LONDON (AP) – Britain’s royals are shocked by the portrayal in Meghan and Harry’s explosive TV interview as distant, indifferent and tinged with racism. But the pair identified an even bigger villain: the British media, accusing them of racist bullying and personal assaults.
Many in the media say that is unfair. They argue that while some tabloids sometimes go too far, journalists play a vital role in holding the British Royal Family, which is financed by taxpayers, to account.
But some British journalists, especially those from minority backgrounds, hope the interview will lead to a long-awaited settlement of media misconduct and a lack of diversity.
Marcus Ryder, a professor of media diversity at Birmingham City University, said it was too frivolous to speak of ‘turning point moments’.
“But I would imagine now is a time that will help shape 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 monarchy and media, saying the royal family was “afraid” of the tabloid press.
The allegations sparked a passionate response that brought down two leading British media figures.
Talk show host Piers Morgan, a well-known TV face on both sides of the Atlantic, pulled out “Good Morning Britain” amid a protest over his comments about Meghan, particularly her description of mental health problems and suicidal thoughts.
Morgan told viewers Monday that “I don’t believe a word she’s saying.” His comments raised more than 41,000 complaints to the UK media regulator. Morgan walked off the ‘Good Morning Britain’ set on Tuesday when another presenter challenged him, and quit the show later that same day.
The furor also claimed the job of Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors. The new media umbrella group released a vigorously articulated press defense following Harry and Meghan’s interview, saying, “The British media are not bigoted and will not deviate from their vital role of holding the rich and powerful to account. . ”
That caused a backlash. Top editors from The Guardian, the Financial Times and HuffPost UK opposed the statement, while 160 reporters and editors signed a letter saying the Society of Editors was “in denial” about racism.
ITV News anchor Charlene White, the first black woman to present the network’s main evening news program, stopped hosting the association’s annual Press Awards, saying the organization had asked her to join in to improve diversity, but did not live up to her 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 its shortcomings and its position in terms of how they treat ethnic minorities, both inside and outside the walls,” White said. the society in a statement. “But for some unknown reason you feel that the British press is exempt from that discussion.”
On Wednesday, Murray resigned, acknowledging that his statement “could have been much clearer in condemning bigotry and has clearly caused a stir.”
The British media, while diverse in their political and social views, is not representative of the population in terms of race, gender or class. Non-white Britons and women are under-represented, while private school graduates take a disproportionate share of the jobs.
Journalists working to change the situation say it is not easy.
Marverine Duffy, a former news anchor who leads the journalism program at Birmingham City University, says that “improving the number of ethnically and socially diverse qualified journalists in newsrooms is of the utmost importance,” but it is not enough.
“Systems need to be put in place to shake up groupthink, anti-blackness and the reluctance to see racism and xenophobia for what it really is, rather than turn a blind eye,” she said.
In addition to sparking a debate about diversity, Meghan and Harry’s interview highlighted the media’s complex, uncomfortable relationship with the monarchy.
For decades, Britain’s royal dramas were largely set in private, while reverential media outlets protected the monarchy’s secrets. In the 1930s, the romance between King Edward VIII and divorced American Wallis Simpson had made headlines in the US, but scarcely mentioned in Britain until the king abdicated the throne of the woman he loved.
That reverence evaporated by the time Prince Charles married 20-year-old Lady Diana Spencer in 1981. British media charted every turn of their increasingly unhappy marriage. The glamorous Diana became the world’s most famous woman, followed by paparazzi until her death in a car accident in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers.
Diana’s death sparked a search for both palace and press. But it didn’t cure their troubled relationship.
Harry has spoken of his fear that history will repeat itself and that his wife will suffer the same fate as his mother. When he and Meghan resigned last year and moved to North America, they mentioned the unbearable invaders and racist views of the British media. The couple is suing several British newspapers for invasion of privacy.
Ryder said the challenge for the media was to distinguish legitimate royalty stories that are in the public interest from intrusive gossip.
“It’s a subjective call, and that subjective call is why we need our gatekeepers, the people who make that call – the people who run the newspapers, the people who run the news outlets – to have real diversity. . ,” he said.
“Because if the only people making that call are whites from some background and are predominantly male, they will make different subjective calls than if we have more diversity.”
Others point out that, despite their animosity towards the British press, Harry and Meghan are nimble media manipulators themselves.
Ed Owens, a historian who has studied the relationship between the media and royalty, said the couple are “using the new media outlets – things like social media, the Oprah interview – to try 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 used, if you will, a language of suffering and deprivation to evoke an emotional response from media audiences around the world. “
“And I think it worked out to a large extent,” he said.
AP writer Danica Kirka contributed to this report.