admin
Meghan Markle sat down with Bloomberg Originals host Emily Chang for an episode of The Circuit released on August 26, 2025, ostensibly to promote the second season of her Netflix lifestyle series. What was advertised as a “candid” conversation quickly felt like a polished piece of self-branding rather than any kind of hard-minded interview, but the mainstream press dutifully treated it as newsworthy fluff instead of a PR exercise.
The interview was full of platitudes and self-help speak when listeners were looking for concrete answers, and Meghan’s attempts to appear “relatable” came off as rehearsed and thin. She leaned on the old chestnut “I’m a real person” while offering banalities about parenting and clothing rules like the shoehorned anecdote about having to wear nude pantyhose — the kind of detail that sounds designed to elicit sympathy, not to inform.
Worse, the sit‑down itself looked engineered to keep tough questions off the table. Critics like Maureen Callahan called the exchange embarrassing and “sycophantic,” arguing the host lobbed softball questions and performed a lot of body‑language work to win favor instead of doing journalism, which only exposes how the media elite protect one of their own. America deserves reporters who ask hard, public‑interest questions instead of acting as PR conduits for celebrity narratives.
Conservative commentators have been blunt: this was another instance of the establishment press rolling out the red carpet for a politically fashionable celebrity while ordinary Americans watch their concerns ignored. Megyn Kelly and Maureen Callahan have been among those calling out the spectacle, turning the interview into watercooler criticism rather than the reputational boost Meghan and Netflix hoped for. That reaction reflects a broader fatigue with media fawning and manufactured authenticity.
It’s telling that the Netflix series she was promoting appears to have struggled to make an impact, with critics noting it didn’t crack streaming top‑10 lists and commentary suggesting it’s more PR than substance. When a show needs manufactured interviews on business networks and gentle Q&A sessions to spark interest, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the product is hollow and the marketing is compensating for weak content.
Add in the strange nitpicks fans noticed — accusations that laughs were edited in and moments that looked staged — and the whole package starts to reek of a carefully curated persona, not the messy authenticity Americans respect. If the mainstream newsrooms spent half as much energy covering real hardships facing working families as they do polishing celebrity images, the country would be better off; until then patriots should keep calling out the spectacle and demand real accountability from both stars and the outlets that enable them.
