Despite the ongoing pandemic and a spluttering economy, for the fourth day in a row, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry led the news in the U.K. as the aftershocks from the couple’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey continue to be felt.
Piers Morgan’s dramatic Tuesday exit from ITV’s Good Morning Britain over his vitriolic comments about the Sussexes, and Markle in particular, may have gripped the nation but a less performative resignation Wednesday at one of the U.K.’s leading journalism bodies has highlighted the division in the country’s media over some of the issues raised by the interview: most pertinently, whether it was, in Prince Harry’s words, “bigoted.”
Speaking to Winfrey, Prince Harry said that a “large part” of why the couple had left the U.K. was the racism of the tabloid press. After relating a conversation he had with a friend who was familiar with many newspaper editors, Prince Harry said, “the U.K. press is bigoted, specifically the tabloids.”
Related Stories
On Monday, the Society of Editors, a nearly 400-member body of editors-in-chief and managing editors at national and local newspapers, released a strongly worded statement that said, “The U.K. media is not bigoted and will not be swayed from its vital role holding the rich and powerful to account following the attack on the press by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”
The statement continued: “It is not acceptable for the Duke and Duchess to make such claims without providing any supporting evidence.”
Ian Murray, the executive director of the Society of Editors, further defended the press in television interviews, including one particularly testy media hit with the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire that went viral.
https://twitter.com/TomHourigan/status/1369227842941255681?s=20
Not soon after the statement, a number of prominent editors and journalists distanced themselves from it and some criticized the Society of Editors for releasing it. In an open letter, nearly 170 British journalists of color slammed the “knee-jerk” statement and blasted the body for the “wilful ignorance of not just the discriminatory treatment of Meghan — some of which was highlighted during the interview — but that of other people from an ethnic minority background.”
Guardian Editor-in-Chief Katharine Viner added her dissent and said in a statement: “Every institution in the United Kingdom is currently examining its own position on vital issues of race and the treatment of people of color. As I have said before, the media must do the same. It must be much more representative and more self-aware.”
Related Stories
Financial Times Editor Roula Khalaf said: “There is work to be done across all sectors in the U.K. to call out and challenge racism. The media has a critical role to play, and editors must ensure that our newsrooms and coverage reflect the societies we live in.”
In a tweet, HuffPost U.K. Editor-in-Chief Jess Brammar wrote: “I considered not saying anything about this because I’m aware I won’t make myself popular with my peers, but I’m just going to stand up and say it: I don’t agree with [the] statement from my industry body that it is ‘untrue that sections of UK press were bigoted.'”
By Wednesday, in an embarrassing volte-face, the Society of Editors walked back the initial statement and issued a “clarification.” “The Society of Editors has a proud history of campaigning for freedom of speech and the vital work that journalists do in a democracy to hold power to account. Our statement on Meghan and Harry was made in that spirit but did not reflect what we all know: that there is a lot of work to be done in the media to improve diversity and inclusion. We will reflect on the reaction our statement prompted and work towards being part of the solution.”
Hours later, Murray had resigned, writing in a statement that he had stepped down so that the organization could “rebuild its reputation.”
