LONDON (AP) – The British royal family is smart from its portrayal in the explosive television interview of Meghan and Harry, distanced, indifferent and tinged with racism. But the couple identified an even bigger villain: the British media, who accused them of racist harassment and personal attacks.
Many in the media say this is unfair. They argue that while some newspapers occasionally go too far, journalists play a vital role in holding taxpayer-funded British royal family accountable.
But some British journalists, especially those from minority backgrounds, expect the interview to trigger a calculation that has long been delayed by media misbehavior and lack of diversity.
Marcus Ryder, a professor of media diversity at Birmingham City University, said it was too clear to talk about “dividing moments”.
“But I would suggest this is a time that will help set up the industry,” he said.
In the couple’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan accused British tabloids of “attacking and inciting so much racism” against her. Harry portrayed a toxic relationship between the monarchy and the media, saying the royal family was “afraid” of the tabloid press.
The allegations provoked a passionate response that has toppled two prominent British media outlets.
Social gathering Piers Morgan, a familiar face of television on both sides of the Atlantic, he left “Good Morning Britain” amid a clamor for his comments about Meghan, particularly her description of mental health struggles and suicidal thoughts.
Morgan told viewers Monday that “I don’t think he says a word.” His comments drew more than 41,000 complaints to the British media regulator. Morgan left the “Good Morning Britain” show on Tuesday when another presenter challenged him and left the show later that day.
Fury has also vindicated the work of Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors. The new media umbrella group released a strong press defense after Harry and Meghan’s interview, saying that “the British media are not fanatics and will not be influenced by their vital role forcing the rich and powerful to be held accountable. “.
This provoked an opposite reaction. Leading editors of The Guardian, the Financial Times and HuffPost UK criticized the statement, while 160 journalists and editors signed a letter saying the Publishers’ Society “denied” racism.
Charlene White, anchor of ITV News, the first black woman to present the network’s main nightly news program, stopped hosting the company’s annual press awards, saying the organization asked her to get involved to enhance their diversity, but he did not keep his words.
“Since the Black Lives Matter movement really consolidated in the UK last year, all institutions in this country have finally had to look at their failures and their position in terms of how they treat ethnic minorities both within and outside its walls, “White told the company in a statement. “But, for some unknown reason, it feels as if the British press is exempt from this discussion.”
On Wednesday, Murray resigned and acknowledged his statement “could have been much clearer in his condemnation of bigotry and has clearly caused inconvenience.”
The British media, while diverse in their political and social views, are not representative of the population in terms of race, gender or class. Women and non-white Britons are underrepresented, while graduates from private schools occupy a disproportionate share of jobs.
Journalists working to change the situation say it is not easy.
Marverine Duffy, a former news presenter who runs Birmingham City University’s journalism program, says “improving the number of ethnically and socially qualified journalists in newsrooms is paramount,” but it’s not enough.
“Systems need to be put in place to shake up group thinking, anti-blackness and the unwillingness to see racism and xenophobia for what it really is, instead of turning a blind eye,” he said.
In addition to provoking a debate on diversity, Meghan and Harry’s interview revealed the complex and restless media relationship with the monarchy.
For decades, British royal dramas were largely performed in private, as a deferential medium protected the secrets of the monarchy. In the 1930s, the romance between King Edward VIII and the divorced American Wallis Simpson was major news in the United States, but it was barely mentioned in Britain until the king abdicated to marry the woman he loved.
This deference was evaporating when Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer, a 20-year-old woman, in 1981. The British media traced every turn of their increasingly unhappy marriage. Glamorous Diana became the most famous woman in the world, followed by the paparazzi until her death in a car accident in Paris in 1997 while she was being chased by photographers.
Diana’s death provoked the search for souls in both the palace and the press. But it did not cure their troubled relationship.
Harry has talked about his fear of history repeating itself and his wife suffering the same fate as his mother. When he and Meghan left the royal functions last year and moved to North America, they cited what they said were the unbearable intrusions and racist attitudes of the British media. The couple sued several British newspapers for invasion of privacy.
Ryder said the challenge for the media was to differentiate legitimate stories about royalty that are in the public interest from intrusive gossip.
“It’s a subjective call, and that’s why we need our goalkeepers, the people who make that call – the people who are the head of the newspapers, the people who are the head of the news bulletins – to have real diversity. , “He said.
“Because if the only people who make this call are targets of certain backgrounds and are predominantly men, they will make different subjective calls than if we had more diversity.”
Others point out that despite their hostility to the British press, Harry and Meghan are skilled media manipulators.
Ed Owens, a historian who has studied the relationship between media and royalty, said the couple “use new media channels (things like social media, Oprah’s interview) to try to get and connect with new audiences “.
“This is nothing new,” he said. “The royal family has always looked for new forms of communication to connect with the public. Another thing that is not new is the way they used, if you will, a language of suffering and hardship to provoke an emotional response from the media audience around the world. “
“And I think they were largely successful,” he said.
___
AP writer Danica Kirka contributed to this report.