This PRmoment News Review opens with Ben Smith framing three big themes of the week: the return of Harry and Meghan to the UK, Meta’s eye‑watering $18 billion settlement with dozens of US states, and an uneasy communications environment around Russia, Ukraine and NATO.
Here are some highlights from this week's episode:
“Harry is built for purpose, he’s built for service, and being stuck out under an orange tree in Montecito is hardly fulfilling for someone who still has a lot to give to this country.” – Mark Borkowski [0:02:48]
“I think the days of the paid influencer are changing… a lot of them are just on the make, on the take – they’re not authentic partners.” – Angie Moxham [0:12:40]
“Facebook was always going to be more toxic than big tobacco, and it’s clearly proved to be the case.” – Mark Borkowski [0:08:13]
“Eighteen billion sounds a lot to us, but it’s a drop in the ocean to Zuckerberg – I’m glad he had his ass slapped, but it hasn’t gone far enough.” – Angie Moxham [0:11:08]
“Social media is now a utility – it’s as important as water, heat and food in our lives, so it’s going nowhere.” – Angie Moxham [0:12:40]
“The Royal Family has survived Wallis Simpson and Princess Diana, and it will survive Meghan Markle – its prime concern is to keep the institution alive and relevant.” – Mark Borkowski [0:05:47]
“UK society doesn’t seem to be ready for any sort of hardship – we’ve become incredibly complacent.” – Angie Moxham [0:17:04]
“The fabric of society is more likely to be broken by cutting our digital umbilical cords – the undersea cables, the ATMs, the supply chains – than by nuclear weapons flying across our skies.” – Mark Borkowski [0:18:06]
Across the episode, Ben, Angie Moxham and Mark Borkowski keep circling back to power, ego and the fragility of modern institutions – from the Royal Family to social platforms and digital infrastructure.
On Harry and Meghan, Mark argues the comeback has been handled with precision PR. The story is seeded in the US, the Telegraph and key West Coast outlets so that, by the time Britain wakes up, the narrative is everywhere.
He sees the move as a smart test of the UK market and a reaction to things “not working” in America. In his view, Harry is “built for service”, and life “under an orange tree in Montecito” was never going to be enough. He also points to worries about US gun crime in schools and the King’s poor health as likely drivers of a return.
Angie is more sceptical that this signals long-term reconciliation. She reads it as a short-term move shaped by Charles’s health and by Meghan wanting to be a “big fish in a small pond” after an underwhelming US celebrity run.
For Angie, the deeper blocker will be William’s character: she paints him as stubborn and profoundly wounded by Harry’s book and its challenge to the fabric of the monarchy.
While Mark insists “anything is retrievable” given the brothers’ shared trauma and the institutional resilience of the Royal Family, Angie feels the relationship is fundamentally broken, even if everyone can fake unity for PR optics.
The conversation then pivots to Meta’s $18 billion settlement. Ben notes the paradox that Meta’s share price rose after the deal, despite the size of the fine and the absence of any admission of wrongdoing.
Mark characterises Facebook and Meta as structurally “more toxic than big tobacco”, driven by profit with no real social value. He cites whistleblower literature that details knowing failures to protect children and sees the settlement, plus Meta’s open letter inviting TikTok and YouTube into a “better internet”, as a reputational sugar rush that tries to shift blame onto rivals while preserving a rotten culture.
Angie agrees that, in Meta terms, $18 billion is a slap rather than a reckoning. She makes the point that social platforms could, technically, make themselves less addictive but won’t. For her, social media is now a utility – as essential as electricity water and food – which makes genuine disengagement impossible.
She also suggests the era of the paid influencer is waning as audiences increasingly view them as inauthentic, with brand spend cycling back towards big, bankable celebrities.
The final section zooms out to geopolitical risk. Mark, casting himself as a “Cold War baby”, worries less about nuclear war than about asymmetric attacks on digital and infrastructure systems: undersea cables, ATMs, the NHS, supply chains.
Angie notes repeated tabloid stories urging people to “stock up”, plus recent emergency alerts, as unsettling signals. Both suggest the UK public is complacent and unprepared for real disruption, while Russia’s messaging and capabilities point towards a future where the most effective attacks target connectivity and the fabric of civil society rather than physical territory.
Support the show
