ITV forced to edit Oprah Winfrey's interview due to fake news
 

embarrassing

https://s.abcnews.com/images/GMA/har...n_16x9_608.jpg

ITV forced to edit Oprah Winfrey's interview with Harry and Meghan after
including 'misleading' headlines

Associated Newspapers said the press clippings were distorted to portray British
coverage as racist

ITV has been forced to edit part of Oprah Winfrey's interview with the Duke
and Duchess of Sussex after it was revealed that it included misleading and
distorted headlines which portrayed British press coverage of the couple as racist.

Headlines that were flashed on the screen during the controversial interview
with the US chat show host were manipulated to back up the couple's the
couple's assertion that they were the victims of bigoted coverage.


Associated Newspapers, the publisher of The Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail and
MailOnline, complained to Viacom CBS – the US TV giant which aired last
week's two-hour programme – about “the deliberate distortion and doctoring
of newspaper headlines”.

It also demanded that ITV remove the “misleading and inaccurate headlines”
from the programme, which remains available on its ITV Hub catch-up
service, according to MailOnline.

In a complaint to CBS, Liz Hartley, editorial legal director at Associated
Newspapers, said: “Many of the headlines have been either taken out of
context or deliberately edited and displayed as supporting evidence for the
programme's claim that the Duchess of Sussex was subjected to racist
coverage by the British press.”

She added: "This editing was not made apparent to viewers and, as a result,
this section of the programme is both seriously inaccurate and misleading".

The programme showed a headline from The Daily Telegraph that read: 'The
real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn't speak our language.'

However, the second line of the headline, which was not shown, made clear

the article was not mocking the Duchess’s ethnicity, but her habit of using
“hippie corporate management speak”.

Another example, from January 2018, involved a story in The Mail on Sunday

which revealed how the girlfriend of the then Ukip leader Henry Bolton had
made racist remarks about Meghan.

Producers chose not to show the newspaper's headline about the 'Vile Racist
Attack' but instead used a small part of a MailOnline headline which quoted
one of the woman's vile messages – but omitted the rest of the headline.

An ITV spokesman said it would remove three manipulated Daily Mail,
MailOnline and Mail on Sunday headlines, plus a headline wrongly attributed
to the Guardian.

However, the out-of-context Daily Telegraph headline will remain.

Conservative MP Giles Watling, a member of the Commons Media Select
Committee, said: “Any future broadcasts of this interview should come with a
health warning for viewers.

“People need to know that what they are watching is not necessarily the
truth and, in the use of newspaper headlines, a complete distortion of the
facts.”

Ms Winfrey's company, Harpo Productions, said: “We stand by the broadcast
in its entirety”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-harry-meghan/

Not only did they doctor and use misleading headlines, but they failed to show any supportive ones in their Oprah montages - Examples of which accompany this article. Shows how sly and slanted the whole spectacle was really.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...AL-bigots.html

Racist? How the Mail on Sunday fell head over heels for Meghan the megastar... and exposed the REAL bigots and trolls who spread their vicious hatred for her

Published 23.26, 13 March 2021

She was described as a ‘megastar’ who ‘lit up the world’. If The Mail on Sunday harboured racist attitudes towards Meghan Markle, we had a peculiar way of expressing it.
Headline after headline in this newspaper before and after her fairytale wedding to Prince Harry reflected how the nation had become entranced by this dazzling figure who brought an exciting new dynamism to the Royal Family.
Reporting on the big day itself in 2018, The Mail on Sunday published 47 pages of glorious reports on how we hoped the clearly besotted couple would be, to quote our headline, ‘Harry Ever After’.
Yet any organisation would be naive to think that the Duchess had not experienced racism and other forms of abuse – and indeed this newspaper led the way in exposing those who attacked her.

Amid increasing Palace concern about the online abuse, we ran a series of exposés against those we uncompromisingly described as ‘cruel trolls who spew bile’ in late 2018 and early 2019.

These included a 23-year-old American legal assistant who called Meghan a ‘b***h’, and those who posted racist slurs on Kensington Palace’s Instagram, including the chilling use of knife emojis.
And we condemned the ‘shocking and disgusting’ slurs made by Jo Marney, the then girlfriend of former Ukip leader Henry Bolton….etc.

Just keeping up to date

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ishonesty.html

Truth? No, this is pure dishonesty
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT
PUBLISHED: 22:28, 13 March 2021

People who are convinced that they are right and good are immensely dangerous. They believe that their virtue allows them to behave outside the rules of truth or justice.
This must be the explanation of the extraordinary misrepresentation of this newspaper, and of the British popular press in general, during the CBS interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, screened in this country by ITV.

During the broadcast, a montage of supposed British newspaper headlines was shown. Many of them were in fact from non-UK publications.
But this was not the worst of it. The headlines, some of them not even real, were dishonestly displayed to suggest open racial bigotry aimed at the Duchess of Sussex.
Worst of all was a doctored headline, so distorted and cut that it suggested the very opposite of the truth.

This newspaper was actually attacking a series of revolting text messages, a racist assault on Ms Markle, sent by the girlfriend of the then Ukip leader (who resigned as a result of our report).

The presentation on CBS contrived to suggest that we were expressing the very things we were condemning.
How could CBS, once the home of the greatest and most principled of all American broadcasters, Edward R. Murrow, have sunk to such depths of distortion?

How could ITV, the inheritor of decades of superb news and current affairs broadcasting, have allowed itself to be used as a conduit for such televisual effluent?
No interpretation of the principle of free speech permits such behaviour. Those responsible should be identified and held to account.

The broadcasters should swiftly admit their wrongdoing, and apologise.

Wow that's a heck of a statement :laugh:.

In all seriousness though yes I do believe in the importance of journalistic integrity, and anything that has been misquoted for effect should be highlighted and addressed. Not a practice I would ever agree with.

However I disagree that in this case it has resulted in a massive distortion of the facts when it comes to the UK press relationship with Meghan Markle ... ... most of us were well aware of the general "slant" of the UK media on this topic long before any headlines were flashed up in the Oprah interview, and I doubt they've had a substantial impact on people's opinions on the topic. I don't believe for a second that "Whoa, look at those headlines!" was a pivotal moment for many people here... and ironically... trying to pretend that it was is also a dumb/dishonest/dangerous misrepresentation.

You don't expect deliberate falsehoods to be showed on a mainstream channel, social media yes, ITV no

It doesn't change the fact that the media have targeted Meghan by slating her for doing the same things they praise Kate for. It's dumb that the makers of the program couldn't be bothered to pull from the plethora of actual examples of the UK media's abuse, but none of it really has an effect on what Meghan said. It only undermines it for people who desperately want to undermine what was said.

That was one of my thoughts - there are so many clear examples that need no editing or distorting, that to have gone with these there HAS to be some element of simple... laziness? from the content producers. Not uncommon in the media of course, the most glaring example is the use of stock images that don't really represent the story, are years out of date, etc. as though they just throw a name into a search engine and use the first result. Lazy journalism.

Why is a piece of scum looking for a paycheck a news story?

Samantha Markle who hasn't been in contact with Megan in 13 years knows this, does she? :laugh:

"Samantha, who has accused Meghan of having 'narcissistic personality disorder"'

https://www.healthline.com/health/na...ality-disorder
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which people have an inflated opinion of themselves. They also have an intense need for the admiration and attention of others.
People with NPD may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they’re not given the praise or special favors they believe they deserve. Others may see them as snobbish and conceited, and may not enjoy being around them.
NPD can cause problems in many areas of life, including:
work
school
relationships

Samantha Markle is a piece of **** that is trying to build a career out of slating her own sister for profit. She's talking out of her arse and people are swallowing it because it's what they want to hear.

A grotesque human being.

So much nonsense is being fed to the public from all angles. It's just not an important story. Who even cares if they got divorced, it's not relevant to anyone but them

I'm sure many people are described as having "personality disorders" by their estranged family members who hold grudges about them. What exactly would qualify "Meghan's sister" to make this diagnosis? Is she a clinical psychologist?

Well this also, if they do get divorced it doesn't "mean" anything, about either of them. Divorce happens... in itself, it's not a moral indicator on anyone. All getting a bit Christian there, isn't it.

When you consider, 3 out of 4 of the Queens children are divorced and her sister........

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4105943/..._=nm_ov_bio_sm

Born Yvonne Marie Markle Markle but changed her name to Samantha in the 1990's. She also used the professional name of Grant in the entertainment industry as a broadcaster, actress, producer and writer. Samantha has work in the entertainment industry since 1984 as an on air talent, newscaster, and promotions and marketing director for several radio stations. She has a beard on television shows such as Matlock, General Hospital, a different world, ABC after school specials, and several commercials for television .

She has a bachelors degree in psychology and criminology, and a Masters degree in both mental health counseling and vocational rehabilitation counseling .

A more successful career than Meghan too really, unless being considered 'people know who you are' as successful.

Samantha Markle is so successful that she has to resort to selling stories and writing books about her more successful sister to make a few coins.

Fair enough. Although, as a mental health professional, she should know that you're not supposed to diagnose or treat friends or family, as it's both tainted by being too close to the subject, and unethical.

Samantha has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair

She hasn't known her for a very very long time, does not know her relationship and has never met Harry.

This is basic stuff.

...so an unqualified/personal ‘diagnosis’ to sell to Cosmopolitan Magazine from a relative that has no close relationship with Meghan..regardless of any of her qualifications it has no meaning at all beyond her own personal (and bias ...)...opinion....

Samantha Markle: 'She did a lot of damage to a man who gave her an incredible life - so hurtful, so wrong. She would need to make the first move and, I mean, you know, parents are always unconditionally loving but god, she really hurt him.'

I agree with her on this. He worked so hard to provide Meghan with the best education, cars, an apartment - she was always saying how great he was and what he had done for her, on her TIG blog - and he obviously doted on her.

She got on Suits, and after that he hardly heard from her, she gets with Harry, and imo its goodbye old man, you made a mistake, I have an excuse to be shot of you. Old men with big bellys and shirts from K Mart and don't fit my new lifestyle.

Imagine thinking you know someone's relationship with their own father better than them.

Vile stuff.