Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Monday 27 July 2020

Mail Sussex Smear POINTLESS

The Daily Mail has a track record of defaming those in the public eye, and some who are less well known, because it can: even if the paper has to pay costs and damages as a result, it will most likely profit from whatever deal it cuts with its targets when sales and advertising revenue is factored in. Also, the paper likes to up the ante with those who take it to court, by publishing lots of knocking copy about them.
This emphasises the “sue us if you think you’re hard enough” approach. Those who take the Mail to the cleaners must be prepared to have their lives raked over, and very publicly. This willingness to give its targets the print equivalent of what The Italian Job’s Mr Bridger called “A good going over” also extends to going after those who sue its Sunday stablemate. So it is with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Which brings us to today’s lamentably weak Daily Mail front page splash. Under the faux-dramatic headline “NO WAY BACK FOR HARRY AND MEGHAN … As bombshell book lays bare their bitter rift with Royal Family, sources warn of devastating consequences”. More devastating for the papers not getting stories about them, more like.

The supporting article is all nudges and winks. “The couple have 'torpedoed' any chance of creating a new position with the help of the Queen and senior royals when their 'trial period' in the US ends, sources believe … The revelations will also harm efforts to repair their rift with Harry's brother William and sister-in-law Kate, it is feared … A royal household source saidAnother source told the Mail”. A Source Said.

We get “According to one friend quoted in the book” twice (sack the Sub!), followed by “Around the time of their first encounter, Meghan started following Prince Harry’s private Instagram account which used the handle @SpikeyMau5”. Well, it can’t have been very private, can it? But do go on. “Meghan’s phone was also said to be full of photos”. Christ on a bike, was it or wasn’t it? Oh, and “They continued their relationship in secret”.
Which is another way of saying that it’s not fair, because the Mail didn’t get to find out. But the dead giveaway comes from former Screws and Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, now also at Mail Online, sneeringIt’s hard to think of anyone in public life right now more relentlessly miserable, angry and negative than the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”.

And then following up with “Barely a week goes by without them whining about something or suing people”. Because that’s what it’s about, isn’t it? Never mind Morgan whining on about “narcissism” (pot, kettle), “ego-driven pique” (see his appearances on ITV Good Morning Britain for a guide on that one) and “pathetically self-pitying” (ditto).

The Sussexes have decided to sue Associated Newspapers. So not only are Associated Newspapers contesting the action, their journalists are giving the couple a little softening up on the side. Were they to talk to the Mail, give them some access and call off their lawsuit, all would be well for them. Thus the nature of the bullying, coercive beast.

Problem is, there won’t be any calling off of the lawsuit, any talking nice, or any access. The press, and especially the Mail, has lost one of its nicest little earners, it’s not coming back, and slagging the Sussexes off won’t change that. Deal with it, press people.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at



gillette said...

Love the Morgan quote. Tried looking in a mirror Piers?

Arnold said...

"It’s a hill of half-baked beans and one long howl of childish petulance: JAN MOIR on the Meghan and Harry biography that has put the whinge into Windsor"

Unknown said...

Love it nice and wisely said

Jonathan said...

Whilst the Sieg Heil defend 'Randy Andy' and his inability to sweat and his reluctance to provide verbal testimony to the New York prosecutors..

Why would the Sieg Heil be covering for Randy Andy?

Anonymous said...