They say bad things comes in threes, but for Meghan Markle that feels less of a superstitious happening and more of a targeted attack. This morning, following the news that she and Prince Harry had parted ways with Spotify, it was reported that Meghan’s heavily rumoured deal with Dior is not happening – and at the same time, she’s being torn apart for apparently ‘faking’ interviews on her Archetypes podcast.
Cue the endless tirade of sensational headlines. ‘Meghan Markle “is not signing big money Dior fashion deal” despite Spotify axe,’ one today reads. Why Spotify's big bet on Meghan fell flat,’ another states. ‘”Grifter” Meghan may have faked her podcast interviews,’ a third claims.
Reading them – and the many similar – you’d be forgiven for thinking that Meghan is in the midst of a full-on career meltdown. The stories about Spotify report rumours that she and Harry were sacked for not producing enough content, the headlines about Dior infer the luxury French fashion house have fobbed Meghan off much to her dismay and those ‘faking Archetypes interview claims’ further perpetuate the ‘fraud’ narrative birthed by tabloids way back when the smear campaign against her first began.
So, allow us to clear a few things up. First, Dior. Contrary to the headlines implying there was some kind of snub, both the Sussexes and Dior have come out to say there was never any truth to the rumours of a sponsorship deal between them. A source at Dior told The Telegraph that their team are ‘nonplussed as to how the story came about’ while a spokesperson for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle confirmed that the rumours are simply not true.
They were always speculation in the first place then, and yet somehow by merely confirming the speculation was misplaced, Meghan is at the centre of unnecessary headlines inferring she’s been rebuffed by a brand she’s known to adore.
Next, Archetypes. The award-winning podcast that once unseated Joe Rogan’s – Spotify’s consistently most listened to podcast – top spot would, as per very normal podcasting production, have a large team that contributes to bringing content together. That’s what producers are for, they ‘PRODUCE’ content. And yet, when you break down the headlines saying Meghan ‘faked’ interviews with guests, you’ll see that they’re simply referring to the fact producers on the show sometimes conducted interviews with guests and Meghan would dub her voice over questions afterwards.
Anyone involved in podcast production might tell you, it’s not out of the norm for producers to help interview people. It’s also not out of the norm for voiceovers to be dubbed in, corrected, or re-recorded after an interview – as is the same for TV production. It might not be typical for the content to them be put out as if it's a conversation, but with someone as high profile and busy as Meghan Markle we can surely make allowances for the occasional dubbed voiceover. It certainly doesn’t warrant a barrage of headlines called her a ‘fake’, nor is it even new information - journalist Alison Yarrow revealed last year that her interview on the show was conducted by producer Farrah Safarfi. So why has it come up now, and why is it being spun in such a foul way?
Finally, the Spotify deal. This is certainly more complex. While initially releasing a joint statement that the Sussexes and Spotify had ‘mutually agreed to part ways and are proud of the series [they] made together’, Spotify’s head of podcast innovation and monetisation, Bill Simmon’s, went on to refer to Harry and Meghan as ‘fucking grifters’ – fuelling speculation that the couple did not meet Spotify’s productivity benchmark for the £18milllion deal.
Simmon’s pointed to Harry in particular, saying on his podcast, the Bill Simmons podcast, ‘I have got to get drunk one night and tell the story of the Zoom I had with Harry to try and help him with a podcast idea. It’s one of my best stories.’
One should note that he had also previously expressed resentment at having to work with Harry at all. In a January 2022 episode of his podcast, he said: ‘You live in fucking Montecito, and you just sell documentaries and podcasts, and nobody cares what you have to say about anything unless you talk about the royal family, and you just complain about them.’
Not exactly their biggest fan anyway then, but what stands out most to me is Simmon’s issue with Harry in particular, and yet Meghan is bearing the brunt of the negative headlines about the deal falling through.
How is it fair that Meghan is being criticised when she created one of Spotify's most-listened to podcasts?
The woman whose podcast won awards, acquired legendary guests like Mariah Carey and Serena Williams, and debuted to an estimated 11million plus listeners (while listening figures aren’t released, Joe Rogan’s podcast is estimated to be heard by an average of 11million Spotify users per episode, and Archetypes threw him off the top podcast spot on Spotify just two days after the first episode dropped).
It seems unfair that Meghan’s work is being criticised, when the Duchess created one of the most listened to podcasts across the entire streaming platform. Few stories also mention the many other reasons the Sussexes could’ve parted ways with Spotify, including the suggestion by some experts that Harry and Meghan are following in Barack and Michelle Obama’s footsteps – who ended their contract with Spotify last year allegedly due to the exclusivity element of the contract (they didn’t want their podcast to only be available on Spotify).
The Obamas certainly didn’t face the same level of scrutiny when they parted ways with Spotify. Rather, headlines implied the complete opposite power dynamic, that the Obamas were the ones doing the ‘ditching’ as opposed to the other way round.
Why is it then that whenever the Sussexes make a business move, or announce new work, the headlines are always skewed in such a negative light? And more importantly, why is it always implied that Meghan is somehow to blame, or the one who has been snubbed? The most recent batch of three stories have all the marks of yet another smear campaign towards the mother-of-two.
From court cases with tabloids to Netflix documentaries about their decision to step back as senior royals and flee Britain, it is worth noting that the couple have gone to great length to demonstrate the emotional impact of this kind of relentless negativity, and the endless attempts to make Meghan seem manipulative or fraudulent.
We know it fuels abuse towards the couple, we know if makes Harry fearful for his family, and we know it has had a near-deadly impact on Meghan’s mental health. How can one contribute to such discourse with their conscience intact at this point?