Here's What The Media Should Be Asking Prince Harry | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Media

Here’s What The Media Should Be Asking Prince Harry

Published

2 years ago

 on

Believe it or not, many important questions still remain unanswered.

You don’t have to be a royal watcher to know that Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle are at odds with the British Royal Family. From Harry and Meghan’s bombshell Oprah interview in March 2021, to their Netflix docuseries released in December, to Prince Harry’s recently published memoir Spare and all the accompanying press, there has been an avalanche of revelations and accusations lodged against Harry’s family.

The result has been an all-too-familiar polarization, as many onlookers proclaim themselves either Team Harry or Team William. Team Sussex or Team Wales. The mainstream media has only fed this frenzied divide with one side providing a platform for the Sussexes, giving them little to no pushback on their incendiary and sometimes inconsistent claims, while the other side ruthlessly attacks them, showing them no mercy or empathy. 

As a progressive Democrat who happens to also be a royalist, I can’t help but also notice that debate has become politicized. Why is this? And why have so many lost the ability to see nuance or shades of gray? Can’t we acknowledge that Harry and Meghan have suffered legitimate pain and endured racist attacks without believing they should be immune from all criticism and accountability? Can’t we believe that Harry and Meghan have the right to share their truth, while understanding that it isn’t necessarily the truth? Can’t we want this couple to find happiness in America, while also feeling weary of seeing them on every news outlet and social media platform? Can’t we have empathy for their feelings but also believe that many people in the world have it much worse than they—and aren’t getting paid millions upon millions to share their pain?

A good start to finding this gray area our society so desperately needs would be for an esteemed journalist to take on the challenge, Barbara Walters-style. Let Harry and Meghan tell their story, in their own words, but also come to the interview prepared, with an understanding of the institution and its history, as well as the timeline and the facts in question. Ask fair but tough questions and be unafraid to ask follow-up questions. The answers might not change hearts or minds of their most staunch supporters and critics, but the discussion would certainly shed light on what is a very complicated family drama. Here are the questions I think they should ask.

You mention in the preface to Spare that your father and William didn’t know why you felt the urgent need to leave the U.K., and that the book was a vehicle to explain to them. Was reconciliation one of the goals of the book? In hindsight, do you think you have increased the probability of reconciliation or has sharing it with the world jeopardized reconciliation?  Why didn’t you share your written story with your family without publishing it?

Some have criticized you for keeping your royal titles. In the Netflix series, you mentioned offering to give those up during discussions about your leaving working royal life. Did you see any symbolism in giving up your titles to show true independence from the monarchy? What has prevented you from following through on that? Do you eventually plan on relinquishing your royal titles? Why or why not?

You have claimed that your father and his wife have leaked stories to the press. Have you ever leaked anything to the press? Did you tell Gayle King about your conversation with William following the Oprah interview? Has Omid Scobie ever Tweeted criticisms of Harry’s family with your knowledge or at your request? In your mind, is there a difference between leaking the truth?

Can you see why the Royal Family may not have wanted to engage in further private conversations with you, knowing that your Netflix series and memoir were on the horizon? Can you see how those media deals could have impeded productive talks towards a resolution with your family?

In Spare, you recount an argument you had with William where he stated that Meghan is “difficult, rude and abrasive”. You say that this wasn’t “the first time he parroted the press narrative” and “lies from his team.” Do you truly believe that William’s opinion was solely based on the press narrative, or is it possible that this is William’s actual opinion of her based on firsthand experiences? You seem to believe all criticism of your wife is rooted in either jealousy or unconscious bias. Can you acknowledge that there may have been interactions with Meghan that could have rubbed him the wrong way, whether you agree or not?

Regarding Archie’s skin color, you seemed to imply in the Oprah interview that your family—or at least one member of your family — is racist. Yet recently, you told a British journalist that neither of you ever called your family racist — that that claim came from the media. When you saw these stories, what prevented you from challenging the narrative? You have been very clear of your unhappiness when your family fails to correct mistruths in the media. How is this situation different?

The press accused Meghan of making Catherine cry. Meghan explained her side to Oprah—and said that it was the other way around: Catherine made her cry. What made you want to rehash this in the book? Are you aware that the press recreated a text exchange between the two women? Will you acknowledge that that wasn’t an actual exchange? And if it was a verbatim account, how is this different than the press publishing Meghan’s father’s letter without her permission?

You have said in interviews that pre-dated your meeting Meghan that you were happy to be “the spare.” Was this untrue at the time or did your feelings change with hindsight and/or therapy?

You have claimed that certain courtiers have gone out of their way to protect senior members of your family while being unwilling to do the same for you. Based on some of the more salacious accounts in your book, would you agree that the palace courtiers did a pretty good job protecting many of your details from leaking? Is that a fair assessment? Have you ever benefited from these courtiers?

Isn’t it true that Jason Knauf, while working on your behalf as the Communications Secretary in the office at Kensington Palace, issued a statement in November 2016 stating that Meghan had been “subject to a wave of abuse and harassment” from the media? The statement also pointed out “the racial undertones of comment pieces” along with “the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.” Would you say this was an unusually strong statement issued by a palace official?

There are reports that certain family members, including Sophie, Countess of Wessex, offered to help Meghan acclimate to her role in the British Royal Family. Is this true? If so, to what extent did Meghan accept their help? If not, why did she refuse it?

You and Meghan told Oprah that you married three days before your actual televised wedding. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury denied that this happened. What’s the truth?

Meghan told Oprah that Archie wasn’t given a title and went on to imply that this had something to do with debate around his skin color. But isn’t true that your cousins’ children, who are also great-grandchildren of The Queen, were similarly not given titles? What was the reason for that? Do you think your children would be given titles if they were not biracial?

In 2016, you, William and Catherine launched the Heads Together campaign which focused on ending the stigma surrounding mental health. In 2017, while speaking at Leeds Leads, you reiterated your commitment to encouraging people to seek help for mental health problems. Two years later, in 2019, William, Catherine, you and Meghan backed Shout, a text messaging service for people experiencing a mental health crisis, with £3m from your Royal Foundation. However, it was recently revealed that Meghan was experiencing a significant mental health crisis of her own in 2019 and you said that you were ashamed to tell anyone in the royal family because you didn’t know if they would have the same feelings and thoughts as you and that, ultimately, you felt you had no one to turn to. Given that you and William spent so much time speaking about and promoting the importance of mental health, why did you think your family wouldn’t be understanding of what Meghan was experiencing? In addition, why didn’t you or Meghan turn to Heads Together or Shout for the critical, immediate help she needed?

During your first primetime interview in March of 2021, you said that when you introduced Meghan to your family in 2016, she was far better received than you anticipated. You went further, adding that your father, brother, Catherine, and the rest of the family were really welcoming and that their behavior towards Meghan did not change until after your South Pacific tour. However, in Spare you write that when you introduced Meghan to your family, William was skeptical, disdainfully referring to her as an “American actress”, and that other members of your family were uneasy, as well. Clearly, you can see how the differences between these two accounts can be confusing. Can you explain the disparity between your differing accounts?

You claim your father cut you off financially. The media has reported that you were given monies until major deals were signed and your family knew you could afford security. Did you receive any funds from your family following your departure?

There is an inherent tension between the concepts of privacy and control. In terms of wanting privacy, is it fair to say that by publicly taking control of your own narrative, you have negatively impacted your ability to have a private life?  Do you agree that part of having a public life (while receiving the perks that go along with it) is dealing with the media and releasing some control over your narrative?

You mention efforts you have made towards reconciliation with your family. Can you give specific examples? How do you plan to regain that trust with your family? Conversely, is it possible for your family to regain your trust? If so, how?

The Dalai Lama once said, “When you think everything is someone’s fault, you will suffer a lot. When you realize that everything springs only from yourself, you will learn both peace and joy.” What is your definition of peace and joy? Now that you and Meghan have shared your truths with your family and the world, do you think that you will be able to move on to your next chapter of life focusing on peace and joy?

Emily Giffin is a #1 New York Times bestselling author of eleven novels, including Something Borrowed and Meant to Be. She’s also an avid royal watcher. Follow her on instagram for more royal commentary: @emilygiffinauthor

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 20, 2024

By

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version