Everything Is Content - A Ballad for Tim Key, Bezos' Naff Wedding & Jameela Jamil

Episode Date: July 4, 2025

We are back. The two-weeks are over!Oenone's new fav film is The Ballad of Wallis Island starring Tim Key, Carey Mulligan, Tom Basden and Sian Clifford. If you're after some joy, some tears and some meditations on life, this is for you.Beth's rage bait of the week is.... Bezos' tacky wedding. We get a lil salty, and discuss the billionaire's bridal event, the guests and the questionable aesthetics.Ruchira takes us through Jameela Jamil's beef with a Sunday Times profile of her. She's since sworn off female print journalists... is that fair?Thank you for returning back to us and being so patient with our break. It worked a treat and we're so excited to be back. Could you please share us with a friend and review us? It's the reason we can keep going <3In partnership with CueOenone recommended.... Elis James and John RobinsRuchira recommended.... The Rehearsal S1Beth recommended.... Love Island USAThe Ballad of Wallis IslandThe Dark Poetry of the Bezos WeddingForget quiet luxury. The wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez screamed ‘money’Jameela Jamil: ‘I stood up for Meghan long before I met her’I think I'm done with being interviewed by women. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode contains some sensitive topics. Please check the episode description for a list of trigger warnings. each week. Just a reminder we cover everything from celeb news to societal trends and TikToks. Wear an icy glass of water during an absolute scorcher of a heatwave. This week on the podcast we're covering the most gorgeous film the ballad of Wallace Island, Jeff Bezos's tacky wedding and Jamila Jamil swearing off interviews with female journalists. Follow us on Instagram at everything has content pod and make sure you hit follow on your podcast player app. So you never miss an episode for the first time in what feels like forever. What have you both been loving this week slash over the last two, three weeks?

Okay. So I have one. I have finally caught on to a show that I'm sure a lot of people have been talking about because the second season dropped this year, but Nathan Fielder's The Rehearsal. I watched series one overall break and I cannot believe how obsessed I am with him, the premise of it and just what he's done with the show. Have, I mean, Beth was nodding as I was saying that, and Oni, have you watched it?

Nah, I don't know what it's about. Don't know who Nathan Vilder is, is that bad? It's not bad, it's just, it feels like at the minute everyone's talking about the second series because it's such a wild concept, but let's roll it back. I'll tell you about the first one. So how do I even explain it? God, it's just like the most hallucinogenic,

bizarre thing I have ever seen. He essentially blends reality TV with scripted and just produces this entire thing that you're not really sure what's real and what's not but then he shows you a peek behind the curtain. Essentially the premise is what if you could rehearse for some of the biggest moments of your life rather than just going straight into them. The first episode starts with this guy who loves pub quizzes. It is his absolute life. He dies for a pub quiz and

he shares to Nathan Fielder that he lied to this group of friends and said that he'd got a college degree or like a master's degree and he's been with this group of pub quizzes for years and he wants to tell them the truth but he's extremely nervous that they'll essentially just ditch him and he'll lose this huge source of community. So Nathan Fielder gets him to rehearse it. I would say like it looks like honestly 40 times he builds the structure in a warehouse of the pub. It looks so lifelike and he gets actors to sit in the pub for hours every day and gets this guy to rehearse it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. So he can see every outcome and every way that he could have this conversation

to make sure that it goes perfectly. And it sounds so ridiculous, but what happens is it exposes so many things about humanity and our desire for control and also the unexpected, I guess, touching relief of having just a conversation with somebody and you expect it to go one way, but it just often doesn't. And that's just one facet of it. There's like a much bigger narrative that goes on with Nathan Fielder trying to be a father and all that kind of stuff. It's just, it's so exceptional, so bizarrely moving, even though it's ridiculous and abstract and absurd. You have to go watch it. Want to, where am I finding it?

It's a Now TV slash Sky special. Okay. I have an ex's Sky login, so that's all fine. I feel like it's so, it's so worth it. It's so good. I love that Nathan Fielder is now kind of hitting the mainstream. I mean, he was always very popular. He did his show, Nathan for You, which I post reaction gifts and memes from that all the time, which is like a docu reality series where he goes to local businesses and tries to, in terrible, horrible ways, but brilliant ways, improve their business. I think the first ever episode, there's a failing frozen yogurt shop and he goes in under the

pretense of like, he's like, I got really good grades from one of the best universities in Canada and he had like C's and he's like, I've got the perfect idea for you. You need a splashy new flavor and the splashy new flavor is poo, which is, it feels like, okay, it's just silly boy humor. No, it goes, you'll cry, you'll laugh. I feel like we could actually do a Nathan Fielder deep dive because people really think like, is this ethical, especially with the rehearsal, season one and two, it involves real people.

A lot of the humor is about how awkward Nathan is and how he's sort of this absolutely bonkers character. You don't know where he begins and the character ends, but a lot of people know it's unethical. You're using children. Anyway, it's fascinating. And I actually think, watch this. You'll have so many thoughts. I'm yet to watch series two of the rehearsal,

which I know the premise, and it's about modern American aviation, which sounds so dull, but it is blown up. Yeah, so my understanding is he has a theory that the reason that there's so many plane crashes in the US is because the pilot and the co-pilot have often barely had more than a hi-hello conversation before chartering a plane together. So he wants to tackle that and I guess he believes that if they have some kind of step

one, step two relationship onwards from just being first time people you've ever met that could save the country from as many plane crashes as it experiences, which is kind of terrifying. And I don't know, I think I need to be in a good mental health space to watch that one. Sorry, is this one serious? Or is he? Is this like, this sounds like more like a documentary. Is this one also funny? Both I think. I think both.

It's everything. It's nothing and everything. I'm so confused. The first one's that second one, I'm actually a bit too scared to... That sounds a bit worrying. I think you will come away from watching series one with a weird crush on Nathan Field. I'm calling it now because I know I have. I just think you will fall into the same trap as me. It's not a bad thing. That's a real thing. Well, speaking of crushes, actually the thing I've been loving to add to my list of

sort of, is he middle-aged? I think so. So I've told you that one of my podcast crushes is Max Rushton from what do you do yesterday podcast. I started listening to some other middle-aged men which are on, I don't know why, John Robbins and Ellis James podcast on Five Live. there's about 500 episodes. I started listening the other week when I was painting and I am now absolutely addicted. John Robbins, I find so fascinating. He's constantly grumpy, depressed, doesn't want to do the podcast because he's hungry, has had too much chocolate, had not enough chocolate. He's a shambles, but it's very endearing. And they do lots of made up

games. There's funny jingles. There's like really ongoing decade long jokes that they have within the show. And it's just a really comforting binge. If you want to listen to something, it's very funny. So I've really been enjoying that. And I've added John Robbins to my podcast crash list. But I'm sure I've consumed other things, but I honestly couldn't tell you what they were. That sounds quite nice. There's an appeal to him. He's obviously a lovely looking man, but also yeah, his like sort of curmudgeonliness. I really liked that show. My dad used to have it on in the car. I don't know what I thought it was, but I was like, this is such a weird

radio show. And they do, is it called the Welsh Connection? Cymru Connection. Cymru Connection's where they, I can't remember what's the guy's name that- Ellis James. It's Ellis, yeah. He sort of is on the phone with another Welsh person and has to figure out. And at first he was really bad at like asking questions, just awful. Just wouldn't ask any, you're like, bro, I'm not even, like I live in Wales, I'm

not even from there, I would ask better questions to figure out how they, how they know each other. So endearing. And the song for that is so good. There's like a song that's like, there's another come reconnection. But Alice Jane's questions have one direction. Where did you go to school? Anyway, so I'm really into it.

It's like, it's just, there's so many episodes and yet they have also, because I've been listening to really old episodes, they get emails from like 10 year olds 13 year olds because obviously it's on the radio so people are listening to it in the car with their parents in the rich school and they're like writing in and it's such a funny like the people that listen it's like 50 year old men and 15 year old girls like writing letters to the show it's very wholesome and it's just there's it's I like it when there's so many episodes you can kind kind of zone out. But I have been laughing out loud, which is something I've needed quite a lot. Have you ever listened, Richelle? You look confused.

No, I was like itching to chime in because I was like, I have something to say. I used to love it as a podcast like years and years and years ago, but I associated it with an ex because an ex was like a proper stan of them too. So I haven't listened to it for like five years, but I also had a massive crush on John Robbins for a little bit. So I was just like itching to be like, you're not alone, you're not alone. I think he has a little emerging, no, not emerging, I think very established, sorry, club of women or men or non-binary people who really fancy the pants off him. So just add my hat to the ring. Do you think that it's because we think we can fix him?

Cause I think that's what it is. Yeah. No, I have a real problem with fancying surly men specifically and not to be like Freudian about it, but like, I don't want to go there. Um, but yeah, Walton Goggins character in white Lotus, I think there was something about the surliness, this idea that because I can like bring a ball of energy to his life and fix him, that I can like sort it out. It's the trope of like kind of mean grumpy man, but he loves me.

And I know that's problematic because actually like, I don't, I want to go out with someone that's respectful and lovely to everyone, as Walton Gokins and White Lotus is not, not even to his partner, but there's something there that I don't know what the origins of that is. Let's get Freud on the podcast. Let's take him up. But it definitely, it lives within me as well. Maybe it's because men are often so emotionally repressed that any emotion, even if it is a deep depression, is quite like, oh, there's something going on there. Something. No, by force I'm like, no, I really like optimistic, very exuberant, loving men, but something deep within.

I'm like, oh, just sort of like, grumble into the kitchen and make one single cup of coffee for yourself. Ignore me. It's there. Oh no, we're so screwed, aren't we? We're so screwed. God, I kind of hope he doesn't listen to this. Do you think we've been mean? Oh no, we're so screwed, aren't we? We're so screwed. God, I kind of hope he doesn't listen to this. Do you think we've been mean?

Oh no, I'm actually just talking about, I think we've departed enough. I think he is- Yeah, yeah, but it's not about him. He is, he does not seem that way inclined, but he is not afraid to be in a bad mood. Yeah, he's the poster boy. It's all love here. Come on. I hope he listens.

What have you been loving, Beth? Oh God, I feel already, and I deserve it, an eye roll, maybe from you both, maybe definitely from some listeners, but I am again invested in Love Island USA and I know I said I wouldn't do this. I promise this is so, it's like why no one wants to hear this, but again, it has become part of my personality in the last week. It's bad. Apparently it's amazing. I keep seeing like my Twitter, somehow I've been dragged into the algorithm. Everyone's obsessed with Huda. Huda?

Yes. Huda, yeah. She said it. She's like, it's like, Huda, what a cuda. When she came in, I was like, Huda, I'm obsessed with you. She is amazing. She's had some big emotional fallout. She's 24 years old. Absolutely beautiful. She is a mother. And you might have seen the now viral clip of her telling one of the other Islanders, Nick, that she's a mom and he's not getting it. It's like he's forgotten the concept of mothers. She's like, I'm a mom. And he's like, mama, Caesar. Oh no.

I'm a mommy. Mommy? Mom of what? A dog? And she's like, no, I've got a human child. It's very, very funny. But yeah, this season is, it's the characters are big characters. The Americans, what they get right on the show is they fuck, they snog.

I mean, it's so horny. I, if you are in a position to be, to witness horniness, I recommend this to everyone, it's really like, I feel like it's making me horny in my general interactions, like there was a challenge. I mean, they're all kissing each other so much tongue all the time, which actually reminds me of a really funny tweet, I forgot how many years ago, when someone was like, why do you Americans kiss like they're starving? And someone was like, our food doesn't have nutrients in it, we are hungry. I've seen so much tongue in a challenge, one girl spat into the mouth of another, which you just

would not see, I think, in the UK. They'd cut it or it just wouldn't happen. I was like, damn. The current fallout is Huda did a very provocative dance on another contestant's man during a challenge, which it was the filthiest things I've ever seen. She kind of flips up onto a man. He's sitting down and she is kneeling in front of him. She kind of flips up onto a man, he's sitting down and she is kneeling in front of him. She flips a whole body, so her butt's in his face and she's shaking it. I mean, the dexterity, it's, oh, I am, yeah, I'm obsessed and it's all about the sex. What can I say? Again, Freud, we need you. I saw Megan Thee Stallion waltzed her incredible body through the villa and then was watching

them all twerk and shake in front of her. And I, by virtue of seeing that, was shaking because I was imagining what would happen if that happened to me. Megan Thee Stallion had to watch me trying to work and I saw myself doing it and died in advance. Yeah, so that episode was amazing. So I've seen the mum clip that really made me laugh, but you've just reminded me when you mentioned Twitter, Richard, that because I'm on an old phone, I deleted Twitter off my phone about three weeks ago for storage and I've just not really downloaded it. So I'm actually quite out of the cultural conversation. I haven't been

seeing clips of things. I went to check it the other day and I was like, oh, I don't have it. And then I just didn't redownload it, which is maybe good for my health, bad for the podcast. Yeah, no, we're going to have nothing to talk about. We're just going to be like a really good headspace, listens tanked through the floor, it's over. So I am so happy to be back. I loved our break, but I'm so excited to be kicking off the show with I'm gonna say it potentially

My favorite film I've watched This year, maybe ever I don't know It's it's a big claim but the ballad of Wallace Island written by Tim Key and Tom's Basden Starring Carrie Mulligan and Sean Clifford is about a man living on a fictional island who hires both halves of a folklore band, Maguire Mortimer, to perform a private gig for him. And the superfan Charles Heath played by Tim Key, who is potentially the funniest man on earth, is endearing, eccentric and questionably enormously rich. The crux of the film is that this duo played by Basden and

Mulligan haven't seen each other for years and years and years and he's brought them together on this island. Carrie Mulligan's character now arrives with her husband unbeknownst to Herb McGuire and what unfolds is one of the funniest, most touching, oh my, I cannot explain to you how much I cried, most touching, oh my god, I cannot explain to you how much I cried, movies. And I'd seen a lot of fanfare about it. I'm a huge fan of Tim Key. I listened to every single interview and I was like, I just have to watch this. And I was still absolutely blown away. I want to watch it again. I'm just going to turn to you both and ask you what your thoughts are because I'm just going to be here spluttering. This is going to be a comfort film for me for the ages because I also will do

exactly the same. Everything Tim Key has ever done I've listened to it twice. His off-menu, I could probably be for me. He represents that kind of comfort. He's so relentlessly funny, like zinger after zinger after zinger. I feel energized after listening to him. Also obviously as we know, big crush on him from the podcast. I knew I was going to watch this, but it was his appearance with Sam Campbell on the trusty Hogg's podcast, Catherine Beaux-Hart and Helen Bower that sealed the deal. They're scampering around. I don't know why Sam Campbell was there actually, because he's not, I don't think he was in the film or related to it. But anyway, they were both there being so naughty, so cheeky. He kind of forgets to promote the film in a way that I was like, damn, I'm going to watch this

film. But I just didn't anticipate it being as like heart-wrenching while never dropping its like comedy beat. It is so heartbreaking. It's really tender. I didn't cry, but I came close. I thought I was like, I want to start this film again from the beginning. I want to stay in the cinema and just watch this through. It's just stunning. I'm thrilled. I haven't really watched Tim Kean very much. I saw him in the Alan Partridge breakfast show spin-off thing. He was so funny in that playing this dopey assistant who just could never get anything right and kept like accidentally switching the iPad off to do the weather report, all that kind of stuff. So I found it really funny in that, but I really

was so charmed in this and the kind of humor is, it's like, I don't even know how to explain it. It almost feels like dad humor on steroids, but something about him carries it off completely. Like in theory, I wouldn't find that funny, but he's so charming. He's so unbelievably, I don't know, I guess inviting as a character. I really believe that he lives in this place, this very insanely beautiful but remote place and lives this gorgeous life. Yeah, I don't know. I was so charmed by it. It's so beautiful. It's beautiful in a way that the Banshees of Inisharun was, but it this level of like charming wit to it and this kindness to it that I think is quite unique. I don't think I've seen anything like this before.

No, I agree. I was the same as you, Beth. I literally wanted to start it again. I cannot believe you didn't cry. I was ugly crying. I was, boy, it really unlocked something. And then I also realized, I know I haven't cried in ages, and I was like, that was, I needed that. And it's also just made me remember that Tim Key was my gateway into John Robbins and Ellis James, because I was following Tim Key around the podcast of the

internet, just listening to him promoting this film, because all of the episodes make me laugh. And you need to listen to that episode, because John Robbins and Ellis James write a Tim Key-esque poem, and it's really, really funny. But yeah, I just, it is that kindness. It's a sense, there's something about it that I haven't seen in art for ages and I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but it's like an earnestness, a sweetness, the slowness. It's so beautiful. And it just felt like a warm hug and really human. And I loved how eccentric and strange his character was, but just how dodgery and hilarious. It really tapped into an arena,

which may be in a really sensationless world, which is very attention-grabby. There's nothing really happens. There's very few characters. There's only ever like four people that we see. And there's just something to it that was like calming to my nervous system and felt extremely human. And perhaps it is also, there's kind of a setup right at the beginning where Herb Maguire played by Tom Basden, drops

his phone in the sea and then they're in a really remote place. So there's no technology in the film and he has to use this old payphone. Maybe that's also where a sense of like this breath of fresh air came from in that you're just kind of transported and transplanted into a universe that is totally disconnected. And that is something which maybe we don't see so often because technology is the ever crushing presence in our day to day lives. And unfortunately, that has now been implemented in more and more TV shows. I've spoken about this before, but I hate it when there's like texts on screen or people on their phone or social media is

mentioned. I think the absence of that allowed for it to be filled with really quiet, beautiful moments of just human on human interaction, which I'm thirsty for, I must say. Because it is a film about isolation and loneliness and regret and kind of what happens when you live your life and things happen out of your control that leave you, I guess, bereft and grieving, but also the show must go on. He's a very kind of cheerful character is Charles, but also like the hallmarks of real loneliness. One, this obsession with this long defunct band to sort of tether him to a life he had before. Also little characteristics,

like he talks to himself constantly. He does not know when to shut up, which is such that you kind of go, oh, that's a great characterization of someone who's kind of annoying without meaning to be. But you also go, also if someone that lives entirely by themselves in a remote place, who craves human connection, they will do that as well, like witter away to themselves. There's a

scene where he's playing swing ball by himself that's very fucking funny, but also just breaks your heart. I mean, it is also so funny. I was just thinking like the funniest, what stayed with me, there's one, because he collects this guy, this musician Herb and takes him back and Herb's like, why didn't they send a car? And he's like, who? He goes, well, my hotel. And he goes, ah, my house, a hotel in all but name and facilities. And like these lines, and already like he says that and you're onto the next thing, there's another bit where he says that they're having a car and he's like, Dr. Carl Shipman and Condoleezza Rice.

It's so quick. There's so much of that. It's so Tim Key when you're like, this is a relentless, gorgeous assault on me just sitting here belly laughing, but also you're on to the next thing. But it's such a thread of every character in the film is kind of, almost all of them, are kind of sad, but also alive in the world. They all want to be here and they're kind of striving. And Charles, like I was kind of bereft actually, whenever he went off screen, even though the other cast are just fantastic. I was like, Tim, come back, come back Charles.

Yeah, he's absolutely the best person in that. They're all just a bit nutty. I feel like the people who live on Wallace Island and it's so reassuring and it's so warm and you're so right, it feels like a warm cup of tea in a bath or something. It really reminds me of like the people who live in a Richard Curtis world where they're these slightly twee but not twee in a bad way, not like so far as a Wes Anderson character, but just like believable nutty people who just like make a place a place. And you're entering into their world and it feels like so soothing to just feel like cushioned by all of it because

things go wrong but also at the same time there's this sense of like love and kindness that is just consistent throughout and just this level of like, it doesn't matter who you are, they're all just going to be nice to you even if they have no idea who you are. I just yeah, honestly the things I was just laughing laughing at you're right, Beth, it isn't an assault because it's constant. You don't even get room to come up for her because he's just saying something else, which is so funny. And it feels so natural.

Obviously, when you're watching actors, you don't want them to feel like they're acting. But this, I just was so fully believing that every single person was the character. Also, did you know that Tom Basden wrote all of the songs? Oh, because I was going to ask because the songs, I liked them. And I was like, is this a case of like, and they've hired musicians or these songs exist, and I just haven't heard of them. They're really lovely, aren't they? And they've released them as an album of him and Carrie singing them on Spotify, so you can listen. Now, I just urge everyone to go and see this film. It's something I'm definitely going to be watching again. I knew it was going to be good, but it's the

level of hilarity and honestly, I just needed such a good cry. It really, it's a kind of humanity that I need in my life. It's a tonic and a balm. You can watch the ballad of Wallace Island in cinemas now. Horrible news for fans of unethical baldies. Money hoarding Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos is officially off the market after marrying now wife Lauren Sanchez in a Venice wedding that is reported to have cost in the tens of millions of dollars. The response on the ground in Italy was less than festive, however, with locals protesting the wedding during its approach with demonstrations, marches,

and unflattering artist renderings of Bezos that were displayed on shore, also floated on the river. I think there was one of him on the toilet, which a lot of people are getting photos with. Very funny, but I think speaks to how unhappy locals are with this display and with objections that tied to over-tourism, which has been a real sore spot for Venetians with overcrowded streets, Airbnb, Dominion, environmental damage and rising prices for locals. They were also protesting the couple themselves and their rich list guest list, more specifically objecting to his tax avoidance, environmental disregard and budding up with President Trump. Across the world criticism of the wedding has rolled in with lots of people calling it tacky, ugly, tacky, very ugly and very tacky. Whether this is objective truth or just a reaction to how people feel about Sanchez and Bezos themselves.

Let's see if we can unpack that and find out. I sort of sensed from our group chat that maybe you weren't quite as locked in and then only maybe this is you being offline to this wedding as I was, but I would like to ask of what you have seen, what were your impressions? Do you think that it did look tacky, ugly, very tacky, very ugly, just to

speak to the aesthetics first of all? The one that I did see, which really made me, well, not the one, but one of the bits I really enjoyed was on Bella Mackey's story. She was like, they have put in grey office carpet as like the carpet from the wedding and it actually was, and they would have spent so much money on this and it just looked hideous. So I'm not as locked in on this as you have been, but I, and I do think that tacky is such a loaded term, which can be really, you know, insulting,

but I think against a billionaire, we're allowed to call him tacky. I also just think, you know, the guestless, which I know we'll get onto, it was interesting to see who showed their faces, but I think that I've seen nicer weddings in a random town hall that cost someone, you know, the minimum you can spend on a wedding, and it's looked more chic. This is whatever the opposite of chic is, deeply un-chic. I just, I have not given a single fuck about this wedding. And it almost feels like I'm being forced to care about it

because it's everywhere. It's all over my timeline. It's all over Instagram. I just, I don't care. The thing I care about, yeah, like you said, the people who will weather the criticism and the online critique of them attending. And I think that's super interesting.

But just in general, I don't know, it's not for me. It's not interesting me, it's not piquing my interest in any form, visually, emotionally, spiritually. I just, I don't care. What do you think? I reject these two as like a celebrity couple. That's it. I think we all have to collectively reject them as a celebrity couple. They are oligarchs. They are the global elite. They are figureheads of this Gilded Age 2.0 that we are living in, which we should absolutely reject wholeheartedly. I think maybe this wedding, in as gross as it was, this gross display of wealth attended by people that often pay lip service to social justice and care for the environment, I think should be a wake

up call. And I'm hoping it is, but yeah, just this idea, like I saw Vogue profiled Lauren Sanchez and she was on the cover and it's so unbelievably simpering and obsequious, this interview. It's nauseating actually. It's framed as this sweet match made in heaven. The protests are only mentioned in passing as though it's like rumoured rain on the morning of a wedding rather than actually local people standing up and objecting, kind of disagreeing publicly with this oligarchical display. Maybe it's been the heat in London, I don't know, but it has made me feel so cross. I think I've been locked into this out of

rage alone. Just watching anyone be like, oh, it's nice when two people find each other. I'm like, no, no, these people are like the embodiment of evil at the moment, of convenience culture, individualistic culture. And I'm like, as I wait for that to crumble, and I know that it will, I know the cracks are starting to show, but like, in the meantime, I think the least that we can do is reject these two as part of like fun celebrity culture and assign them that proper status of like, you are global elite vultures, oligarchs. And I just think anyone who is moved by this should have to wear a sandwich board that says, I'm a big dummy.

Again, this could be the heat talking, but my stand by it. My favorite and least favorite guest in equal terms was Leonardo DiCaprio wearing a cap pulled so far down over his face, arriving, I think in a private jet as someone that, you know, speaks very openly and widely about his interests in the environment. I think this is when you start to feel a bit like a pleb as a civilian, when you're like, oh, okay, so I haven't used a plastic straw, I haven't bought fast fashion. Do you know what? It made me buy a pair of shoes from Primark. I actually did buy a pair of, I went past Primark, I was in super drug, getting my eyebrow gel and I went past Primark and they had these really nice sandals and I never

buy fast fashion. I'm so anti. I made this big pledge years ago. It's like my one thing towards the environment. I know I tried to eat less meat and I make all these changes because I think if everyone did a little bit, it goes a really long way. But in this culture, not literally directly linked to this, but just watching this onslaught of rich people who could make such a big difference do absolutely nothing, in fact, worse in every single area of public life for everyone except for themselves. I thought, I tell you what, a pair of 10 pound sandals that look quite expensive from Primark, I deserve those because what am I going to do? And this is, I think, this is the thing that's so upsetting and affronting about the whole thing is a lot of people do really care and really want to

make changes and want the world to be a better place. And when you see displays like this, and you see people that potentially could make a big difference or who have voiced quite applaudable views in the past, it's like, God, the cognitive dissonance is so big. And actually, it does kind of just make you the little person feel stupid for believing that you can make a difference. And I think that's kind of the sadness in it all. Yeah, I think that's such a good point. And I don't think I'd necessarily been able to outline how I feel about anything other than I don't give a shit about this. But yeah, I think that's a much more nuanced and it's a much more interesting

way of looking at it. And I think you're right. And what you were saying about Leonardo DiCaprio specifically jogged my memory of a conversation I had with somebody. And I just Googled and he has been notorious for using private jets jets because I remember thinking that he was like a damn fool for a while now. And in January of this year, the Metro reported Leonardo DiCaprio lands in Mexico on private jet, avoiding Los Angeles wildfires. So yeah, if you have any kind of semblance of respect for him regarding his commitment to the environment, I think this is not new. This has been an ongoing issue outside of the fact that he dates very young women. That's another issue, but there's

quite a few issues building up for this guy. I'll just say that. I mean, on the topic of Leonardo DiCaprio, I mean, I think he's got an absolutely ancient Haggard girlfriend. I think she's 27, if you can believe it. I think she's- Oh my God. She's obviously got- turned your stomach, doesn't it? Because she wore like an archival dress. I don't know, it was some Dolce & Gabbana, it was something gorgeous. The press tied it to, I think his ex from many moons ago, Giselle Bunchton, had worn

this with him at an event 20 years ago. There was a rip in it and then it was suddenly in pieces and people were like, rich people are so fucking annoying. She had this gorgeous dress on and it turned to ribbons by the end of the night, which I'm sure there is a nice visual metaphor in that for wealth and its illusions, but it's too early in the day and I can't find it. I just thought that was very funny with his very old girlfriend. I read a lot of really interesting coverage of this actually. There was a piece in the Irish Times by Rachel O'Dwyer called, Forget Quiet Luxury, the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Laurence Sanchez screamed money.

And there was this good quote that I highlighted, which is, the outrage isn't new, but maybe our reaction to it is. We're no longer shocked by wealth itself, only by the spectacle of loud luxury. We watch, judge, meme, and move on faster than it takes Amazon to deliver a Prime Day package. A brilliant corset, a million dollar yacht, a group of wealthy people swimming in the canal. These are now cultural as opposed to political moments. Instead of sparking a revolution, they become content. The content distracts us. We see over images of Bezos, but the Amazon boxes keep landing on our doorsteps. No kings say the protest signs, but we don't abolish them. Instead, we follow them on Instagram. And I think this piece and the whole piece, which we will link in the show notes,

sums up really well. I think it's a spectacle. This wedding is a spectacle of all that keeps the world ugly and broken and agonizing for people. It's like what they think. And it's not even beautiful. Maybe that's the insult to injury. It's so tacky and yet all of this, it's these uber wealthy people hoarding money for their ugly weddings, like money lustful people. I think it feels really sinful, like parting it up on this, basically this sinking, over-visited, floundering city with growth displays of all they have while the rest of us kind of muddle through. I just think it's kind of so on the nose. It feels a little bit like, surely they know, and is it just that they don't need to care and don't care? Or is there some sort of enjoyment

there of, look at what we have. We have chosen this city, which is emblematic of that kind of Gilded Age of, once was this hub of commerce and money, and is now actually just a kind of ghost of what it once was. It just felt way on the nose, a little bit too obvious. Did you also have the same feeling that you were just like, isn't it so depressing that none of these people are clearly friends with a couple? Like Sydney Sweeney being there, Orlando Bloom being there, Leonardo DiCaprio being there. It just feels like seeing celebrities shoving their faces up the assses of billionaires

to literally be like, pick me, pick me, I'm part of the circle. And also in reverse, a couple getting married who've brazenly not got real friends, just invite A-listers left for own center. It all just felt like, as you said, so hollow, so deeply hollow. And I want to get into the Sidney Sweeney of it all. Why the hell would she attend something like this? And do you think it's going to ruin her reputation? I think she was paid. I think she has been quite open in the past about like, she says yes to loads of adverts, as we've seen with she just sold a soap with a hole in it made of her bath water. I think she has been very open about like, I didn't grow up with much. I had to

say yes to every paycheck, this could all go away. I mean, she's been A-list or I don't know how true that is now, but I think it's pure speculation, but I think there must have been a price tag for some of these people to attend. And I think I have the suspicion that she would be one of them. Heather Hyslop Either that or her agent said to her, this is going to be amazing for publicity. If you go to, you know, it's going to really help you out in your career. I think more and more, we've spent so long in the world talking about countries that really suffer from huge disparities in wealth and how dystopian it is. But when you look now at the UK, at the US, like these countries which prided themselves on having more stability and economic prosperity are just showing their asses in that it really is

the haves and the have nots and it is money. It's not about art, it's not about beauty. And I mean like beauty in the sense of beautiful things and creation. It's like the ultimate thing that makes you interesting or valuable is literally just your monetary wealth. And that is the thing that we value above everything else. Whereas historically there would have been other things that would have made someone important, but we are really

stacking importance now just on how rich you can be. And I think that is just showing up more and more. And it does make me just dislike, I really like Sydney Sweeney, but it does get to a point where you're kind of like, oh, can I be bothered to like these people because it would be so easy. I don't even know what the answer is, but it's of like, oh, can I be bothered to like these people because it would be so easy. I don't even know what the answer is, but it's just like, I guess everyone can be bought for a price. And that's a shame because it'd be nice to think they can't. You know what it is? I think because we feel so powerless, we're watching and consuming all of this stuff. And the best we can do is just like turn our phone off or turn away, which all of us do to a point. It feels like if somebody like a Sidney Sweeney

or Leonardo DiCaprio feels like they have to do this, then what's the point? What's the point of having money and power? You are far more powerful than any of us and you're still bending to the will of billionaires and just showing your asses. So who among us has integrity, if not the people who financially would be much better to weather that than any of us could do? Heather Hyslop It's a nice reminder that these people are each other's, like this is class solidarity. They are one another's important people, someone like Leonardo DiCaprio for all of his good words. And I think also there was some amount of money that the Bezos' donated to the Venetian something fund, which seemed

to piss people off more because it's like, well, fuck, it feels like you've actually just rented out the city, you've bought this, but it's a neat reminder that these people actually have no allegiance downward. It's lateral and it's upward to the billionaires, the oligarchs. Let's not be in denial anymore. Let's not think of celebrities as our friends. This man who, through this party, essentially with the money saved from not paying taxes, or I think he's got a 1.1% tax rate, paying lower than a really low earner, throwing this foam party on a 500 million pound yacht and spending what should be workers' profits and tax money on nice wines for Kim Kardashian to enjoy between events. I mean, it's like fucking hell. If this does not leave

you feeling kind of sick, I don't know what will. Also her dress was butters. Sorry. I know that that is not what this is about and I've seen a lot of conversations about her face, which I'm not getting into, but I did not enjoy the dress and I feel okay saying that. Also just Google the carpet because I will never move on from this. It's devastating. You cover the real issues here on EIC. Last month, presenter, actor and activist, Jamila Jamil wrote a sub stack titled, I think I'm done with being interviewed by women. In the piece, she explains why she's completely

swearing off being interviewed by women who she says treat her with an automatic scepticism and end up twisting her words in her opinion, whereas she makes the claim that male journalists actually engage with her thoughts. She also says that female journalists want her to prove herself instead. The interview that triggered this whole thing was with a Sunday Times journalist Liz Edwards and was called Jamila Jamil, quote, I stood up for Megan long before I met her. Jamila says that the interviewer, quote, threw away a majority of an hour of thoughtful words about grief, misogyny, beauty standards, ageism, defiance,

et cetera, end quote, and essentially just instead reshared things that were freely available on Google. And she said many, many times before. And there was one particular paragraph that she took umbrage with, which is the journalist basically goes into all of her chronic illnesses and expresses an opinion that Piers Morgan has shared and some fringe people online that Jamila Jamil essentially has lied about her chronic illnesses. Jamila says all of that makes her look quote, fucking crazy. She says, it read like a cheap bitchy daily mail blog written by a student desperate to

get clicks to keep their job. The kicker out of all of this is Jamila actually recorded the interview and says if Liz gives her permission, she'll share the actual interview to prove how differently it all went. Just for reference, this is part of the Times paragraph that she's upset with. Just, I think it's pretty helpful to understand. Quote, Warmth only really turns to freudure, don't know what that word means FYI,

when I bring up accusations from people such as Pierce Morgan who have questioned the veracity of the astonishing catalogue of incidents and illnesses she has talked about dealing with. She has had a series of operations before she was 12 to correct hearing loss and as a child was diagnosed with celiac disease, allergies to peanuts and shellfish and Elha's Danlos Syndrome, a painful condition that affects the skin and connective tissue. In her teens she had anorexia which she says quote destroyed her bone density and which she got past only after she was hit by a car aged 17 while fleeing a bee.

She said the resulting injuries helped her rethink her relationship with her body. She has talked about being raped. In her 20s she suffered a breakdown, had an abortion and tried to take her own life. In 2014 she had a breast cancer scare and she was treated for cervical cancer in 2016 and 2019. She was injured in a second bee-related traffic accident in 2016, this time in America. It sounds as though she's ticked off most health illnesses. It keeps going on to pursue this line, the piece that is, sharing a quote from Piers Morgan saying that Jamila had munchausens. It's only at the end it becomes clear that the profile is supposed to be promoting her new Pixar film and a new podcast she has coming out.

I have so many thoughts about this piece and Jamila Jamil's piece as well. But first, do you both think that she's got a point about female journalists gunning for other women in the press particularly? And what were your thoughts about this Times profile, especially? So I think I read the piece and I actually thought Jamila didn't come off badly, but mostly because I thought that Liz was kind of, you could tell it was quite snarky. That list I think is so wild because you could write that list for anyone. You could say when Anoni was three, she had to wear an eye patch to correct her lazy eye. She then had to wear these little boots because I couldn't walk in a straight line. She then had her appendix out at 11.

She had all of these, I broke my leg. I cut my leg. I had that like, you could list I've had instances of sexual harassment. If you wrote everything that I've ever been through, housewives, mental health issues, blah, blah, and put them in a neat little list over the course of my 31-year life, you could easily make it sound like I was going crazy. But also the fact that she mentioned that Jamila has spoken about being raped in and amongst this sort of laundry list of ailments, which over the course of, it probably does sound absurd when you put it together, but

like I said, you could do it about my life and it would probably be like, God, she's had a lot going on. So that just felt, I agree with Jamila that it's really setting her up on the back foot. And I spoke to a friend who's a journalist about this and she was like, but the thing is journalists, that's their job. You know, not every piece is going to be a puff piece. And, you know, we'll come onto this, but there was a cut piece as well, which said, you know, she doesn't understand how journalism works.

But reading the piece, then reading Jamila's rebuttal, I now think journalism is flawed actually, because this is the crux of this argument that everyone keeps saying. She doesn't understand how interviews work but it just makes me think then the way that we interview is flawed and I do think that there's definitely a gendered imbalance between when men and women are interviewed and the kind of airtime that we give to men's work over their personal life, the way they look, the things they do in their private life. Whether or not that I think women are

they do in their private life. Whether or not that I think women are worse at tearing down other women, I think probably when we look at sites like Tattle and stuff, it is very often women that are pitting other women against each other. And we've spoken about this before, but you are kind of trained as a woman to see that there is minimal space for you and that you're constantly competing against other women in a way that men don't feel, which might be part of the reason that we feel the need to kind of poke and prod at women. But also, as we've spoken about a million times, the way that a woman looks, the way that she lives her life, her moral values are the metrics by which we measure a woman's success almost more than any other success she's had outside of it.

So I think that this exists in a culture that promotes that kind of attitude. I have so much more to say on this though. So Beth, what were your thoughts? Echo a lot of that. I think that there is an interesting and probably necessary conversation to have from both sides, from women who find themselves often profiled, which is a baffling thing, I think. It's just a completely unnatural thing that would leave anyone, even if it wasn't this piece, feeling a little bit like, but you didn't really get me, because I think that's sort of impossible.

And also from journalists and interviewers who kind of explained the rigors and the limitations of that as a form, because you've got this sort of, you've got to hit these editorial points. And again, you don't choose the headline. And that, I know she chose to ask about Meghan Markle, which I think you could see as neutral as kind of being like, there is some synergy there. There is a connection between how they've both been treated and the fact that they have

met, both of them are very relevant cultural figures, and Meghan Markle is clickbait, catnip. And that's what I think has happened here. And it must be very frustrating. I think the conversation around like how, why do we have to have these snappy hooks? And it is to get people to fucking read the piece in the first place. It's a mess on both sides and I would be interested in hearing from more people on both sides of that just to fill the dialogue. But I got, so I got a notification, I think, or maybe I saw on someone's story and I read the first paragraph of Jamila's piece and then I said, I'm going to go away and

read this piece that she's talking about first and then come back to this. And actually out of context reading it, I really didn't think, because you get what you get, I wasn't thinking, wow, this is a hatchet job, this is a reel, she's really gone in on her. And then reading Jamila's sub stack, you go, okay, these are the bits she's talking about. It is the things taken out of context. It is the fact that so much of, you know, whole paragraph and a headline given over to Meghan Markle when she was, she said she spoke about her for 90 seconds and it was an hour long interview. The fact that I think there's a line where she says

Jamila retracts her claws, little things that do actually on first read, you wouldn't notice, but if it was about you and if it was about a conversation you had had, you went, but I wasn't being catty, which I guess is the inference there. You would take umbrage with that. And so I found it very interesting. I also did find the part about the Munchausens quite difficult to read. I think there is a way to have that conversation, to say you were in a very public spat with a man. I mean, Jimmy Liddy Mill, famous feminist, talks about the way that men and women are treated

in the media, could have been framed as you were in this public spat with this man who has said so many revolting things, and I say that as someone that was in a spat with him as recent as last year. Why is that? Why do you think that the press picks up on these in such a misogynistic way? I can imagine it was very frustrating to be like, here's this ugly period from your life. I mean, the thing that Piers Morgan said, I think he tweeted several times,

but one tweet, I think it was really foul. He said, have a bag of peanuts Munchausen and pipe down. Everyone can now see you for the virtue signalling Ford you are. And it was speculation that she'd had Munchausen's based on, I think, a 2020 deep dive by another journalist that was on social media. It's like, that must feel like a really ugly thing, especially as it's tethered to health concerns, physical and chronic pain, and as you said, a sexual assault. It just felt like that could have been a worthy conversation. You are insane if you think you can ask someone like that in an interview and not have them be full of freudger, whatever that does mean. I think that doesn't sound, I would love to hear the full unedited thing because I would love to hear how this interview was conducted

as someone who does, who interviews people myself, occasionally for print and you do, like it's a lot of moving parts, you are basically trying to reorder this into something that is interesting but also accurate but also fulfills the brief from your editor. I think the whole thing, it's such a ripe conversation but I don't know necessarily where I stand on it yet. As in that the headline of the whole thing of I won't be interviewed by female journalists because this is a female journalist problem. I'm a bit unsure of that still. I think the difficult thing is in her piece, she has valid points, but they're surrounded

and kind of couched and things where she's gone so far to the other side, things she's saying are just like frankly not true. I don't think this is a female journalist problem. I think it is a media outlet problem. I think what you said about the kind of general context of having to make sure that pieces are read, I think serving your audience as well. Something like the Times audience probably don't necessarily care that much about Jameela Jamil unless you do something quite inflammatory because then they might rage bait, click on it and then have a reaction to it and engage with it further. I think putting Meghan Markle in the headline, you're completely right. it is just catnip to that audience because they hate her. Possibly you're on the side of Piers Morgan thinking that she is entitled. FYI, I don't agree

with that. I think it's misogynoir. So I think they've formulated it perfectly for their audience. And I just don't think that's a female journalist problem. I think that's a media digesting problem at the minute. And I think saying that men give her a fairer chance, I just can't for a second believe that's true, especially when so many of these organizations are created by men. It's not necessarily the editor who wrote this piece who's going to get all the final checks and balances on this. It will be possibly her head who not going to lie to you in these newsrooms. Often our men, which is depressing as fuck, I've seen, I've been, I've worked with those people and I've had my pieces decimated and turned into the lowest common denominator and it's

fucking frustrating. It makes you feel like dirt. I'm not saying that's the situation in this scenario, but I'm just saying it's some context of my experience, I guess, to paint the bigger picture. And I just, I honestly, if I was a celebrity, I wouldn't do a piece with The Times necessarily. I probably do it with The Guardian, The Observer, The Face, ID Magazine, these places that I trust that they can handle me sensitively. And that's not to blame her. I'm not blaming her for doing this interview. I just think in today's media consumption and the world we're in, I think you have to know that, I don't know, so many of these newspapers will create salacious versions of what you said and it's really difficult. And I think on the one hand, you have these puff pieces because Piazza in the room sat with you and then just interjecting every

minute saying, oh, we didn't agree to that in the, you know, in the pre-brief, blah, blah, blah. And you come away with absolutely nothing. So you have to write something that's sycophantic because otherwise, you know, your editor will say, well, you've burnt that bridge, or you have something like this, which is just so, I don't know, it is snarky. It is snarky. Referencing Pierce Morgan as if he's a neutral voice about the state of her health issues. I do, I would find that offensive. I would be pissed off if I read that. So I get the anger from her on that. But I also think her chiming in and saying, this is how I interview people and this is the way the interview should be conducted. I guess I get slightly defensive

about that and her saying that men are the only people to be trusted or the way I conduct interviews in my seven years of being a podcaster is the way that you're meant to do them. It's a different medium. And we've spoken about it before. I think there is this sense of anyone can be a journalist, anyone can do it. We're all doing it on TikTok. And that it's just a different thing. Like it's a, it's a worthy thing. It's just as worthy I think, and it's an interesting medium, but I don't think it's fair to bring in ego and say that journalists have no idea how to do a job or every female journalist is a bitch who's projecting on me. I just don't think that's the answer either. I think she's

overcorrected for a very shit situation. I agree with both of you. And actually, to go back to what you said, Beth, when I first read it, I, again, maybe because I read a lot of interviews, nothing in it surprised me, but I didn't think Jamila came off badly only because I was able to read what was the interviewer's voice and what was Jamila speaking. And so it didn't make me feel, it wasn't any new information for me about Jamila either, but I can understand that why she would feel stressed about it. And this is what was making me think. And it's exactly you said, Ruchira, that the system is flawed. The media, traditional print media is scared because they are struggling against big social media platforms. Celebrities are going on things like Call Her Daddy, Hot Ones, Chicken Shop Date, because the celebrity in

that scenario is able to bolster their profile, able to advertise whatever they're working on and they aren't going to face any difficult questions. It's not going to be a rigorous interview. And my friend, who's a journalist was saying, I really believe in rigorous interviewing. Like you said, not every piece can be a puff piece and I can totally agree with that. I think the murkiness is we've gotten so used to this fight for clicks. I do think that headline is really cheap. I actually am really put off reading anything when it mentions Meghan Markle because I know it's just going to be some way they found shoehorner in. I thought the headline, it's so lazy. This has been a thing forever though and I wrote about this in my book, but I once wrote a piece of women's health, they completely

changed it all and they made the headline like, am I a narcissist? I thought it was going to be called the psyche of social media or something like, so it's a thing and they do it for clicks. But I think maybe what Jamila is getting at, which I do think is interesting is, are we all just bowing down and accepting this because we think that that's the best way forward is to get the most clicks or is, would it be more interesting to have more rigorous interviewing, which doesn't necessarily mean that the interviewee is going to be painted in the best light if that is necessary for what's current. But when you really think about it, that piece could have been written much better. It could have been from a much more interesting angle. It didn't need to

be so front loaded with all of this negative context about Jamila. There are smarter ways that it could have been integrated, but it does feel like journalism at the minute is adapting to a world which is based on this attention economy, which means more clicks, more outrage, more attention. And this has kind of created it. And I think we should talk about the article that was in response to Jamila's response. But is the crux of the issue that no one wins actually when journalism is just in order to get clicks because celebrities more often are bringing their PRs into the room because they're worried about getting these bad pieces.

They're not going to want to do these interviews anymore. Print interviews do not hold as much weight as they used to in the past. It used to be such a big thing if someone wanted to release an album or they were doing a new movie, you would go to the papers, you go to the magazines. There are other avenues now. Maybe that journalism, which is imbued with, I think, a lot of misogyny, and I agree with you both, it is marquee to decide whether or not women are the worst perpetrators of that because women are also the victims of it, the female journalists included, and also exist in a system where they are also the cog. So I think there's

that thing of sometimes we're enacting out our oppressors desires in our work. Anyway, long, long thread. But yeah, I think it points to a really interesting problem, which is that perhaps the way journalism is going in order to save it is actually turning people off it. And maybe there's a different route that could be approached. I think you're right. I think there is. You do see this with people just being innovative in the ways they do it. I guess what Jamila Jamila is saying is, she's not saying I will never speak to a woman again, you harlots. She's saying I won't engage in this kind of media profile again. I will have any conversation with a female interviewer where all of it's published as is,

whether it's a live event or transcripted. I will do that, but I won't do this. I won't leave myself open to misrepresentation, which I think must be a side effect for all people who are all media figures, public figures, who are interviewed in figures, public figures who were interviewed in this format because it is. It's the interpretation of the person that met them for an hour in a coffee shop. It is someone scouring their internet history and knowing them

not at all. I'll preface this by saying I really enjoy Hot Ones. I love Ching and Shop Day. I think they are fantastic on the media landscape. It's such a, it's pure entertainment. It's good interviews as well, but I think maybe we are just missing having like a really like Parkinson's style, like a Larry King, like an Oprah, like a, I forget her name, Barbara, you know, something where a celebrity is kind of not raked over the cold, but at least put in a hot seat enough. It's not sycophantic promotion. It is you're a public figure. You claim you are this, you're an activist. Well, let's dig into that. And it would be a real shame for Jamina Jamil just because she's a feminist and it serves us all to put feminists and women in general, just in conversation

with one another, because a man will not approach anywhere near that level of understanding. And then it just leaves more inherently kind of like sycophantic forms of media, like certain podcasts, certain publications, certain formats. And we would just lose a lot, I think, because we must kind of challenge one another to expose where we have our weak spots and where we can do better and where we can cross those or kind of fortify those lines of solidarity. And so it's like my takeaway was she can only do what she can do to feel safe and to be able to continue the work that she wants to

do. And none of this is to say like she is above reproach. Like she and I have kind of not clashed before, we disagreed and that's absolutely fine. But I think it would be a shame for this to ultimately to close off that avenue or for the takeaway for a lot of people to be like, female journalists are doing something underhand that men are not capable of doing. I think that left a bad taste because it is people whose interview style she disagrees with and a format which I guess just doesn't work for her. And it was a long, long piece that I did feel did point towards female journos as the problem. I know that she had so many good points, especially like, you know, she's a brown woman in the

media landscape that treats non-white women with disdain and suspicion, and that's not something I can understand, but it's a part of this. She is doing what she's always done, which is kind of saying the thing out loud and very loudly. But I did just worry, okay, what does that leave then? What does that leave for you and what does that leave for these conversations which you do want to keep having? I don't know. Emma Cunningham On a personal level, it's quite an interesting atmosphere at the minute. I'm thinking about, so Millie Bobby Brown calling out the handful of journalists who spoke about her face and Jamila Jamil doing a rebuttal. We've previously had

celebrities saying that they hated a piece, but I think it's quite different just the amount of avenues they can now go into to share their feelings about it. You could literally jump on Instagram Live and compared to a newspaper who might get, I think a good piece would get like 500,000 views, they could jump on an Instagram Live to their millions of followers and get far bigger reach and name and shame the journalist and say something like this person hung me out to dry and possibly, you know, millions of people could then say their opinion back to the journalist and that power dynamic is not equal at all. I think celebrities hold so much more power than a newspaper does, vastly, greatly, far more in huge numbers than a newspaper does.

I do think newspapers and media outlets are at the mercy of celebrities in a way that we've never seen before because we're seeing so many of these clapbacks, quote unquote. What do you do when that happens? That journalist is going to be absolutely petrified, annihilated publicly. I'm not saying that this is a, I think it's an imperfect solution. I don't say that I judge people for doing either side, but I think it's an interesting place that we've got to now that the response can have a far bigger audience than the original piece of content, i.e. the piece that's gone out.

I think it's such an interesting point and it's something I was thinking about because on the one hand, when we're talking about individual journalists and like in the case of Millie Bobby Brown, and we made the point, you know, that when you all, but Ruchira, you also said that like, I just wouldn't write those pieces, but there are some journalists who are working who, that is what they've been offered, that is how they're paying their bills. They don't necessarily have a choice in it. I guess there's the thing to say that historically the media has been responsible for so many, especially women, Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, the list goes on of women that have been impacted,

sometimes fatally by the way that their lives are speculated and reported on. And this is an ongoing thing. And that is a legacy of the media. And so there is something quite powerful about, and you see it day to day, you see Lily Allen does it, Jamie Lange will do it. They'll just clip a headline for the Daily Mail and comment on it and be like, we weren't having a fight actually, we were laughing about something, but the way they've taken this picture or I didn't say this, I said this. And I do think there's something good about that because it's like, I don't think that the media, I think it has such a horrid, and when I say the media now, it's like the whole industry, the Rupert Murdoch's, the history of the way

that these publications and magazines can ruin people's lives. But then I do understand on an individual level when celebrities are going for individual journalists, that that can have catastrophic like impacts for those journalists and that they will have less of a cushion and a safety net than say a celebrity that maybe gets a bad piece that actually a lot of the readers aren't really going to change their opinion on that celebrity but it might be really soul crushing for them. So there is a power imbalance there but I guess there must be some feeling from the celebrity that like you're also sticking your head above the parapet and you're making me look like I'm not a reliable narrator or I'm not credible.

So why can't I turn around and say actually they're not credible? And when I read that piece, funny enough for me saying that I'm not that online, I recognized three things that I'd seen Jamila saying that I knew weren't from the piece. So first of all, when she said, I don't care if people like me anymore

because I've realized I don't like everyone. That was from a street interview that she did with this guy called Confidence Man on TikTok and I'd seen that clip and he asked her what makes her confident and she replies to that, oh, I've just realized that I don't really like everyone. So why would I expect everyone to like me? And in the piece that is written as though Jameela sat down and gone, I really don't like anyone. And she hasn't quoted where that's from.

Liz doesn't say it to all the journalists. Then later on there's a bit, this is really random side note, but it also made me feel like the person talking to me wasn't credible, which she said, and for her 40th birthday, she's going to have a pajama party with a pillow fight. I listened to every podcast in the world, and there is a podcast with Catherine Boehart called It's My Party, which is a comic relief podcast where she has celebrities on. It's kind of like off menu for a party. And Jamila off the cuff kind of comes up with what would be her perfect 40th birthday party and it ends up being a pajama party with a pillow fight. And again, it's just these little bits that are thrown in,

like written as if it's verbatim. And neither of those two, well, the first bit is a bit more damning, but again, it's kind of like they're grabbing a smorgasbord of information taken out of context, smushing it into this piece. And as much as I do not think that journalists deserve the ire of millions of people online, and I cannot imagine being on the back end of that, I do think that unfortunately, as is always, the messenger is getting shot and the messenger is the one carrying the message

of media conglomerate's legacy, which is ultimately kind of to shame women in the public eye in order to get people to read their pieces because no one enjoys anything more than tearing down a famous woman who is beautiful and successful. And as basic as that sounds, there is massive amounts of money and chardonnay in that. And so I agree there's no like ways to cut this cleanly, but I do think it's great that celebrities have a cleanly, but I do think it's great that celebrities have a right to apply. I do think it's bad that this can have an impact on these journalists, but I do think it's bad that journalists can ruin people's lives.

So there's not a neat way to cut it up, but I did as long and laborious as Jamila's piece was and in response to a piece which actually wasn't that crazy in the schemes of journalism, I actually did find it kind of empowering because it does show that eventually I do think that media is going to have to catch up and realize that you can't just say whatever you want whenever you want. But then I also do think they should be able to be rigorous and call people out. So it's confusing. I just, it sounds like this piece, and I think so too, I just think this piece was not that good. And it kind of sounds like an AI overview of Jamila Jamila rather than an hour of connecting with this person and trying to glean what you can from them about who they

are and who they perceive themselves to be and where they are at this point in life which is what profile in my opinion is meant to be it just as you were saying that about being a smorgasbord of all these different kind of interviews she's done it screams either they didn't get much from the interview so she had to pick all of this stuff, B she might have just not had enough time or C she didn't get long enough with this person so she's had to do all of this and just scramble to put something together but the result is just not any kind of possibly authentic moment with this person to get any kind of unique interesting information from them. But then release the tapes, release the tapes.

Yeah, it feels very much like the panic when you're going to write up and you realize we didn't talk about this, but this piece would have been served by talk of the future, something a little bit lighter, what you're doing for this party. Or in a really good interview, she would have gotten from Jamila Jamil something that was really quotable that she said on the day that was not taken out of context, that she did not have to search for elsewhere, like that quote, I don't like anyone, she would have got more of that. And that is the point of getting something that she said nowhere else. I think when I've interviewed people who are also doing press for other things and you read what you've got on the transcript and you

see what they've said elsewhere and you're like, damn, some of this is verbatim because they're very coached, they are saying the same thing. I can't now use that and I need more really original content, which comes from good questions. And yeah, it just feels like you can get that from Jamila Jamila. She is candid and she will say quite bold things. And if you don't get that, I think that is a failure on that side. And I didn't, cause I hadn't seen those interviews where she said those things and they are sprinkled through, but on the power dynamic, it's interesting reading the comments on Jamila's sub stack. There are lots of thoughtful engagement from other journalists and women, but

then there's also lots of people, yeah, just gunning for Liz Edwards, calling her a shit writer saying that it's speculating that it was written by AI and I think that's where it gets ugly. It's that power dynamic shifting between two people. Jamila Jamil, obviously she has to speak the truth thing. She's going to tell the truth about it, but it's like you are in a position of power where people will run with that because people on the internet are bonkers. It's not her. She's not in charge of them. She's absolutely not, but it must be a consideration on both sides. I'm a lot more confused, but I think it's such an interesting topic.

Poir-Nabelle commented on Jamila's piece and she talks about there's a certain type of person, she says, sorry to say a certain type of white woman who can't believe that a brown woman has confidence and the audacity to be outspoken, to dream big and think big. But she said something, the way she ended it, which I thought was a really good point because I think to the naked eye, this piece isn't that incendiary, but she says, whilst it seems like they may not be swinging, the cuts are so paper thin, they're harmful, regardless. And I think it is that slow etching away at someone that this piece on its own might not seem that much, but I cannot imagine what it must be to constantly just be receiving those paper cuts. I just thought it was a really great way of putting it and

an interesting insight from Purna as well. Thank you so much for listening this week. Also have you listened to our latest Everything In Conversation episode? You are going to love it. We spoke to the incredible author and podcaster Juno Dawson and tackled everything from and just like that to obsessions with girl bands. As always we are asking, imploring and hoping that you will leave us a rating, a review on your podcast player app. It helps others to find the podcast and it helps us to keep making it. Please also give us a follow on Instagram and TikTok at EverythingIsContentPod. See you next week.

Bye. Bye.