By Gabriel Princewill-
Piers Morgan’s piercing attacks against his archrival, Meghan Markle is triggering an ongoing heated war between the British press and the Duchess of Sussex, who remains under siege following her bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey televised in March.
Ever since the prominent media personality lost his well paid job on Good Morning Britain, he has proactively sought to discredit Meghan, premising the grounds on his attack on freedom of speech.
Morgan left the morning television show after being given an ultimatum to either apologise for his indiscretion in dismissing Meghan’s claim or sacrifice his job.
He defiantly opted to turn his back on the highly paid job, but not without putting up a real ongoing fight with the woman he detests for what he alleges are systemic character flaws manifested through a disregard for people’s feelings.
His latest attack, expressed through an extensive article in the Sunday Mail Online, saw him attack Markle to the point of insinuating that she was suggesting the ArchBishop Of Canterbury may have presided over an illegal marriage three days before a sham ceremony witnessed by the world.
The axed television presenter went into great detail to elaborate on his controversial response live on air, which culminated in his dismissal from Good Morning Britain.
Morgan, whose assertive and outspoken character trait, was a high selling point which attracted wide audiences each morning, patiently outlined the events which transpired on the morning of March 8th.
Freedom Of Speech
He focused his attention on his undeniable right to freedom of speech, stating that he had to express his scepticism about most of the claims expressed by Meghan Markle’s during the interview with Oprah.
The former editor of the Daily Mirror is not wrong about his fundamental right to free speech, but he is seriously mistaken in not realizing that freedom of speech- a legal phenomenon enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998- is not absolute, and has limitations .
One of its restrictions includes the infringement of other people’s rights and their reputation. Hate speech, or libel, for instance is not protected by the freedom of speech.
Morgan’s entire attack was arguably motivated by a degree of hate for Meghan, fuelled by various suspicions he has about about the former U.S actress’s character and integrity.
An ulterior motive on its own does not necessary threaten the legitimacy of free speech,.
However, when free speech amounts to an attack on the right to fair treatment to any degree or an illegitimate assault on the reputation of others, free speech looses its authenticity and becomes unmeritorious in substance.
What constitutes fair treatment always depends on the facts. A holistic outlook is necessary. If a television presenter were to openly say ‘I don’t think gays or trans-sexuals should be hosting shows on television, and cite free speech as their defence, it would seriously error of judgement, with immediate repercussions.
It would be so ridiculous with immediate ramifications because of its sensitivity in contributing to any pre-existing stigma already associated with that group.
The most conspicuous transgression committed by Piers Morgan during his unrestrained diatribe before a national audience on Bri, was his outright implicit dismissal of Meghan’s claims to mental health problems.
His comments that: ”I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth”, was avowedly irresponsible, and the ex-presenter, who ought to have had the humility to retract or at least modify some of his comments. This was Morgan’s akeelihis.
Morgan later conceded that he had no way of knowing if Meghan Markle felt suicidal, yet he still fell short of offering an unreserved apology.
A professional and dispassionate journalist in Morgan’s position should have simply appraised the interview , prudently examining those aspects of Meghan’s testimony with which he disputed.
Expressing his fury at the couple’s claims, Morgan fiumed:’Their shocking claims of racism at the Palace concerning their son Archie, and an alleged refusal by royal staff to let Meghan receive treatment for suicidal thoughts in case it hurt the Royal brand, are so incendiary that they could inflict irreparable damage on the Monarchy.
Objective
The focus of an objective journalist when analysing a claim has to be the truth or otherwise of the claim, followed by a proportionate evaluation of that claim, not the potential ”irreparable damage to the Monarchy”, as the opinionated presenter declares.
It would be nice if we thought Morgan’s defence on the royal family was a reflection of his affection for them, but it smacks of a bare faced resentment of Meghan, used as an outlet for his vengeful agony.
Morgan proceeds to attack Meghan Markle’s claim of a ”secret marriage”, asking whether the marriage we all watched was a sham. He rhetorically asked: and Britain’s most senior clergyman was in on it, performing an illegal ceremony in a garden”?
Unsurprisingly, the ArchiBishiop of Canterbury was tackled about the claim, and he did not refute the claim made by Meghan Markle, except to emphasise that only one legal marriage took place on the Saturday in question.
His response left us none the wiser, if anything it potentially corroborates Meghan’s claims, that it is likely something took place which she deemed amounted to marriage.
Missing The Point
Headlines today affirming the ArchBishop’s insistence of one legal marriage, misses the point of whether any ceremony occurred when he met the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle which could reasonably have been construed as any form of marriage.
The focus on the legal aspect of marriage by many sections of the media is not only ridiculously immature, it is disingenuous. Most reports about this aspect have an undertone of malice which cannot be holistically substantiated.
Cultural practises in various sections of the world vary, and cannot always be interpreted within the within the constraints of legality, which has its own place and meaning in Western thought.
Morgan and his entire cohort of media enablers, are unquestionably flawed in making an issue of her reference to marriage three days earlier.
The media are no doubt bitter, having lost a court battle to Meghan. In Morgan, they have a game partnership, since he is also raging with venom.
Unfortunately, Morgan and his entire cohort of media enablers, are unquestionably flawed in making an issue of Meghan reference to marriage three days earlier. It is futile, and pulling at straws.
Assessment
Piers Morgan as a journalist is entitled to properly assess the publicly declared claims of any public figure, whatever their ethnicity, provided the examination and its findings are wholly legitimate, and impenetrable when subjected to independent scrutiny.
In reality, any examination of Meghan’s testimony focus needs to be placed on more substantive points, like exploring her claims about her father, where reasonable and defensible, or the confusion over her perception that her son was being denied a title of prince because of his race.
Honest and competent journalism, even when driven by an ulterior motive. cannot be discredited.
But empty noise based on careless misconceptions or dishonesty, only makes mockery of integrity to those who can see through those shortcomings.
Piers Morgan was high ratings intelligent and assertive television presenter with many qualities.
Unfortunately. sound judgement is not one of them when it comes to certain matters. Hopefully, with good reflection, he will advance beyond this point in his journalistic career.