Martin Luther King Jr believed we should be judged not by the colour of our skin but the content of our character, which could be bad news for Meghan Markle.
The TV actor found fame in the arms of Prince Harry, a royal “spare” in every sense of the word. Together, they showed the world the brave face of bi-racial champagne socialism and decried British culture while feeding off the proceeds of empire.
But the enduring myth of their victimhood has been dealt another blow with news that Markle forgot to tell the whole truth in her legal battle with The Mail on Sunday.
New court documents came to light last week that went to the heart of Markle’s case against the newspaper. She sued the publisher of the paper for printing a letter she wrote to her father, on the broad grounds that it violated privacy and infringed copyright.
In his judgment, Lord Justice Warby found for Markle in her claim for misuse of private information.
Warby described the letter as “inherently private and personal”, and said “the claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private. The articles interfered with that reasonable expectation”.
He also found the publication had infringed her copyright. In her response, Markle opined: “The world needs reliable, fact-checked, high-quality news … We all lose when misinformation sells more than truth, when moral exploitation sells more than decency.” Indeed we do, which is why Markle must be held to the same standard of truth she demands of others.
Texts submitted to the court last week by the Sussexes’ then communications adviser, Jason Knauf, reveal that Markle not only anticipated the publication of the letter, but chose wording that would cast her in a favourable light against her father.
She told Knauf she had been “meticulous in my word choice” and admitted that she addressed the letter to “Daddy” because “it would pull at the heartstrings” if the letter were leaked. If true, the documents will raise questions about Markle’s credibility.
It is possible to be clever and calculating, or naïve and victimised, but improbable to be both. It appears that Markle is more strategic than the defenders of her virtue believe, and smarter than her detractors concede.
America’s liberal media has treated the Sussexes like refugees from the British empire. The lack of scrutiny applied to their claims of racism and bullying from unnamed members of the royal family plays well wherever the lowbrow politics of identity, victimhood and emotionalism has overwhelmed public reason.
In Britain, the battle for the rule of reason still rages.
Earlier in the year there was a highlight from the reality TV show, Westminster vs. the House of Whinger, when an impudent scribe duelled with the Duchess of Sussex and won.
Media regulator Ofcom ruled that Good Morning Britain did not breach broadcast standards when Piers Morgan scrutinised Markle’s claims of racism and mental cruelty in the House of Windsor. Morgan felt vindicated and his supporters celebrated the ruling as a victory for freedom. But the Ofcom decision was less a fairytale about freedom of speech than a cautionary tale of its gradual demise.
The Ofcom decision is difficult to read as a repudiation of political correctness. The regulators made clear that they did find Morgan’s comments offensive but cited co-workers and panellists who defended Markle as the reason the broadcaster was not found in breach. They considered that Morgan’s disbelief of Markle’s mental health claims could cause “harm and offence to viewers”.
They found his “potentially harmful and highly offensive comments” were justified because they were challenged on air. Moreover, the regulator supported the view of TV presenter Trisha Goddard who told Morgan that on account of his white skin, he was not allowed to discuss racism.
The lesson of the Ofcom decision is that to defend itself against claims of offence on the grounds of race or mental distress, a media company should prevent such offence. It is not a win for reason. It is a victory for identity politics and pre-censorship.
Whatever one thinks of Piers Morgan, his criticism of Meghan Markle was neither racist nor sexist. He should be able to scrutinise her claims without being falsely accused. But mental health has become a powerful shield for public figures wishing to prevent media scrutiny and factual reporting. It transforms the liar into a victim and the truth-seeker into a bully. Worse, it gives the profoundly dull a false sense of their importance.
For all his faults, Morgan can be hilariously funny in his pursuit of the abysmal and the absurd. The same cannot be said of Markle, whose dreary tales of woe are boring the educated world to tears.
She lectures the plebs on poverty while living in a $19m mansion and wearing a ring estimated to be worth $350,000.
She traduces the royal family yet has used the title “duchess” to lobby politicians and market her moral virtue. She berates the press for violating her privacy but tirelessly promotes herself on TV, the internet, at public events and in fashion magazines as the Duchess of Sussex no less.
The hit to Markle’s credibility in court last week was preceded by a history of dubious claims, ad hominem attacks and vivid hypocrisy, which means she will not get a free ride in the free press, but has a bright future in American politics.
More Coverage
Read related topics:Harry And Meghan