12.14.2018

In Defense of Megan Markle


In Defense of Megan Markle

As an ARWFA (Amateur Royal Watcher From Afar), I read with reminiscence the recent criticisms of the Duchess of Sussex, AKA Meghan Markle.  It saddens me that this happening all over again. The press has once again resorted to creating drama to sell newspapers, or more accurately, advertising.  I’m not suggesting that theses reporters are engaged in pure fabrication. I’m suggesting that they are applying all the analysis of Judith Miller of the New York Times in the lead-up to the second Iraq War.  That is to say, none.


One of Princess Diana’s enduring legacies was a glimpse into the challenges of a Royal with “the little grey men” who run the palace.  It is not inconceivable that the Duchess of Sussex has upset courtiers, who may have been hoping to manage her. Unrealistic as it is to think that a strong, mature, successful woman could be guided in the same way as an overwhelmed teenager, it seems that was the expectation.


Piers Morgan wrote a little piece in The Daily Mail calling the Duchess a “ruthless social climber.”  His basis for that opinion is her discontinuation of all communications with him after her engagement to Prince Harry.  He clearly was hoping for some sort of inside track of information from the Royal Household. She, of course, displayed appropriate boundaries by her actions.  Piers Morgan claims she only uses people, when it is he who had that intent. When he didn’t succeed, he stood on his media platform and jeered like a boy in a schoolyard.  


There’s good reason to be wary of Piers Morgan, which most Americans do not know.


Piers Morgan was largely unscathed by the Milly Dowler controversy.  He was editor of a major newspaper that hacked into the voicemail of a missing girl, listened to the messages, then deleted messages to make space for more eavesdropping on future messages.  The Dowler family had false hope of their daughter’s survival because they thought she was alive and deleting her own messages. What cruelty. And illegality, since it also interfered with a police investigation.


So this is the character of the person the Duchess of Sussex distanced herself from upon her engagement to Prince Harry.  Editor of the same media outlet that eavesdropped on phone calls of the Royal household to distribute private information to the public.  Now he laments, publicly, their loss of connection, which only demonstrates her good sense.


Random and public comments on the character of the Duchess of Sussex because she doesn’t return your calls is not responsible.  By using public airwaves and right-of-ways for your speculations, you have agreed to, and failed, your duty to the public, who provide the infrastructure and public property rights that your business uses.


So the news of the discontent in the Royal Family, and associated bitter commentary, has no other dimension than “Hey, if we say this, we will sell advertising!”  Certainly, that is Piers Morgan’s level.


So long as there is a dividing line between social media and “the media” there should be a responsibility one as well.


And is it really “news” when a disgruntled father, or whatever his problem is, has yet another public musing about his daughter refusing to talk to him?  

Courtiers are always going to complain.  Media figures are always getting “hot tips” from the attention-seeking or revenge-seeking.  We simply ask that this time, some discernment is employed before another princess is killed while being chased by you.

No comments: