraged but we aren't, because Rupert Murdoch's telling us to hate Meghan more and the people are complying because they love being told what to think.

If the public demanded it, the media would listen, but the public would rather hate a black princess than be mad about a peadophile in plain view.

Because they aren't being told to hate those other people.

See this is what I mean, it feels like plausible deniability. They'll drip out a story about Andrew occasionally for the public to devour, because if they stayed COMPLETELY silent people would point out that it's obviously being covered up deliberately... they give out just enough so they can say "See? We DO report on Andrew as well it is all totally fair and equal!" when actually it's a bit of story every few months and then blatant radio silence/more "Meghan was a bit mean to staff" stories. When another Royal family member has been rubbing shoulders with literal child sex traffickers. And we're supposed to consider Harry and Meghan the villains for having bad things to say about the "poor old Royal Family"? It's a joke.

Maybe because its a Meghan thread...:shrug:

I honestly don't know. The mainstream papers and television channels are largely controlled by an alarmingly tiny group of people, and I would imagine that the people at the top of Royal PR have their direct phone numbers. The press knows that an extensive piece slamming Andrew would be an absolute gold mine... IMO there simply must be other reasons that they keep coverage to a minimum.

Honestly, I used to be mostly apathetic about the royals but now I'm pretty much for abolishing the whole ****ing thing. Our tax money is going to them slinging mud and defending peadophillia, bring the whole ****ing family down.

Oh realllyyy :rolleyes:

Sounds like a load of BS to me ,why protect her then to now throw her under the bus ?? .

Either way the palace has shown themselves up in all this, and they look very undignified and it's frankly embarrassing.

But if the anger was truly there from the public, they couldn't ignore it for long, and would have to cater for it. People simply respond to hating Meghan more than Andrew.

Just pointing out double standards :wavey: but you obviously dont have an issue with it otherwise you wouldn't watch it.

true

All this drama over one person when there's more important and more interesting stuff going on in the world is just silly. Take me back to 2007 when Katie Price was everywhere in the media at least that wasn't as bad.

my bad, yes

I'm not sure any of this will achieve the privacy they desire, it seems to be making things worse as for the press and media, that's some hornets nest to prod, they can be merciless.

are you saying that there is no other stuff covered on

all of social media

all network tv

all online newspapers

all print newspapers

all radio

?

they are not covering ALL news??


what stuff is NOT being covered??