Clickbait and Cover-Ups: The Profit in Targeting Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

The Profit in Targeting Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

If you do not find the constant media scrutiny against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, disturbing, then you are most likely a part of the problem or just not paying attention. How does a woman who has done nothing but live her truth and be loved by a prince ruffle so many feathers to the point she is ranked more hated than an abuser? And unfortunately, that allegation belongs to several powerful men in the news cycle these days.

Since marrying Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the media has been in a frenzy with countless made-up narratives that deflect from actual disgraced members of the Royal Family. That includes former Prince Andrew, who was recently released following an arrest regarding the Epstein revelations. Not to mention the bot social media accounts and Karens who spend countless hours posting their hatred and conspiracy theories for the former actress.

Algorithms and the Media Landscape

The modern media landscape runs on constant attention. With social media and blogs defining what is considered news nowadays and anyone being able to do it, it is less about being right and more about being first. In a 24-hour news cycle driven by algorithms, outrage has become one of the most reliable currencies. It would be incomplete to analyze this business model without acknowledging how race and gender intensified its profitability.

Meghan’s biracial identity and American background positioned her as historic but also separated her from what is deemed acceptable and comfortable by the Royal Family. The critiques often carry coded language and paint her in negative narratives and stereotypes. Just being a Black woman means everything you do is reframed as aggressive. Boundary-setting becomes “diva behavior.” Self-advocacy becomes manipulation. These tropes are familiar, but when layered with racialized undertones, they become even more potent and more clickable to an audience that has already decided to villainize her. Even with her Netflix series, With Love, Meghan, she has been review-bombed and hate-watched by spectators simply looking for an angle for clickbait. 

From the beginning of her relationship with Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Meghan represented a departure from royal tradition. She was American, biracial, divorced, and professionally accomplished. Her presence within the British royal family disrupted long-standing expectations about who belongs within such an institution. That disruption alone made her not just a compelling subject but an automatic target for unjust hate.

Clickbait thrives on exaggeration and emotional reaction. Headlines speculating about feuds, body language, tone, wardrobe, and alleged internal conflicts consistently generated engagement. Stories framing Meghan as “difficult,” “divisive,” or “manipulative” invite readers to take sides and validate their bias. In the digital economy, polarization equals profit. Each social media argument, each trending hashtag, and each reactive opinion piece amplifies traffic and the hate towards her.

Yet beyond simple revenue generation, there is another dynamic at play: cover-ups by redirection. When powerful institutions or high-profile men face scrutiny, attention must be managed. Public relations history shows that shifting the narrative can be as effective as addressing the controversy itself. The world watches as the media shreds the Duchess of Sussex with headline after headline. Her existence is a dramatic storyline centered on her decisions, and every move she makes. The result is a twofold profit. Media outlets gain financially through clicks and engagement. Institutions benefit reputationally when public discourse fixates on a singular, polarizing figure rather than systemic accountability. Meghan is not just a subject of coverage but a narrative shield.

Bigger than Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

None of this suggests that public figures should be immune from criticism. Accountability is essential in any "democratic society." But there is a difference between scrutiny and scapegoating, between critique and commodified hostility. When coverage consistently magnifies minor incidents while downplaying larger systemic concerns, patterns emerge.

Ultimately, the story is bigger than Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It reflects how modern media ecosystems can monetize division while simultaneously shielding entrenched power. When profit and preservation align, someone becomes the focal point of blame. In this particular case, the target is Meghan. Or it is whomever can draw enough attention away from a much larger fire.