LONDON (AP) – Britain’s royal family boasts of portraying it in Meghan and Harry’s explosive TV interview as aloof, unkempt and colored with racism. But the couple identified an even bigger villain: the British media, who accused them of racist bullying and personal attacks.
Many in the media say it is unfair. They argue that, although some tabloids occasionally go too far, journalists play an important role in accounting for the British royal family funded by taxpayers.
But some British journalists, especially those from minority backgrounds, hope the interview will result in a prolonged reckoning with media misconduct and lack of diversity.
Marcus Ryder, professor of media diversity at Birmingham City University, said it was too nice to talk about ‘watershed moments’.
“But I would suggest that this is a moment that will help shape the industry,” he said.
In the couple’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan accuses the British tabloids that they “attacked and incited so much racism”. Harry portrayed a toxic relationship between monarchy and media, saying the royal family was ‘scared’ of the tabloid newspaper.
The allegations sparked a passionate response that toppled two senior British media figures.
Talk show host Piers Morgan, a well-known TV face on both sides of the Atlantic, ‘Good Morning Britain’ stopped amid a scream over his comments about Meghan, especially her description of mental health struggles and suicidal thoughts.
Morgan told viewers Monday that “I do not believe a word she says.” His comments raised more than 41,000 complaints with the British regulator in Britain. Morgan walked off the “Good Morning Britain” series on Tuesday when another presenter challenged him and left the show later that day. “
The furor also claimed the work of Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors. The new media umbrella group announced a strongly worded defense from the press after the interview of Harry and Meghan, saying: “The British media is not too big and will not be neglected from its important role to the rich and powerful until to be held accountable. ”
This caused a setback. The editors-in-chief of The Guardian, the Financial Times and HuffPost UK addressed the statement, while 160 reporters and editors signed a letter saying the Society of Editors was ‘in denial’ about racism.
Charlene White, anchor of ITV News, the first black woman to host the network’s most important evening news program, hosted the society’s annual press awards, saying the organization had asked her to get involved in improving its diversity. , but could not keep his words.
“Since the Black Lives Matter movement really took hold in the UK last year, every institution in this country has finally had to look at the shortcomings and its stance on dealing with ethnic minorities inside and outside its walls,” White said. society said in a statement. “But for some unknown reason, you feel as if the British press has been released in the discussion.”
On Wednesday, Murray resigned, acknowledging that his statement “could have been much clearer in condemning disorder and that it clearly caused outrage.”
The British media, although diverse in political and social views, are not representative of the population in terms of race, gender or class. Non-white Britons and women are underrepresented, while graduates from private schools have an exorbitant share of the work.
Journalists working to change the situation say it is not easy.
Marverine Duffy, a former news anchor who directs the journalism program at Birmingham City University, says ‘improving the number of ethnically and socially diverse qualified journalists in newsrooms is of paramount importance’, but is not enough.
“Systems need to be put in place for group thinking, anti-blackness and the unwillingness to see racism and xenophobia for what it really is, instead of turning a blind eye,” she said.
As well as sparking a debate on diversity, Meghan and Harry’s interview highlighted the complicated, awkward relationship with the monarchy in the media.
For decades, Britain’s royal dramas played out largely in privacy because a deferred media protected the secrets of the monarchy. In the 1930s, the romance between King Edward VIII and the divorced American Wales Simpson was headline news in the US, but barely mentioned in Britain until the king renounced the woman he loved.
The reverence was evaporating when Prince Charles married 20-year-old Lady Diana Spencer in 201. The British media mapped out every twist of their increasingly unhappy marriage. Glamorous Diana became the world’s most famous woman, followed by paparazzi in a car accident in Paris in 1997 until her death, while being chased by photographers.
Diana’s death caused psychological investigation for both palace and press. But that did not cure their difficult relationship.
Harry spoke of his fear that history would repeat itself and that his wife would suffer the same fate as his mother. When he and Meghan ended their royal service last year and moved to North America, they cite the intolerable intrusions and racist attitude of the British media. The couple are suing several British newspapers for violating privacy.
Ryder said the challenge for the media is to distinguish legitimate stories about royals who are in the public interest from intrusive gossip.
‘It’s a subjective call, and that subjective call is why we need gatekeepers, the people who make the call – the people who head newspapers, the people who head news bulletins – for true diversity. to have. , “he said.
“Because if the only people making the call are white people with a certain background and are mainly men, they will make other subjective calls than when we have more diversity.”
Others point out that Harry and Meghan, despite their hostility to the British press, are themselves skilled media manipulators.
Ed Owens, a historian who has studied the relationship between the media and royalty, said the couple uses the new channels of media – things like social media, the Oprah interview – to reach out and connect with new audiences. ‘
“This is nothing new,” he said. “The royals have always been looking for new forms of media to connect with the public. Another thing that is not new is the way they, if you will, use a language of suffering and hardship to evoke an emotional response in media audiences around the world. ‘
“And I think they largely succeeded,” he said.
___
AP author Danica Kirka contributed to this report.