New Sussex project with Netflix re polo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a peak into the Meghan hate ecosystem and the crazies who participate. It's a guy writing about his wife who fell deep into Reddit hate subs about Meghan (he confirms in the comments that she's the black celeb his wife spends her days targeting). His wife quit her job to spend all day online in hate groups, she's ignoring their kid, and he's considering divorce.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PopularCultureZone/comments/1qs8ron/crazy_reddit_story_man_seeks_divorce_after_wife/

Others in the comments talk about the hate culture itself, and how people (mostly women) online or in their lives spend entire days online just creating and passing on hateful rumors about the Sussexes.

It's useful context for those of you wondering what's up with hate-ridden pp.

Some quotes, don't just take it from me.

"The SMM subreddit is an alarming window into the conservative conspiracy-sphere. They’ve created a misogynoir mythology around Markle and somehow shoehorned her into the “classic” old conspiracy theories like NWO, WEF, and QAnon. Many of them are clearly hardcore Trumpists, but Trump and the Epstein files get a pass. Instead, Meghan is a human trafficker and had sex with Andrew. That’s the level of delusion this dude is dealing with here. Bummer for him and his marriage."

"Yeah. Some of those people post and comment dozens of times every day. There’s now a cottage industry of YouTube hate and clickbait entirely devoted to Markle, probably because of the strength of that sub’s vitriol, and they’re proud of that. Like they’re investigative journalists or something."

Let me ask if the Saint Meghan Markle sub posts a video that Meghan posted - let's say her oft repeated story about the dish detergent letter- and they snark on it - is it then a "conspiracy?" Is is possible to be legitinately tired of her self promotion without "conspiring?"

Wow, you actually went there. SMM is one of the hate subs, RG being another. Thanks for letting us know where you spend your time.

Obviously snark is not hate. But SMM goes waaaay beyond snark and deep into crazy rumors.

For example, you'll read on the daily on SMM about how Meghan's children aren't actually hers. Didja know she wore a moon bump to fake pregnancy, and these kids belong to a woman in northern California who lets Meghan borrow them for her Insta? Didja know Meghan stole crown jewels? About how she hypnotized poor Harry who is an idiot, of course, and definitely not Charles' son? I haven't been to SMM in ages, in fact I was just there once, I stuck my toe in, and left in horror. But off the top of my head, this is the sort of stuff I saw, and it's the sort of stuff people are talking about in the links I gave. It's dishonest to call it "snark."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2026/03/18/royal-family/netflix-ceo-ted-sarandos-wont-talk-to-meghan-markle-without-lawyer-report/

Here is your source for Netflix prez not talking to the Megster without an attorney. But sure they are the best of friends!

Murdoch's Page 6, that bastion of probity and truth, for the win!

But seriously, did you read your own link? The denial is right in your article.

"But a Netflix spokesperson told Variety that the claims are “absolutely inaccurate.” Markle’s attorney, Michael J. Kump, echoed that statement in a letter to the outlet, saying, “This is blatantly false. In fact, Meghan texts and speaks with Mr. Sarandos regularly, and has been to his home, sans lawyers.”"

OK but Variety still reported it and they are one of the respected sources in entertainment. If someone was willing to say it to a Variety reporter there is a good chance it is true and they are sending a message to Meghan to stop calling and texting Ted and wife.

I think you should really sit back and consider if the bolded is likely to be true. Really think about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2026/03/18/royal-family/netflix-ceo-ted-sarandos-wont-talk-to-meghan-markle-without-lawyer-report/

Here is your source for Netflix prez not talking to the Megster without an attorney. But sure they are the best of friends!

Murdoch's Page 6, that bastion of probity and truth, for the win!

But seriously, did you read your own link? The denial is right in your article.

"But a Netflix spokesperson told Variety that the claims are “absolutely inaccurate.” Markle’s attorney, Michael J. Kump, echoed that statement in a letter to the outlet, saying, “This is blatantly false. In fact, Meghan texts and speaks with Mr. Sarandos regularly, and has been to his home, sans lawyers.”"

OK but Variety still reported it and they are one of the respected sources in entertainment. If someone was willing to say it to a Variety reporter there is a good chance it is true and they are sending a message to Meghan to stop calling and texting Ted and wife.

Variety is owned by MAGA-adjacent Murdoch (Page 6 again!) friend Jay Penske. What's fascinating is that Penske also owns Deadline, which published the strongly-worded denial to Variety's piece.

Of course, Deadline's rebuttal (link in the OP) ran after Sarandos' Chief Content Officer flatly denied the Variety piece. “We still have a relationship with them,” Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria said last week at the Next on Netflix event when asked by Deadline about the duo’s workings with the global streamer, brushing off reports that Netflix may be “done” with them. “We have movies in development with them. We have an amazing doc with them. They have things in development on the TV and film side. Deals come and go all the time, and we don’t renew so many deals, those just don’t get as much press for obvious reasons. There’s no juicy story there.”

For those of you wondering if there really is an industrial-scale press-racists-right-wing hate campaign against Meghan Markle, the Variety piece, and the weirdness around it, is a good example and a good place to start. Also, PP being on SMM will have been well aware that Netflix denied the Variety piece, yet pp still cites it as gospel--very typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2026/03/18/royal-family/netflix-ceo-ted-sarandos-wont-talk-to-meghan-markle-without-lawyer-report/

Here is your source for Netflix prez not talking to the Megster without an attorney. But sure they are the best of friends!

Murdoch's Page 6, that bastion of probity and truth, for the win!

But seriously, did you read your own link? The denial is right in your article.

"But a Netflix spokesperson told Variety that the claims are “absolutely inaccurate.” Markle’s attorney, Michael J. Kump, echoed that statement in a letter to the outlet, saying, “This is blatantly false. In fact, Meghan texts and speaks with Mr. Sarandos regularly, and has been to his home, sans lawyers.”"

OK but Variety still reported it and they are one of the respected sources in entertainment. If someone was willing to say it to a Variety reporter there is a good chance it is true and they are sending a message to Meghan to stop calling and texting Ted and wife.

I think you should really sit back and consider if the bolded is likely to be true. Really think about it.

🎯. Variety runs a lot of anonymous sources that seem to be from "my cousin's hairdresser's brother who parked in Netflix's parking lot once." None of the so-called sources in the Variety piece are named. By contrast, the Deadline piece relies on a quote from Netflix' absolutely-named chief content officer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2026/03/18/royal-family/netflix-ceo-ted-sarandos-wont-talk-to-meghan-markle-without-lawyer-report/

Here is your source for Netflix prez not talking to the Megster without an attorney. But sure they are the best of friends!

Murdoch's Page 6, that bastion of probity and truth, for the win!

But seriously, did you read your own link? The denial is right in your article.

"But a Netflix spokesperson told Variety that the claims are “absolutely inaccurate.” Markle’s attorney, Michael J. Kump, echoed that statement in a letter to the outlet, saying, “This is blatantly false. In fact, Meghan texts and speaks with Mr. Sarandos regularly, and has been to his home, sans lawyers.”"

OK but Variety still reported it and they are one of the respected sources in entertainment. If someone was willing to say it to a Variety reporter there is a good chance it is true and they are sending a message to Meghan to stop calling and texting Ted and wife.

Variety is owned by MAGA-adjacent Murdoch (Page 6 again!) friend Jay Penske. What's fascinating is that Penske also owns Deadline, which published the strongly-worded denial to Variety's piece.

Of course, Deadline's rebuttal (link in the OP) ran after Sarandos' Chief Content Officer flatly denied the Variety piece. “We still have a relationship with them,” Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria said last week at the Next on Netflix event when asked by Deadline about the duo’s workings with the global streamer, brushing off reports that Netflix may be “done” with them. “We have movies in development with them. We have an amazing doc with them. They have things in development on the TV and film side. Deals come and go all the time, and we don’t renew so many deals, those just don’t get as much press for obvious reasons. There’s no juicy story there.”

For those of you wondering if there really is an industrial-scale press-racists-right-wing hate campaign against Meghan Markle, the Variety piece, and the weirdness around it, is a good example and a good place to start. Also, PP being on SMM will have been well aware that Netflix denied the Variety piece, yet pp still cites it as gospel--very typical.

And a quick apology. I'm fascinated by the media, media ownership, and how the biased media is in the process of destroying our country. The Meghan hit pieces run by MAGA-adjacent media folks are a typical example that's useful because people get it immediately, and they get the implications for truth immediately. (And this example is especially useful on this thread!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a peak into the Meghan hate ecosystem and the crazies who participate. It's a guy writing about his wife who fell deep into Reddit hate subs about Meghan (he confirms in the comments that she's the black celeb his wife spends her days targeting). His wife quit her job to spend all day online in hate groups, she's ignoring their kid, and he's considering divorce.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PopularCultureZone/comments/1qs8ron/crazy_reddit_story_man_seeks_divorce_after_wife/

Others in the comments talk about the hate culture itself, and how people (mostly women) online or in their lives spend entire days online just creating and passing on hateful rumors about the Sussexes.

It's useful context for those of you wondering what's up with hate-ridden pp.

Some quotes, don't just take it from me.

"The SMM subreddit is an alarming window into the conservative conspiracy-sphere. They’ve created a misogynoir mythology around Markle and somehow shoehorned her into the “classic” old conspiracy theories like NWO, WEF, and QAnon. Many of them are clearly hardcore Trumpists, but Trump and the Epstein files get a pass. Instead, Meghan is a human trafficker and had sex with Andrew. That’s the level of delusion this dude is dealing with here. Bummer for him and his marriage."

"Yeah. Some of those people post and comment dozens of times every day. There’s now a cottage industry of YouTube hate and clickbait entirely devoted to Markle, probably because of the strength of that sub’s vitriol, and they’re proud of that. Like they’re investigative journalists or something."

Wow, that is wild.

This makes me think of a conversation I had with a colleague years ago (like 2007ish) about Hillary Clinton. We were talking about the level of hate Hillary seemed to engender in some people and how it would impact her presidential campaign. We stumbled onto the idea that it seemed like a lot of people just *need* a prominent woman to direct anger and hate towards. It didn't really matter if the woman had done anything wrong or deserved the hate, they just needed a woman to be mad at at, and at the time it seemed that Hillary was that woman. If only we'd understood how far that hate would eventually go.

I think Meghan is that woman for a lot of people now. Bizarrely. At least Hillary was running for president at the time, there was a reason for people to be evaluating her at least. Meghan isn't doing anything that impacts anyone's life at all. No question race is part of the fixation, though combined with her marrying a prominent white man is part of that too.

I wish people who feel rage just thinking about her would get therapy to examine where that rage comes from. Why Meghan? It's fine not to like her, everyone has opinions about celebs. But the rage, what is the source? Imagine if we could figure out where this need to target and destroy certain public women comes from, and treat it. It's like there's this deep emotional wound. What is it??? I am not sure I'll ever understand.

Yes, I remember Hilary Clinton's cookies, that was wild, too. Throw racism or a presidential run into the equation, and the hate gets turbocharged.

I have no answer to your question about why women are so often the target of irrational, rabid hate like this. Perhaps their therapists have insight into what's going on in their lives.

Meanwhile, labeling this could help. Misogynoir is a start, but it only applies to Meghan (I can hear it now... but, but, she's not really black!) and not people like Hillary. "Troll" captures some of it, but not the rabid hate. This needs some thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2026/03/18/royal-family/netflix-ceo-ted-sarandos-wont-talk-to-meghan-markle-without-lawyer-report/

Here is your source for Netflix prez not talking to the Megster without an attorney. But sure they are the best of friends!

Murdoch's Page 6, that bastion of probity and truth, for the win!

But seriously, did you read your own link? The denial is right in your article.

"But a Netflix spokesperson told Variety that the claims are “absolutely inaccurate.” Markle’s attorney, Michael J. Kump, echoed that statement in a letter to the outlet, saying, “This is blatantly false. In fact, Meghan texts and speaks with Mr. Sarandos regularly, and has been to his home, sans lawyers.”"

OK but Variety still reported it and they are one of the respected sources in entertainment. If someone was willing to say it to a Variety reporter there is a good chance it is true and they are sending a message to Meghan to stop calling and texting Ted and wife.

Variety is owned by MAGA-adjacent Murdoch (Page 6 again!) friend Jay Penske. What's fascinating is that Penske also owns Deadline, which published the strongly-worded denial to Variety's piece.

Of course, Deadline's rebuttal (link in the OP) ran after Sarandos' Chief Content Officer flatly denied the Variety piece. “We still have a relationship with them,” Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria said last week at the Next on Netflix event when asked by Deadline about the duo’s workings with the global streamer, brushing off reports that Netflix may be “done” with them. “We have movies in development with them. We have an amazing doc with them. They have things in development on the TV and film side. Deals come and go all the time, and we don’t renew so many deals, those just don’t get as much press for obvious reasons. There’s no juicy story there.”

For those of you wondering if there really is an industrial-scale press-racists-right-wing hate campaign against Meghan Markle, the Variety piece, and the weirdness around it, is a good example and a good place to start. Also, PP being on SMM will have been well aware that Netflix denied the Variety piece, yet pp still cites it as gospel--very typical.

If they really wanted her they would not have given the kiss off to "As Ever" and they would have taken up the distribution of thd Girl Scout movie. What product or film from Markle is currently producing any income at Netflix?

[Anonymous]

They are so close that Bajaria unfollowed Meghan on Instagram.They are really tight and doing business every day.

[Anonymous]

Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are so close that Bajaria unfollowed Meghan on Instagram.They are really tight and doing business every day.

Sarandos and Bajaria never followed Meghan in the first place. This is fake news. But if you try google it, Page 6 and the SMM racist hate sub come up, quelle surprise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are so close that Bajaria unfollowed Meghan on Instagram.They are really tight and doing business every day.

Sarandos and Bajaria never followed Meghan in the first place. This is fake news. But if you try google it, Page 6 and the SMM racist hate sub come up, quelle surprise!

Please tell me how much revenue in US dollars Netflix currently earns on Markle productions and products.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

Alternatively, one may dislike Meghan, Lively, and Maxwell all at the same time because people are capable of thinking about more than one thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

Alternatively, one may dislike Meghan, Lively, and Maxwell all at the same time because people are capable of thinking about more than one thing.

But why do Meghan and Lively generate pages and pages and pages of hateful commentary about everything from their hair and clothes to conspiracy theories about the sexuality of their husbands or the parentage of their children, but Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker, does not?

A huge portion of what is posted online about Markle, Lively, Heard, and other women is simply false, or speculation, or blatantly misogynist (and in Meghan's case racist) yet the machine keeps rolling and producing this content. Yet you don't find these conversations about Maxwell. Meanwhile, you can find online forums dedicated to exonerating Harvey Weinstein.

You can't see it because you participate in it. The rage machine has you by the throat. And you like it.