Meghan Markle/Sussex? The Media’s Racist Agenda Exposed And How You Can Outsmart It

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Welcome to Low to Grow, the podcast transforming life's toughest moments into personal motivation. I'm Annie, a Forbes under 30 technology founder, whose entrepreneurship journey ran alongside a mental health awakening. In each episode, I sit down with inspiring individuals who have each faced incredible challenges, tackled it head on and emerged stronger on the other side. Together, we'll explore their stories, unpack the lessons that they have learned, and also understand how they managed to turn challenges into opportunities for personal growth. Whether you're navigating uncertainty in your personal life or simply looking for motivation to keep going, this is your space for the honest conversations that you will want to hear. If this resonates with you, hit subscribe so you never miss an episode. And if you know someone who's struggling, share this with them, you might just prompt them to take the first step towards better mental health. Now, let's dive in. Hi everyone and welcome back to Low to Grow, the podcast where we dive into the lows that shape us and the growth that follows. Today's episode is a bit different. It's bigger than one person, but it starts with one woman whose story has captivated, divided and challenged the world, Meghan Markle. The way that Meghan has been portrayed in the media isn't just about celebrity or royalty. It's about race, identity, power and essentially what it means to not quite fit into the boxes that society creates. I'm joined by award-winning journalist Izzy Silvers, who has of course previously featured on the Low to Grow podcast. Now journalists spend their careers telling stories that shape how we see the world and how we see each other. But today we're turning the lens back onto the media itself. Together, Izzy and I are going to unpack how the press has depicted Meghan, what that says about how we treat people with mixed-race heritage, and also how bias, both overt and hidden, shapes the story that we tell. This isn't just a conversation about headlines. It's going to be about humanity, belonging, and also what really happens when someone dares to show up in total, in a world that often only really wants part of the picture. It's going to be a vulnerable and honest conversation, and I'm so glad that you're here for it. So Izzy, it's such a pleasure to have you again. Let me start by asking you, what drew you into journalism, and how has your own identity really shaped your perspective as a journalist?

Izzy Silvers: Thank you so much. It's so good to be back. I've been a journalist for the past 10 years now, and I remember starting out in the industry, had been torn between wanting to work in fashion, wanting to work in music, and figuring out where I would be in that. And then I realized that I loved words, I loved language. It's something that I studied at university, I did linguistics at Sussex University. And I realized that I really wanted to work with words. And looking at people's stories as well was something that really drew me to the profession, being able to unearth different conversations and perspectives and different areas that people might not have thought of. So journalism was something that I always wanted to be a part of. I think ever since I was 15 or 16. And then as I started interning in the industry, I went to a program called Creative Access, who are an organization that support marginalized groups in the media. It used to be just into the media, but now it's all throughout their careers. And Creative Access really sharpened my focus and made me realize that I want to lift up marginalized voices and focus on race and identity. And that's what I see in my career.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Right, well Izzy, such a pleasure to have you. And I think that your particular perspective will give some new light on how Meghan Markle has been understood and also portrayed. Now, let's go back to the very beginning. When you first heard that Meghan Markle was going to join the Royal Family, what were some of your initial thoughts?

Izzy Silvers: I was thinking back to this in preparation for this conversation, and I don't know if I quite anticipated what would happen. So I remember Prince Harry, when he was then, releasing the statement when the press were speaking about Meghan in a derogatory way, and I remember him releasing that statement was such a huge moment where he referred to Meghan as his girlfriend, where he asked the press to stop speaking about her in the way that they were and to give them their privacy. Now, I don't remember much of what that coverage was, because it's only at that point I started to take notice. But I can imagine that, as we've seen since, the coverage was tinged with racism. And the thing with Meghan is you can't divorce her mixed race identity from her other experiences as an American woman. And in the UK, we have a history of the royal family and American women, so I'm sure that was kind of coming into people's minds as well. But also the fact that she is divorced. And so all of these things were playing a part in the way that Meghan was treated. So when Prince Harry released that statement, I thought, okay, this is something. This is going to be serious. And then of course, we watched their relationship continue and him proposed to her and announced that they were engaged to be married. To me, again, perhaps it was naive of me. I didn't think it was going to be easy. But I think as someone who isn't a royalist and hasn't grown up in a royalist family, I perhaps underestimated the strength of feeling people have about the royal family, and how much of that is tied to almost purity of bloodline. It was very uncomfortable for me to see how she was treated as a mixed black woman, as an American woman, and then the additional treatment of her because she was divorced as well. All these kind of ideals of what a princess should be and how the background that they should come from. Meghan didn't fit as neatly into that as perhaps Kate Middleton did. And I'm going to get in trouble for saying Kate Middleton instead of Princess Catherine of Wales, I think, is our proper title. So yeah, it took me by surprise a little bit, but I have been shocked, appalled, disgusted, dismayed at the way the media has treated Meghan, and even to this day.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Izzy, do you believe that there has been a double standard in how the press has treated Meghan compared to various other members of the Royal Family?

Izzy Silvers: Absolutely. We look at things like the avocados, but I think it was at her Hindu or her baby shower that Meghan had avocados, and a newspaper ran a headline about how eating avocados, Meghan was directly contributing to all of these evils in the world. But when Kate Middleton ate avocados, it was a great food for her unborn child, or it was something about how it was a really healthy dish. And so we can quite directly see how the things that Kate does and the things that Meghan do are spoken about differently in the media. And this isn't necessarily Kate's fault. She doesn't have a role in this. And I say that generally, obviously there's some later issues where we could discuss perhaps the allyship that other members of the Royal Family could have shown Harry and Meghan. But at this moment, this was just two women being treated incredibly differently by the press. It feels like Meghan can't do anything right. And even looking at the reports and the reviews of her show, I think her show has been really significantly criticised because of who she is and what she represents. I love the show personally. I thought it was an easy watch. It was something that was fun to kind of have in the background. And if I was a rich woman with all the time in the world, I would do all of those things as well. I'd make you truffle popcorn if you came to stay at my house. No, that isn't the reality for most of us, but equally, I felt like the criticism of the show was unfair. It was kind of, they wanted her to talk about race, to talk about serious issues. I don't quite know what they wanted her to talk about, but that wasn't the purpose of the show. And I do wonder if other members of the Royal Family would have faced the same criticism if they'd released a kind of light-hearted reality show. And we also have to remember that Meghan and Harry have taken a step back from the Royal Family because of everything that's gone on. They don't have the same obligations as members of the Royal Family. And the Royal Family have removed a lot of support from Harry and Meghan, which is something that a lot of people wanted. So of course, they're going to do other things in their careers to fund their lifestyles. So the criticism doesn't quite make sense to me. There's a huge double standard. And it would be difficult to say that that isn't down to who Meghan is as a woman.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: It is definitely very clear that some of the things that Meghan have done, it was scrutinized almost to a degree that probably was unwarranted and probably that would not have happened if it was someone else in the royal family or someone else at all. But from your point of view, Izzy, because you're a journalist, you write for really well-known women's magazines. And also you run Mixed Messages, which is this platform that really amplifies the lived experiences of mixed race individuals in various different industries, sectors, and at different stages of their careers. So from your particular vantage point, how would you characterize the British media's portrayal of Meghan?

Izzy Silvers: Racist is one word. I think there's a large proportion of the media, again, Meghan can't do anything right. Everything she does will be criticized. There'll be connotations about her heritage, about her mom, about her race, about anything to do with her mixed identity and her Black identity in particular. We've seen a lot of reporting on how she is aggressive and a bully, really leaning into that kind of aggressive Black woman stereotype, which is something that again is not leveled at other members of the royal family, despite perhaps the behavior being similar. So I would definitely say racist. I would definitely say misogynistic, although maybe that is something other women in the royal family have experienced as well. I know there's definitely been conversations about Kate not coming from as well off a background as people might want her to, even though she had a great upbringing and went to amazing schools. But definitely racist. I would say unfair as well. Again, we've spoken about how the direct comparisons between coverage of Kate and Meghan shows that there's clear undertones in terms of how they're reporting on the same issues for different women. So unfair is another word. We don't know, again, we can't divorce her identities. So her being an American, her being divorced, I'm not sure quite what the word for that is, but I think that's played a big part in how the media coverage has played out. But yeah, I also think that the coverage has been quite scathing. It's felt quite unnecessary. It's felt quite cutting. And we've seen Meghan report how much that impacted her. We saw her talking about severely suffering with her mental health, seeking help, even talking about taking her own life. And so it's been quite amazing to see how the media wants to take this woman down. And this is something that we've seen with other people as well. There's been huge conversations about how the British media loves to kind of build people up just to tear them down again. We've seen it with Caroline Black. You know, we've seen her Be Kind campaign after her untimely death. And so there's a lot to dig into and a lot of reasons why Meghan has been treated the way she has. But yeah, I would say misogynistic, unfair, scathing and racist.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Carrying on that trend of how media, especially in the UK, you know, builds women up to then tear them down. From your experience of having been a journalism, also of having spoken to lots of really well-known mixed-race individuals, what role do you think that racism or other types of bias really play in how they are written about by the media?

Izzy Silvers: I think it's huge. It's huge and it depends on the publication, you know, saying the media. The media is a huge spectrum. It incorporates tabloids, board sheets, newspapers, online websites. It now incorporates social media, podcasts. It incorporates substack newsletters. It's so much. And so we can only speak generally and generalize. There is a proportion of media, I would say particularly newspapers, that is quite openly racist. And they may couch it in other terms, and they may kind of portray it in different ways. But it's quite clear that their coverage is racist. Then, as you say, there's another section of the media which is more insidious. It's more kind of underneath. It's less obvious, but it's still there. Then you have organizations that you know, and I would say women's magazines in particular are more progressive. And again, I'm speaking very generally, but are more openly feminist, are more supportive of women's rights, are very conscious of race and identity. And this is not all women's magazines. I'm again, generalizing. But so I do think there is a marked effort in some areas of media to represent identity in a positive way. Elle magazine in the US ran an article for Meghan about her mixed identity. So they're choosing to amplify her voice in a way that's meaningful to her and is positive as well. But also there can be times when things are gotten wrong and that is through unconscious bias. As you mentioned, that's through amplifying kind of dangerous stereotypes or ideas that aren't quite dealt with with the nuance that they deserve. And so that can be difficult as well when the magazine or the journalist is well-meaning and it ends up being damaging for kind of women's identities, mixed race people's identities at the same time. But what we read and the way it's phrased influences the way we think. And we've seen it with the situation in Israel and Palestine where Israeli children under 18 are referred to as children, but Palestinians are referred to as people under the age of 18. Basically, any word to avoid using the word children. And that affects us. That makes us see things in a different way. When we think children, we think, oh my God, when you say person under the age of 18, that doesn't have the same impact. So how the media writes about these things is incredibly important. Seeing one star reviews for Meghan's show, you know, scathing reviews about how she's just an entitled woman with actually no nuanced discussion, and I keep going back to that word, is quite damaging and will have people going, oh yeah, of course. So I think it's really important and it does need to change. And there are some titles that are leading that charge and there are others that don't want to. So you kind of have to be media literate and be aware of what you're reading and what perspective it comes from, which isn't easy with the amount of media we see on a day to day basis.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: It can be very easy to be overloaded with how much media we receive, whether consciously or unconsciously. And I think the point you made about media kind of like informing people's opinion, that's very, very valid. I do think, though, to a certain degree, media is there to help shape public opinion. But in the end, the media, whoever they are, would be conscious of their readers and also of public opinion. So to what extent do you think that media reflects public opinion or shapes it, especially when it comes to something such as role traditions or to race?

Izzy Silvers: It does reflect it. And in saying that, that might sound contradictory because of kind of the many ideals that different organizations put forward, but they represent their reader base. And we're a diverse country who think very differently about different issues. I personally am not a royalist, but people in my family are. Other people in my family might want to abolish them on a key. So there's a huge spectrum of public opinion, particularly about Meghan and particularly about the royal family. And so I think the organizations do reflect their readership. You know, we have to remember that they want traffic. With everything being free, with websites being free, magazines and publications, newspapers need to think of ways to get eyeballs on their site. And so by writing something inflammatory, it will have people either who agree or deeply disagree, kind of talking about that piece, sharing it and commenting on it. But I don't think they would write something that they don't believe anyone would agree with. They do think that they're tapping into a particular audience. And we as readers naturally go to publications that align with our ideals. I won't necessarily read the Daily Mail, but I will go and read Elle and Cosmo. And so sometimes we can be in our little echo chambers. And it's interesting to see what other publications are saying. It's interesting to look outside our bubbles and see what the conversation is outside of that. But I do think that they reflect public opinions. And sometimes those public opinions are racist. They are not grounded. In fact, I go back to the avocado example. Was it really a news story that Meghan had avocado on toast? I think it was at her baby shower. And, you know, do check and make sure I'm correct on that. But was that really a news story of the public interest? I don't think so. So it's important to be conscious of that, but also to know that, yes, people do think these things. And I don't know if reporting on avocados is intended to change mindsets or make the world a better place. Sometimes I don't think content has to be produced to change mindsets. Some people aren't going to change their mind. But for those in the middle, it could affect them.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Izzy, earlier you mentioned a bit about echo chambers and how as readers and as all humans, do we naturally want to gravitate towards a publication or a source that somehow, well, to a certain degree aligns to our own views already and to our own worldviews. But as you also mentioned, it's important that we really try to see outside of our own bubble, outside of our own natural networks. What responsibility do you think that the media has in really challenging the different racial stereotypes rather than reinforcing them for their particular leadership?

Izzy Silvers: I think it's usually important, but I don't know if it will happen. Again, when I speak about the coverage of what's happening in Gaza and Palestine, I'm talking about BBC examples, and the BBC is meant to be an independent broadcaster. It's meant to be completely, and now the word is escaping my brain, but not share an opinion on the situation. And yet the choice of words that it uses does do that. So I think it's really important for journalists to challenge these stereotypes and to be aware of it. And it might not be challenging it explicitly. It might just be having networks or having checks in house that make sure that the content you're publishing doesn't reinforce those stereotypes. It doesn't have to be a whole piece on why the coverage of Meghan Markle is racist. It's just making sure that your coverage of Meghan Markle doesn't play into racial stereotypes. We've seen recently that organizations are cutting back their diversity, equity and inclusion programs in America as well. This is a huge topic. And so when we're losing that, we are losing the chance to get rid of unintentional biases in our content. And we all have unconscious bias. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just about how do we check ourselves and how do we learn that what we're producing might be offensive or might be damaging to a particular group of people. So without those groups and without commitments from organizations to really make sure that our content is inclusive and that's for everything, race, gender identity, sexuality, disability, class. Without those, I do think our content is going to suffer. So I think it's a responsibility that we should all be conscious of, but I don't have hope that every organization does put it at the forefront of their work. And there's a few reasons for that. Budgets, the amount that people in house are expected to do, the low pay across the industry for freelance workers. There's so many things I could say on this, but yeah, in short, I think it's really important. I don't think it's a priority for everyone.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Have you, Izzy, ever had to challenge an editorial decision or a public narrative that you felt was unjust towards Meghan or someone similar to her?

Izzy Silvers: I think not particularly for Meghan, but in general, yes. And I've also had to challenge myself. And I think it's really important to be open. And again, we all have unconscious bias. I do too. It's something that we all need to check and be able to go, oh, I could do that better. There's nothing inherently wrong in saying that. So I remember when I wrote a piece years ago about textured hair and afro hair and caring for textured hair. And all the images that I used in the piece and all the people that I, the kind of model that I referred to was mixed black and white. And so her hair type was looser. And someone tweeted, or exed, I'm not sure what we're supposed to say now, at me to say that they were disappointed that I didn't include someone who was, had a tighter hair texture. And so I've taken that on board and I keep that in mind now when I'm producing content. It's the same with language that I use about men and women, making sure that I'm inclusive of trans women, gender queer people, non-binary people. And it's all of those types of things that I kind of have learned throughout my career to take on board. I've also had some outright racism that I, at the time, I felt I was too... I don't know, I just hadn't quite found my voice. It wasn't that I was too young, but I was so early on in my career, I didn't feel confident to stand up and speak back to someone. But, you know, someone made some comments about how a plus size influencer who we were dressing was a size, I think, 16 or 18 or something like that. And someone I worked with said that that was disgusting. And, you know, they were obese and really, really awful things. And I was so angry, but I didn't quite know how to articulate that to this particular person. In another situation, we were talking about covering Rihanna, who was at Carnival. So she was wearing her sequined, feathered, beaded, amazing outfit. And the person I was working for at the time said that it was disgusting and she needed to put more clothes on. But then in the same breath, moved on to talking about how we needed to speak about Kylie Jenner, who was out in a bikini. These two women are both in the same amount of undress, but one is a cultural event that's usually important. And you found that disgusting, but another white woman, that's okay. So yeah, there's definitely been moments where we've had to talk things through. But it's a learning process for everyone. I do not know everything. I am not the be all and end all. And I think sometimes people can feel criticized. But I'm always open to constructive criticism if it means that I'm going to be a more inclusive writer. So yeah, there's a lot more, many more examples, but you can imagine.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Izzy, it's really refreshing to hear you say that it's a learning process for everyone. And I think for everyone, mostly young professionals who are just starting out in the career, if they're working for a direct manager, or even if their boss makes such a comment, they can feel threatened and perhaps not as strong in the moment to be able to respond immediately. If you could go back to your younger self and say you were in that situation with your boss, you made the comment about Rihanna and Oso Kaili, how would you respond to your boss now?

Izzy Silvers: I have learned a lot in my career and I am someone who is very vocal, not afraid to, now, not afraid to call someone out. And sometimes I've had to learn from other people around me about the best ways to do that in order to get the best result. I think I've gone through a process and maybe I would have just called her out there and then, but instead what I might do to stop that person, and it's annoying and frustrating that we have to consider white tears almost and the fragility of the white experience in feeling criticized. And that's not something that's particular to white people, that could be me as well, I'm a brown woman. But yeah, I might have, after that meeting had happened and that comment was made, I might have spoken to that person separately and taken them to one side and had a conversation about how that could unintentionally have been very damaging and had racist undertones. How that would have been received, I don't know, but I think that would have been the best way for me to handle it. I get frustrated at the fact that sometimes I can't just say, guys, listen, that's really racist. But I know that that doesn't always get the best result. And I find it frustrating having to prioritize someone else's feelings over what I think is a very serious issue, which is racial stereotyping. But it's also important to give people a chance. And to let people feel comfortable to make a mistake, because I have been in the past. And to know that they're not going to be called out in front of a crowd. I'm speaking generally because if this behavior continues, then I think let's call people out straight away. But yeah, to get the best result, I think speaking to someone separately outside of a group and just letting them know how their comments could unintentionally reinforce racial stereotypes is a good way to handle things. Rather than sticking your hand up and saying that was racist.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Creating that environment of safety for people that you want to call out to be in the right mindset to receive feedback is always super, super important. I'm really glad that you mentioned that Izzy. We've all been in situations where we've been with someone perhaps of a higher level than us, or perhaps a client and really have to think about, is it the reaction that we want or is it the impact that we want? And just being quite tactical about how we approach that.

Izzy Silvers: That can still be received negatively by the person you're speaking to. So even if you think you've approached something good, and even if you have approached something in a very tactful way, the reaction from the other person could be the same as if you'd kind of embarrassed them perhaps in front of a whole group or called them out in front of a whole group. And so one thing that I found really important for me throughout my career is having community and having groups around me that I can speak to. So in previous organizations, I've been with groups for ethnic minority people within the organization. And it's been really, really important for me to have their support because I know that I can trust them, and I know that I can rely on them, and I know that they'll also call me out if I'm the one who's being over the top. So it's been really, really important for me. And I would really recommend for other people to have find that if they can in the organization that they're working with.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Having the peer support groups or even just your board of boards, your personal boards as someone to, yeah, as a group of people to refer back to, you know, still continuing on with that point of everyone having potential to be biased, whether consciously or subconsciously. If I wake up tomorrow and I want to read the news, how can I actually judge for myself what the undertones, how can I read potentially biased news whilst still remaining my critical thinking and being able to discern for myself what the facts are?

Izzy Silvers: Good question. Difficult question. I think the first point of call could be just to compare. So for example, the way The Guardian might cover a story versus The Daily Mail, just having a look at the same story in two different papers can be really interesting and enlightening. It's hard, like you say, we consume so much media and so much news on a day to day basis. And also on social media, we're looking at reposts. We're looking at something someone's put up on their story. I could post something completely false and put it up on my story. And it also could just be interesting to have a browse of an organisation, a newspaper, a website that you wouldn't normally read, just to see their kind of tone of voice and how they're covering things. If you're looking at something on social media, I tend to be cautious before I repost something. I see who has posted it, who that person is, what their point of view is, what sources they have. And that sounds like quite a lot of work, but it kind of isn't if you just tap onto someone's profile and see the types of things that they're saying. Looking at statistics and being cautious of statistics, how have they worded something to make it support their own narrative? And either side can do this, right or left-wing media, you know, we're all guilty of wanting to support our own narratives and wanting people to agree with our opinions. So being conscious of that and looking at if it's a study, how many people were in that study? Was it sponsored by a particular organization? So for example, studies on smoking, if they're sponsored by cigarette companies, can we really be sure that the results from that study are unbiased? So it's just about taking a second, thinking more critically, and I guess being a little bit distrustful, even if it's an organization that you love, just taking a moment to think, okay, they've reported this, this, they've said this. Okay, yeah, I agree with it. And just kind of having a moment. And then you'll kind of get to know people's reporting styles and get to know which sites, Instagram accounts, whatever it might be, you can trust. But yeah, it's about being a bit distrustful actually. And that's something that I'm very aware of. When I see people posting stuff on Instagram, when you see those posts that are reposted by everyone, I will always hold back because I just want to check it out for myself before I jump on a bandwagon without really seeing what that post is saying.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: I really like how you phrased that. So you're always being a bit distrustful or always having your own critical analysis brain turned on and not just consuming content mindlessly. I think that's super important. So Izzy, if you could go back and reframe the media coverage of Meghan Markle from day one, are there any things that you would change and what would the top one or two be?

Izzy Silvers: Number one, be less racist. I would tell everyone. I really, really, really do think. And it's so interesting for her as a mixed race woman. You know, there's a lot of conversations about mixed black people in particular and how they identify. And some people feel very strongly that they shouldn't call themselves black. But we've seen how Meghan has been spoken to. We've seen the slurs that have been used against her. And while people on social media might straight up call her the M word, call her slurs, call her a monkey, all of these disgusting things. In fact, I was going to say that newspapers and the media are slightly more coded, but actually they haven't always been. They have been quite straight up about the way that they feel about her. And so we know it's about her race. Again, I do think that it's because she's a divorced American woman. I think there's a lot in how she's seen as quite, what's the word? I have this conversation with an American friend of mine a lot, that Americans are often quite earnest. And we don't have that in the UK. We're much less kind of heartfelt and earnest. And I think that trips Meghan up because people see her as smug. People see her as someone who's stolen Harry away for her own devices. So I would like people to take into account cultural nuances as well, about what her being an American means and how that's affected the way that she speaks and the way that she lives her life. So definitely less racism, more cultural nuance. And then I think just leave her alone. I think just less coverage about Meghan as well. Again, I always go back to the avocados. Was that worth the journalist time to write up that story when there are other things happening, other things going on in the world? That's not to say that celebrity news is irrelevant and unimportant. I think it's usually important in the culture that we live in. But I do think we need to be a bit more choosy as journalists about the news, and I'm using air quotes for anyone who's listening, that we choose to report on. So yeah, maybe be more choosy about the amount of coverage we gave Meghan as well, because I really don't think we needed to hear about the avocados.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: The avocados. I mean, Izzy, like, your point, you know, number one, be less racist, that's pretty much backed up, right? I'm finding this article from April 2021, so quite a few years ago, in the press gazette, where it basically says that Meghan coverage was racist, according to half the journalists who have completed the PG survey. So it's something that's been quite obvious, and yeah, it's still going on. I think it's good that there are different types of media and different viewpoints. Hopefully, as the generation rises and changes, we will start seeing this changing initial gut reaction and this initial racist narrative. But for now, we just have to keep on fighting in the trenches and do our bit towards that. For you, Izzy, because I want to, you know, always see what learnings we can take away from things. What do you hope that this moment really teaches us about race, power and also compassion in journalism and storytelling?

Izzy Silvers: Wow, I think, I think it's really important to have a wide frame of reference and an understanding of what reporting we're doing and what stereotypes we could unintentionally be supporting as well because thinking about the coverage of Meghan, a lot of it might have been, and I'm being generous, racist without realising it. It's all of those unconscious stereotypes and all of those well-meaning pieces that actually really spoke to racial tropes and without the journalist realising. So it's about having a wide frame of reference. It's about reading widely. I read a lot of books on queer identities and disability and trans identities. Those aren't my experiences, my lived experiences, but by reading those books and following those people online, I learn how the things that I'm doing could be better and could be improved, to be more inclusive towards those people. So I think compassion is a hugely important word. I think being open to being constructively criticised is something that's really important. And that's something that I feel is not received well ever. But actually, it's something that can help us learn, and it's something that can help us be better as storytellers and as recourses. So I hope that people understand that no one is perfect. We are all on this learning journey. We all make mistakes. We all have biases. But it's about how we move forward from that, and how we continually strive to get better. Because surely that's what we all want. Surely we want a world where people are fairly criticised. And there are criticisms of Meghan that are very fair, and should be reported on, and should be in the news. But also complaining about her, I don't know, $26, whatever it is, edible flowers. Again, if you don't like them, you don't have to buy them. I don't think it says a lot about the state of the industry or Meghan as a person. I just think sometimes we need to be more critical, exactly like we've said throughout this whole podcast. Be more critical, understand the nuance, have an open mind, have an open heart, and just know that we're doing the best that we can, and be open to being corrected, being advised, being pushed in a more inclusive direction. But like I say, I don't know if we will get there. I hope we will, but I don't know.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Izzy, I'm with you. I hope we will, too. And I love the takeaways that you had for our listeners, which is being open minded, reading widely, being open to having constructive criticism, or also giving constructive criticism. I think it's important to speak out when you feel that you have a point to make. And also just being compassionate and kind. And I think if that's all possible, then hopefully the newer generation can really bring our understanding of the world and also of each other to a brighter place.

Izzy Silvers: I hope so.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Well, Izzy, thank you so much for your time. It's been such a pleasure to have you. Do you have any takeaways for people? Any last parting words?

Izzy Silvers: I think just watch with Love, Meghan, for what it is. You know, series two, I'm hoping, is going to be autumnal and Christmas themed. It's just in my mind, easy lifestyle background TV. It's not a political commentary. It's not lifting up charity founders. It's not supporting women in business like her podcast is. Just take things for what they are. And I think sometimes we want to put this huge big message on it. But sometimes we don't need to. It's okay. So I'm not, you know, the biggest Meghan stan in the world, but I just think, leave her alone. Let her bake her cakes. I want to live her life, but she's a rich woman. Of course, she's going to do these things. But the coverage, yeah, is unfair. So two lessons. One, just enjoy things for what they are. And two, leave Meghan alone.

Annie Yu Wenmiao: Wonderful parting words. Thank you very much, Izzy. That's a wrap for this episode of Low to Grow. If you learned something today, help more people to find this conversation by hitting the subscribe button and leaving a review. Keep growing and until next time.