Harry and Meghan moved back to England several weeks ago, and the ongoing, relentless talk-and-commentary about the move is unbelievable.
But then, I think, well of course it's believable - this is what British newspapers and chat-videos always do constantly.
I guess the word "unbelievable" is a word that comes to my mind when I see some phenomenon as being kind of "a bit much." Or - as The Bard would call it, "much ado about nothing."
So - not literally "unbelievable." Rather - a lot.
Royal commentators and experts talk and talk, and then the listener finds herself or himself wondering, OK, what did they say?? What is the substance of all this?
Some critics say the various forms of media just take famous names and images, splatter them on paper or video or whatever, and build stories around them.
The stories come in several forms:
-- true, but exaggerated
-- there's a grain of truth, but the rest is made up
-- completely made up.
It would be like if I made up a story, right this minute, about someone famous: U.S. President Donald Trump is buying a library in China, and its shelves are going to be filled with books about him. (All complimentary, of course.)
Grains of truth: 1) The president of the U.S. is currently Donald Trump; 2) China is a country that exists.
The rest of that - I just made up.
This is an example of what they do. ...
And that is what a lot of what is published and recorded in England is: made up and put out there because people watch it or buy it. It's catering (pandering?) to an audience, for profit.
-----------------------------------------------
Listening to a video on You Tube titled "Why have the Sussexes suddenly decided to move back to the UK?" - one person on the panel spoke about the nature of the British press, saying -
"I think, if anything, the reaction from certain sections of the press who may have been sued in the past, some successfully, some unsuccessfully - it's going to be even worse.
You know, and that is an issue I'm not sure that they've completely taken on. Because, trust me, the U.S. media is extremely tame, compared to the U.K. press. So I don't know how that's going to be managed...."
-----------------------------------------------------
In order for us to contemplate the media in England, I want to have an excerpt, here, from The Diana Chronicles, written by Tina Brown.
----------------------- [excerpt] ------------- Just before Diana Spencer began to emerge so vividly into public life, a kind of journalistic global warming was altering the eco-balance between the British press and the British Royal Family.
The sunshine of publicity in which Diana would at first be happy to bask, posing and smiling for the cameras, grew steadily hotter and harsher.
As the superheated imperatives of an invasive press bumped up increasingly against the milder human necessity of privacy, scattered rains gave way to drenching gales and then to spectacular and finally lethal hurricanes.
The ultimate tragedy of the disaster in the Paris tunnel in 1997 was that Diana herself had accelerated the climate change that ended up making her life literally impossible.
For Americans used to local newspapers homogenized by the stingy monopolies of big chains and no national newspapers except the inoffensive USA Today, the staid national edition of the New York Times, and the staider Wall Street Journal, the volume and variety of the British print press feels bewilderingly promiscuous.
In 1980, there were ten national daily newspapers selling 20 million copies, more per capita than in any other country in the world....
Despite the advent of the Web, the Brits remain voracious newspaper readers, often buying more than one paper. That fact plus the country's compactness and newsstand culture make it impossible to ignore the daily blizzard of headlines, picked up immediately by television. ---------------- [end / excerpt]
-30-