One has to question whether there’s any real strategy behind Harry and Meghan’s public appearances.

When it comes to Meghan Markle, it seems that every carefully laid plan is destined for disaster.

Their latest attempt at a high-profile interview on CBS’s Sunday Morning was meant to be a sophisticated showcase of her charitable efforts.

Instead, it devolved into a classic Meghan Markle spectacle, complete with diva-like behavior and chaotic behind-the-scenes antics that leave one wondering if anyone on the team had a clue about what they were doing.

Meghan, ever the self-promoter, reportedly assumed that Gail King—Oprah’s close confidante—would be helming CBS’s Sunday Morning.

However, a little-known fact is that Jane Pauley is actually in charge of the show.

It’s baffling that someone who prides herself on media savvy overlooked such a fundamental detail.

This oversight suggests that her supposed expertise in the industry might not extend beyond the surface level of television dynamics.

But the blunders didn’t stop there.

Insisting on launching the interview on her birthday turned out to be a colossal miscalculation.

The reality is that the world doesn’t pause for personal celebrations, and CBS had wanted to air the segment in the fall, when audiences are more likely to engage after summer vacations.

Yet, Meghan’s team believed her birthday would be the perfect moment to draw viewers in.

The result?

A lackluster interview that failed to capture an audience, overshadowed by competing shows.

This raises a critical point: attempting to host media events during birthday celebrations may not be the most strategic choice for attracting a wider viewership.

CBS had invested heavily in promoting this interview, anticipating it would be a game changer.

Ironically, due to Meghan’s insistence on unapproved changes to the format, the network ended up relying on short clips instead of a robust promotional campaign.

It almost feels as if Meghan and her team are playing a game of how to squander a media opportunity.

The interview fiasco isn’t an isolated incident; similar errors have plagued her charitable endeavors, particularly with the Archwell Foundation.

Once touted as a grand philanthropic initiative, Archwell now symbolizes a lack of genuine commitment.

Reports suggest that Meghan dedicates less than an hour each week to charitable work, rendering the foundation’s purported mission somewhat laughable.

Despite these setbacks, Meghan seems perpetually astonished by the negative reactions she receives.

The headlines she sought from the interview never materialized, perhaps because the public is more focused on pressing global issues than on her repetitive narratives.

Instead of reflecting on these criticisms, she and her team appear to double down, revealing a disconnect in their understanding of public sentiment.

This latest chapter serves as yet another example of how high-stakes gambles often backfire spectacularly.

Each effort to reshape her public persona seems to morph into another act in a tragicomedy.

Perhaps it’s time for Meghan to embrace a bit of humility and a willingness to listen.

After all, sometimes the key to turning the tide lies in genuine engagement rather than self-serving theatrics.

As the media landscape continues to evolve, one can only hope that Meghan and Harry will learn from these missteps.