By Gabriel Princewill-
Ofcom’s ruling about the complaints against Piers Morgan did not vindicate the television presenter, the broadcasting regulator has revealed to The Eye Of Media.Com in an interesting development, following a detailed appraisal of their report last month.
Piers Morgan’s celebration of an assumed victory, and the report by the British press, was just the former GMB presenter’s perception of the report, and the media’s inadvertent misrepresentation of it, Ofcom unambiguously stated.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
”We did not clear Piers Morgan, I think the media misinterpreted our report because they did not take time to read it carefully. I think people need to read every detail of it properly, Ofcom’s senior press representative”, Harry Rippon said.
The ruling, articulated in a 97-page document, and published on September 1, principally dealt with whether ITV breached Ofcom’s code, a representative of Ofcom told this publication after a detailed discussion over a two day period.
Ofcom pointed out as stated in its report that its code allows for offensive and controversial viewpoints, provided they are well contextualised.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The summation of Ofcom’s report was that the broadcaster [ITV] provided adequate challenge to balance the offensive comments by Piers Morgan, and that it would have been unduly restrictive on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, if they were not allowed to air Morgan’s comments.
However, following a discussion after a comprehensive study of the report over a long period of time by this publication, Ofcom representatives categorically said its report did not clear Piers Morgan because it did not make any comments supporting Morgan’s decision to question the Duchess Of Sussex’s claim of feeling suicidal.
Mr. Rippon, pointed this publication to page 9 of its report which states that : ”Ofcom understands that there is a range of evidence and advice which states that anyone who is experiencing suicidal thoughts and expresses those feelings to someone else should always be taken seriously”.
Ofcom was indicating that claims of suicide should be taken seriously, though neither condemned Morgan for dismissing those, nor did Ofcom endorse his expressed doubt. The implied implication was that the presented erred in disbelieving the dutchess of Sussex in light of the regulator’s acknowledgement of the ”range of evidence and advice”, but was allowed to challenge the other allegations in line with freedom of expression, which ultimately protected the broadcaster’s right to air them.
The broadcaster pointed out in its report that the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act is not absolute, but subject to limitations.
The theoretic implications of the principle constraints on free speech relate to the consequences of violating other protected rights- in the case of suicide-the right to be taken seriously- in consistence with the rights and protection of the morals and health of others.
But the regulator did not explicitly juxtapose the right to free speech with the right of an individual to be believed when talking about suicide, in its report.
Ofcom did express concerns about Morgan’ s comments in relation to her claims of mental health issues, and particular those of suicide.
Rather, the broadcasting regulator highlighted the right of ITV to freedom of expression, in the context of airing Piers Morgan’s right to challenge the allegations made by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and the right of the broadcaster to air those views, given the challenge provided by other guests.
Blow To Piers Morgan
The clarification from Ofcom will come as a blow to Piers Morgan, who had been gloating about his misconceived victory, and subsequently scathing in his attack against all those who did not support him at the time the initial dispute arose.
Ofcom’s careful and painstaking explanation did not condemn Morgan either, as it noted the importance of the value of having a healthy debate in society.
That value judgement will differ across wide spectrums of the population, with the consequences of words always balanced against their potential long term impact and the precedent it can set.
Challenging And Contentious Subjects
Its report also pointed out that :”in line with the right to freedom of expression, the Code enables broadcasters to discuss challenging and contentious subjects, and include potentially harmful or offensive viewpoints in programmes as part of legitimate debate in the public interest.
‘However, in doing so, they must ensure that they provide adequate protection for the audience from the inclusion of potentially harmful/offensive content, and that potentially offensive material is justified by the context. It is for the broadcaster to decide how to secure such protections and provide context where necessary”.
Ofcom said the requisite adequate protection was provided by the broadcaster, which absolved it from breaching the regulator’s code.
Remit
”Our remit is to the broadcaster, not Piers Morgan, Ofcom said , and it is the accountability of the broadcaster that falls within the scope of our powers, the regulator’s representatives explained.
Our report did not vindicate Piers Morgan at all”.
Nonetheless, its reference to Piers Morgan’s right to disbelieve the Duchess Of Sussex’s allegations seemed to vindicate the television presenter, but Ofcom said it was referring to the allegations in bulk, not to Morgan’s comments about suicide, which was a critical aspect of the complaints against him.
Ofcom specified that its report was not an endorsement of Morgan’s right to express doubt about the Duchess Of Sussex’s claims to feeling suicidal.
The regulator said it had taken a holistic look at the situation, and made a judgement within the context of the code. The object of its report was purely the broadcaster, Ofcom emphasised.
Damning Allegations
In March, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made several damning allegations against the royal family, notable amongst which was that Meghan Markle has been ignored when she asked for help to deal with suicidal feelings she had due to mental health issues.
The Duchess Of Sussex made other claims which have since been widely contested, some of them apparently debunked in the light of seeming inaccuracies which later surfaced. She indicated that racism had been displayed when an unnamed member of the royal family asked how dark the complexion of her unborn baby would be.
Meghan also said that falsehoods had been perpetuated by the firm to the press. Her husband Prince Harry also said that his family had told him that his son Archie would be denied the title of a Prince, a statement also expressly construed to have been racist during the televised interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Meghan additionally accused ‘the firm’ of ‘perpetuating falsehoods’ about them in the press, adding that the palace frequently hosted parties for the tabloids at Buckingham Palace.
The Duchess Of Sussex in particular highlighted a particular incidence in which she said the British press had reported that Kate Middleton made her cry, when it was in fact the other way round. She said the Duchess Of Cambridge had apologised, and sweetly offered her flowers as a gesture of her empathy towards the way Meghan felt at the time.
Outrage
The interview sparked outrage among both supporters and dissenters of the Duchess Of Sussex.
Piers Morgan led the campaign against the claims in the interview, saying ”I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth”.
Piers challenged the couple to name the royal member who asked about how dark the colour of unborn child’s skin would be, and insisted that the context of the question was important.
The presenter further challenged them to disclose who she told about her feelings of suicide, and what they said.
The veteran journalist’s aggressive and sceptical stance about the serious claims led to over 50,000 complaints, with other guests bitterly involved in the ensuing debate, also complained about.
Among them were Dr. Shola Mas Mognanimos, Trisha Goddard, and many others.
r
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made serious allegations to Oprah Winfrey Image:ITV
The regulator pointed out that its report expressed concern about the comments made with respect to suicide, but the broadcaster handled the issues well , through the challenges presented to Piers Morgan about his comments. It silently left the issue of suicide open.
Ofcom said ” I think people need to read the report in detail, and not jump to conclusions based on selective paragraphs.
The report said: ”in consistence with freedom of expression, Mr Morgan was entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s allegations and to hold and express strong views that rigorously challenged their account”.
The aforementioned paragraph highlights the right of the presenter to express doubts about the Duchess Of Sussex’s account where he impliedly presents a rigorous challenge to the allegations.
The connection between freedom of expression and accountability was made at many levels in relation to the provision of adequate challenge and signposting, but Ofcom was careful to make no decisive commitment to either party in its report.
The unforeseen complexities that could arise from venturing into whether Morgan could be justified about openly disputing a suicide claim were kept at bay.
Strongly Held Views And Freedom Of Expression
Ofcom said it dealt with the harm and offense that can be caused from the expression of strongly held views, simultaneously highlighting the provision in its code for such views to be expressed, where they are ‘robustly argued’.
The implied applicability of the latter ambit to all aspects of the argument, makes it highly subjective, but paradoxically objective, placing the broadcaster at the centre of accountability in Ofcom’s inquiry. Such is the framework within which it operates.
‘Its ruling concluded : ‘The Code allows for individuals to express strongly held and robustly argued views, including those that are potentially harmful or highly offensive, and for broadcasters to include these in their programming. The restriction of such views would, in our view, be an unwarranted and chilling restriction on freedom of expression both of the broadcaster and the audience”.
Wording
The wording of that paragraph is self explanatory, but potentially confusing. It stresses that Piers Morgan was entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess Of Sussex’s allegations, but doesn’t say Morgan was entitled to say he disbelieved All of her accounts.
The critical issue about the complaints against Morgan’s disbelief of Meghan Markle’s claim to being suicidal, not the entirety of the allegations she made which Ofcom entitled Morgan to question.
Assessment
”Our assessment was focused on the broadcaster’s right to feature Piers Morgan’s challenge of The Sussex’s account, but made no judgment on his decision to question her account of feeling suicidal. We expressed serious concerns about the Piers Morgan’s comments about suicide, and suggested
A summary of Ofcom’s ruling read: ”Our Decision is that overall the programme contained sufficient challenge to provide adequate protection and context to its viewers.
We also considered that the comments about race in the programme could have been potentially highly offensive, but that the comments were sufficiently contextualised. Therefore, our Decision is that the programme did not breach the Ofcom Broadcasting Code”.
Explaining the process of its decision, the broadcasting regulator said it ”assessed the programme in full, carefully considering the right to freedom of expression, and the need to adequately protect audiences from harm and offence”.
Debate
The Programme covered two very serious and sensitive issues, namely: mental health and suicide; and race.
Ofcom aid there is a high public interest in having an open and frank debate on both issues”.
”Ofcom’s Decision in this case was finely balanced. In the particular circumstances, we considered the broadcaster provided adequate protection to viewers, from potentially harmful and highly offensive statements about mental health and suicide, as there was sufficient challenge to such statements which meant they were adequately contextualised. (“the Code”).
Freedom Of Speech/Limitations
Questioned as to why the regulator seemingly made reference to Piers Morgan’s right to freedom of speech, without in the same breath highlighting the fact that free speech as a right is not absolute, but dependent on other rights, Ofcom pointed out that it was referring to the right of the broadcaster to free speech, the problematic aspects of which it said the broadcaster provided adequate challenge.
‘Our report is a 97 page document, and many of the press just selected a portion of our report and published it, but the whole document really needs to be read to understand our position on this, a spokesperson said.
”Our remit is to assess whether a broadcaster, which is the licensee. has breached the code, we don’t rule on the conduct of individuals”, Ofcom said.
”We took into account the fact viewers have a right to receive a range of ideas, even if they are controversial or offensive, provided the broadcaster does enough to avoid breaching the code..
Other complaints from members of the public were made against guests like Tracey Goddard, found to be offensive, comments made by Dr Mos-Shogbamimu also alleged to be offensive, and that the combative tone of the programme was not suitable for child viewers”.
Misconstrued
What emerged from our discussion, calmly and meticulously elaborated by Rippon- an experienced and professionally competent spokesperson of Ofcom , was that the interpretation of its ruling was highly misconstrued, leaving Piers Morgan’s comments still open to contention, and criticism.
Ofcom did say that its ruling had no bearing on whether Piers Morgan could return to television because that what a matter for respective broadcasters.
Morgan has since been said to be hired to represent Corp and write for The Sun Newspaper. He is also rumuored to have a television deal with Fox next year
Ofcom added that the fact they did not clear Morgan has no bearing on whether he can appear on broadcasting channels, as that is a decision for them to make.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar