News Meghan markle, marrying harry and the invictus games only mentioned because if this

[LuckiLee]

Yeah. I understand that. Didn't say it was. Sorry for the confusion.

I hear alot about the games in my little world. But that's only because I try to follow veteran issues.

I don't watch any news myself. I try to follow certain people that I admire, respect and share certain values with.

Sorry if I offended.

 

[Never_falter2]

No, I am not offended by anything you said. I am a bit mad at our news papers because the think the sunglasses Markle wore are more important than the whole Invictus Games. How can they write an article going on about they were present at the Games without mentioning what kind of games it is?

And who cares for her glasses?

 

[Sideways]

I am a bit mad at our news papers because the think the sunglasses Markle wore are more important than the whole Invictus Games.

I can understand why this would make you pretty mad. What I think is frustrating is when the media assumes that we’re all only interested in what brand Markle’s sunnies are. Because if the media stopped treating everyone like we’re superficial idiots, there are definitely going to be some people out there, like you, likr me, who would be genuinely interested in the games if the media would only give them adequate coverage.

The thing about the young royals is none of this is accidental. Harry didn’t just so happen to want to take his fiance to the games and get sprung by cameras with her. She didn’t just happen to have spent 3 hours blow drying her hair beforehand. Their appearance would have been specifically intended, and planned, to bring media exposure to the games and the cause behind them. Despite the effort, the media is still just covering what MM was wearing? That’s pretty maddening.

 

[StarChild]

How can they write an article going on about they were present at the Games without mentioning what kind of games it is?

...Because the emphasis lies on them (Harry and Meghan) and on the fact, that they're engaged now, and will soon marry?...

What I think is frustrating is when the media assumes that

May I ask, how you know, what the media's assume? Or do you assume they (the media's) assume?.. Or maybe you read the wrong tabloids? As in fact since many years there IS information about the charity work of William and Harry. And what about the fact that "Demand determines supply"? - And no, @Ragdoll Circus, I truly don't want to annoy you, but rather raise a little smile on your face. (If that's the correct term in English...) Is

@Never_falter, before you became a supporter of a partner with PTSD, were you equally interested in all the things you are now, since you share your life with a military vet? It wouldn't be a shame if you weren't. Do you understand, what I try to illustrate?..

When reading all the posts on this thread, I really don't see the reason(s) to get miffed on a grand scale at the media for what they wrote, or what they didn't cover with their wish-wash. Is this really worth all the uproar? For in the end, it's the customer's, the readers demands, who "dictate" what news are of interest. "Demand Determines Supply!" Isn't that fact the main tier of business at all?

Just my 20-something cents..

 

[Never_falter2]

@TreeHugger: I see your point but I do think that you are still wrong :) No offense meant. Because how do we know about the big world there? Most people including me know lots of the things they know about because they hear about them from the media. For example without the media I had no idea that a country called China existed, that they speak Chinese over there and eat with chopsticks. So people depend on the media to inform them about the world.
If they do not know a thing exists there can be no demand to learn more about the things. Take @Freida for example. She never heard about the Invictus Games but now that she heard of them she is interested and there is the demand.

I have to add that I live in a country where there is a mandatory fee every household HAS TO pay for the media. If you say that you are not interested in what they broadcast does not matter, you still have to pay or you will end up in jail. This is however mostly used for TV and radio Programmes.... but on TV it is the same.... a whole lot of information about what a celebrity wore when attending X or Y event, but no information about Invictus Ganes, no information about mental health... and so on.

I am not sure if I had been so interested about Invictus Games and stuff like this before I met my guy. I guess not... but then I have been pretty stupid back then and SHOULD have been interested.

Oh, BTW I think it is two cents in the English language.

 

[Never_falter2]

@TreeHugger: I wanted to create a private conversation with you (just wanted to ask about a word you used) but it did not work out.

 

[Never_falter2]

@Ragdoll Circus: have to admit I know very little about Prince Harry/William/Kate and so. Personally I am opposed to monarchy and thankfully I do not live in one but it seems to me that Harry/William/Kate are doing great charity work and see themselves as the servants of their people rather than the other way around and I applaud that.
Maybe you are right and he purposefully chose the Invictus games to hold hands with her. If yes, it did not work out as he planned.

 

[scout86]

If I understand correctly, Prince Harry is largely responsible for creating the Invictus Games in the first place. It was definitely no accident that he was there. I suppose the media can make of that what they will. (I have a little trouble thinking of tabloids as the media. At least, I don't think of them as something I count on for accurate information.)

 

[Cyberluddite]

The Invictus Games aren't mentioned in my area either, which is odd considering we have friggin' CentCom about an hour north of us. We also have a lot of vets living here, too, from Vietnam Era to today.

But no, nothing on the news, radio, online, or papers about something this awesome and honorable. It would likely make us civvies see the human cost of war, up front and in real time, and that doesn't sell advertising spots.

Not the way a royal fairytale marriage does. Long story short, I don't know why either, the only celebrity dramas I have time for are telenovelas. At least Prince Harry's paying it forward, he'll do well as King.

 

[The Albatross]

Personally I thought this had a lot to do with UK media and their coverage of royalty. Lots of times worthy causes get lost in the dynamic of whether or not someone's divorced, "acceptable", or what they're friggin' wearing.

 

[anonymous]

I saw quite a lot of coverage of Invictus this year here in the US. Maybe it's the media outlets you're choosing to watch?

 

[Cyberluddite]

I saw quite a lot of coverage of Invictus this year here in the US. Maybe it's the media outlets you'...

Possibly, but whomever your cable provider is... please send them here. We're an intellectual wasteland.