By Gabriel Princewill And Tony O’Reilly-
Jeremy Clarkson ought to have been subjected to some punitive measures for his distasteful article in The Sun newspaper, according to a number of professionals on both The Eye Of Media.Com’s thinktank and the British public.
There was a raging debate early this year about whether Clarkson’s article was at all reproachable, and if so, what actions would have constituted adequate punitive measures, or if one was necessary.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
A wide array of views were gathered from a research conducted by The Eye Of Media.Com and evaluated in light of the underlying logic behind various positions adopted.
This was conducted over a number of months since last July.
The public drawn from a small sample of our research, was split on this matter, with 56% of a limited 1200 people spoken to stating that the controversial television presenter did nothing wrong and deserved no action against him.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
However, this publication found the smarter contributions coming from professionals, with 73% of the educated professionals among the sample surveyed agreeing that some action ought to have been taken against Clarkson.
Careful probing also revealed that the views espoused by a number of participants were influenced by their disposition towards either Jeremy Clarkson or Meghan Markle.
Strong proclivities towards either direction tended to bias opinions, but the more insightful views were relatively easy to glean.
The point of reference of Clarkson’s article being The Game Of Thrones was a key center ground for evaluation in this case.
Unacceptably Offensive
Several professionals spoken to ruled Clarkson’s words unacceptably offensive and deserving of some sanction, but there was no consensus on what the punitive action against him should have been.
Some 35% of those surveyed opined that the popular television presenter ought to have been fined, suspended and removed from the public eye entirely.
55% felt the apology made by the television presenter suffices, and there was no need for any actions to be taken against him.
However, most were united in the view that no action would have been implemented regardless of whether his conduct deserved action, because of his money, power or fame.
The above views were gathered during a research with the British public in the course of their everyday engagements over five months since July.
A majority of ordinary brits felt Clarkson just made an error for which he should be forgiven and allowed to move on.
Jeremy Clarkson: Image: PA
Only recently, Clarkson was criticized for attacking Sir David Attenborough .
Yesterday, Clarkson sparked controversy by making comments about Attenborough’s concern for climate change, a topic that comprises many of the 97-year-old’s documentaries about the Earth. Clarkson, 63, said he thinks Attenborough should be focusing his efforts on telling gripping stories about the animals shown on our screens
Influence
Most analysts believe the majority of every society is influenced both positively and negatively by its media, and their general disposition towards the main individuals in this story- Jeremy Clarkson and Meghan Markle .
Researcher, Joshua Hopwood said: ‘most opinions are given along partisan lines, yet an overarching insightful view exists.
‘The expression of opinion is not devoid of potential consequences; one of the reasons highly placed figures have resigned over anti-semitic rhetoric in the past.
‘Dogmatic assertion following an important research is often necessary to set appropriate standards where dispute abounds on important matters of public interest.
‘Opinions have never been without consequences, and cannot expressed without boundaries.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act is sufficiently instructive in this regard, and unambiguously states that the exercise of all rights contained within are subject to limitations that condition the exercise of each right on the simultaneous observation of all other rights, without which they lack legal force.
The principle of proportionality allied to competing legal rights naturally accompanies all matters concerning the balancing exercise of competitive rights.
Medical doctor, Marlon Reynolds, told The Eye Of Media.Com: ”When media personalities like Jeremy Clarkson make offensive and violent remarks about public figures, the impact goes beyond mere words on a page.
”The targeted individual, in this case, Meghan Markle, could easily experience emotional distress, fear, and a sense of vulnerability. Such comments can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, fuel public scrutiny, and subject the person to a heightened risk of harassment and even physical harm.
It also reinforces negative attitudes towards the individual and can lead to a toxic public discourse.
”The idea Jeremy Clarkson was just expressing his opinion is pathetic and exposes both the bias and ignorance of those who provide that view, no matter how convinced they are.
‘It is a stupid opinion to have, especially from intelligent people. The views of stupid people ofcourse do not matter, but some intelligent people act stupid”
Another professional, Tyronne Smith said: ”Public figures, like Meghan Markle, often face intense scrutiny and criticism due to their fame and positions. Nobody is immune to criticism , but criticism that incites hatred goes below the line of acceptable conduct”.
Meghan Markle has proved a polarizing figure, dividing opinion ever since she joined the royal family. but that’s a matter of personal preference, and irrelevant to facts.
Polarising Figure: Meghan Markle Image: Britannia.com
”Advocating for violent and degrading treatment adds an additional layer of harm that can significantly affect their mental health and well-being.
Meghan Markle has proved a polarizing figure, dividing opinion ever since she joined the royal family. Negative views about her persist for a multitude of reasons. Many stem from her estrangement from her father, which has been viewed to her detriment as a daughter neglecting her father completely.
Thomas Markle has been no saint in the story of the estranged relationship with his daughter. Going against his daughter publicly, did not present him well, but it was right to tell his story from his perspective.
A dissenting view was provided by Karen Riley. She said: ‘Clarkson was quoting the Game of Thrones, which is a fictional film, He was just saying what he was speaking metaphorically and expressing a desire to see Meghan punished for many f the disrespectful way she has treated the queen.
Punitive Measures
Considering the gravity of Jeremy Clarkson’s offensive article, critics say some consequences should have resulted from the indiscretion of his article.
Determining the appropriate punitive measures is not a straightforward matter, as it involves balancing free speech rights with the need to discourage hate speech and incitement to violence. Here are some potential actions that could be taken:
Jeremy Clarkson has already issued a public apology to Meghan Markle and the public for his offensive and harmful comments.
A sincere apology is always a step towards acknowledging the harm caused and demonstrating a willingness to take responsibility for his words, but whether the television presenter fully acknowledged his failing is unknown.
Attacks led by editor of the Spectator, Frazer Nelson exposed some of the downsides of regulating an industry that funds the regulator, and indirectly seeks to have some oversight over the body it has appointed to regulate it.
Reminding Ipso of some of the provisions in its code, Mr Nelson at the time accused IPSO of overstepping its remit by taking third party complaints.
His view inadvertently overlooked the importance of flexibility and innovation in every organization rather than adopt a rigid standpoint, even in the face of circumstances that expose its shortcomings.
Critics say Frazer’s complete consignment of hate crime to the police is without consideration of the police’s historic institutional prejudices and failings.
It can also be viewed as seeking to abdicate the press of responsibility to conduct itself in an appropriate manner.
The powers of the UK press watchdog are limited by its contract with the publications it regulates, making it unsurprising that no stringent penalties exist for ensuring the highest level of deterrence for unacceptable conduct.
In response to the severity of Clarkson’s remarks, some have suggested that The Sun Newspaper who employs Jeremy Clarkson ought to have considered suspending him from his role temporarily to sends a message that such behaviour is unacceptable and requires serious consequences.
The impracticality of such option is only too glaring when we remember that the paper was itself inadvertently complicit in the publication of the article. The paper had focused on the subjective right of individuals to express their opinions, but missed out on the regulation of some opinions that infringe basic rights. The paper apologised.
The view that opinion should be without regulation is fatally lacking in plausibility when viewed in the macroscopic context in which personal views can be expressed in a violation of the individual rights of others.
Just over 20% of those surveyed independently suggested in some media organizations training period to raise awareness of these issues and improve editorial oversight.
Misjudgments from highly placed individuals can distort the true implication of misplaced views in the eyed of fickle and emotive members of the public.
Hortensia Daniels told The Eye Of Media.Com:
”Media personalities should undergo sensitivity training to understand the implications of their words and to develop a better understanding of the diverse perspectives and experiences of others. This training can help foster empathy and encourage responsible communication.
”Media organizations should implement stricter editorial oversight to ensure that offensive and harmful content is not published. This measure can help prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Engaging in public dialogues or panel discussions about the implications of potential hate speech, racism, and violence in media can be a constructive way to address the issue.
‘These discussions can involve experts, journalists, and public figures to foster a broader understanding of the challenges at hand.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar