The quotes that never make it: A small guide to big bias in celebrity news
I’m often asked to comment on celebrity stories, a public apology, a rumoured split, a business pivot, or a dramatic unfollow that sparks speculation. I usually say yes, but I don’t try to treat it like a PR opportunity for myself. I go in with the aim of offering fair insight, not a headline. And when the journalist explains to me the situation they’re writing on, and after I’ve had a moment to research it. I never assume the version of events already printed is the full picture. I’ve worked in PR long enough to know how often the reality behind the scenes is completely different.
Some particular publications have asked for proof of the calibre of clients I’ve worked with before accepting me into their contributor pool. With full client permission, I’ve occasionally shared this privately, purely to verify my experience. This led to other publications reaching out to me, knowing those publications did the due diligence.
Of course, having your name out there can be useful. Especially in an industry where I don’t advertise clients or confirm who I represent. But working in PR, I’m well aware that headlines come from drama, not balance. So when I give a nuanced view over a 20-minute phone call, I keep my expectations very low. I’m never offended if my comments aren’t used in whatever piece.
When I have been dropped, I’ve seen that they’ve gone with someone else in the PR industry who was happy to go in harder, brutal and make it personal. Good on them, but I’d never do it myself. I know that costs me some free marketing. But if being printed means I have to come across like an arsehole… or worse in my opinion, like someone who just blindly believes whatever’s been written, I’m not sure it’s doing me any favours anyway.
Especially when I know from experience it’s rarely that simple behind the scenes. I can’t imagine a public figure or brand reading it and thinking, “Yes, let’s hire the PR girl who slags off everyone in the press.”
When balance doesn’t sell: The Meghan Markle example
A recent example was a piece I contributed to about Meghan Markle’s lifestyle brand… Particularly about her jam, gripping stuff. The questions were about transparency, authenticity, and whether the branding aligned with the actual product produced. I gave thoughtful, fair answers. I said the secrecy wasn’t surprising, because in high-profile launches it’s standard to use NDAs, especially when partnerships, suppliers or manufacturing details are involved. The only challenge is when you also try to sell warmth, openness and intimacy. If the story (like in this case) is about “homemade” wholesome jam and Sunday rituals, but the reality is a full-scale commercial operation, the contrast I suppose can create a tension… Or a filler newspaper story for easy clicks.
I also made it clear to the journalist this is nothing unusual. I’ve worked on celebrity brands where the products were manufactured in large facilities and dressed up with personal backstories and handwritten labels. In the US, food products like jam legally have to be made in certified kitchens. You can’t produce and sell them from a home kitchen once you're scaling nationally. That’s not scandalous. It’s just how the industry works. Also, who is actually believing Meghan is in her kitchen personally making you, the pot of $30 jam.
What Meghan is doing is entirely standard. In fact, she’s doing everything correctly. She’s using the same emotional cues everyone else does to build a narrative and brand identity. And maybe she was involved in the process, maybe she wasn’t. Either way, it’s marketing. But because her name’s attached, the reaction is harsher. The same strategy that gets called smart elsewhere is labelled dishonest when she does it.
The kindest responses from journalists still don’t get printed
The latest example genuinely made me laugh. I sent in a balanced response for them.
The journalist kindly replied saying it was thoughtful, helpful and exactly the kind of perspective they were looking for. Which, of course, is always the giveaway that it won’t be used.
In most cases, if I’ve been interviewed, my comments tend to be included, even if they’ve been reworded slightly to better suit the tone. That’s the nature of it.
But when it comes to Meghan? It’s a completely different story. It’s consistent. It’s intense. And it’s fascinating. There’s something about her that triggers a very specific reaction in the press. A level of dislike that’s louder than anything else. And if your quote doesn’t match it, it rarely survives.
To be honest, I’m always grateful when I just don’t make the cut. I’d much rather be excluded entirely than misquoted or stitched into something I never actually said. I respect any journalist who chooses to drop my comments if they don’t match the narrative they’re pursuing. I know that balance doesn’t always land. For most audiences, it’s probably boring. But I’m not going to bullshit and be mean about someone, just to get my name in a newspaper.
The Meghan hate in the media is real
I’ve been asked to comment on Meghan Markle countless times over the years. Maybe one quote made it in, if that, and even then it was taken severely out of context. Snippets of my sentences have been lifted, mixed around and reshaped into something I wasn’t actually saying.
I always enjoy being asked, I like contributing to stories, and I respect most of the journalists I speak to. But when it comes to Meghan, it’s become a reliable pattern. I give a fair, professional perspective, and then the article appears with no mention of me at all. I’m just not willing to slag her off for no reason.
I don’t know her. I’ve never met her. I have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes in her personal life. So who am I to make a sweeping, public judgement as an “expert on her character”? I’m happy to offer PR insight on strategy, timing, rollout and messaging. But when it veers into “do you think she’s manipulative?” territory, I’m not interested. That’s not PR. That’s just being mean.
The tone is different when it’s Meghan Markle
What fascinates me is how different the tone becomes when Meghan is the subject. When I’m contacted about other celebrities, even controversial ones, the emails are often curious, polite, even cautious. But with Meghan, the energy is completely different. There’s already a baked-in anger. A sense that she must be up to something. A genuine hatred towards her, it’s really horrible.
It’s strange how the usual “Be Kind” messaging simply doesn’t apply to her. Whether you like her or not, or agree with what she’s doing, the volume of criticism is relentless. It's been bullying for a long, long time.
The funniest part is how consistent the cycle is. I’ve even started treating it as a hobby to drop in the line, “she has a target on her back,” just to see if it ever makes it through. It never does and never will. That sentence gets cut every single time. Which, of course, proves the point.
And the truth is, I feel genuinely sorry for her. I don’t know her at all, but I still do. Even if you can’t stand her, or you completely disagree with her public choices, or you just don’t like her for whatever reason, I still don’t think it justifies the level of hate she’s received over the years. I think it’s insane. And if I were her, I’d probably say the same thing she has, that this is bullying, because it absolutely is.
I see this happen all the time with clients, but it’s funny when it happens to me
Of course, I’m fully aware this happens constantly with my clients. A large part of my job is pushing back on unfair or unbalanced coverage. Whether that means negotiating edits, correcting misrepresentations, or requesting removals, I deal with this professionally on a regular basis.
But it’s oddly amusing when it happens to me directly. When I’ve been asked to contribute, taken the time to speak, and even I’m tossed aside because the comment wasn’t dramatic enough. It shows how ingrained this editorial instinct is. Even at the smallest scale, fairness isn’t the point. The angle is.
Why you should take it all with a pinch of salt
This isn’t a personal gripe. I genuinely find it interesting. But it’s also worth understanding. If you’re basing your opinions entirely on what you read in the press, especially around public figures, it’s worth taking a step back.
Psychologically, people love reading negative stories about celebrities. Especially those they’re deep down a bit jealous of, or who seem untouchable, or who represent something they find irritating. It’s cathartic. It’s addictive. And it sells. So if the public appetite is for takedowns, then that’s what publications will feed.
Not everything is what it seems. Not every quote is as independent as it looks. And sometimes, the most balanced, well-informed take never makes it to print, even when it was right in front of them, even when they asked for it directly. It simply didn’t match the story they’d already decided to tell.