One cannot have helped but notice the omni-presence on our TV screens and newspapers in recent weeks of a certain Prince Harry. The media’s reporting of him has been well-nigh wall-to-wall; the Press having an obvious infatuation with any form of dissension within the Royal Family.
Stinging attacks
Almost all of it has been in opposition to Harry (in stark contrast with the pro-Harry stance which the media until quite recently held). He has been called arrogant, greedy, a clown, idiotic, a vindictive spoilt brat and a host of other derogatory adjectives. Even ‘neutral’ news outlets like the BBC, have, yet again, flung off their cloak of impartiality and made clear who they stand for – and against.
It’s the viciousness of the media attacks that have surprised me; every word and gesture in his TV interviews being sceptically analysed. The Daily Mail threw all caution to the wind in its obsessive coverage of the Harry drama. For days on end last week, it featured a vast ream of articles on the topic daily – every one of them disparaging towards the younger Prince. The Mail columnist Sarah Vine called him “a real arrogant, bitter, vicious Prince … a rather nasty piece of work … the ultimate narcissist in an age of narcissism”.
It’s the viciousness of the media attacks that have surprised me; every word and gesture in his TV interviews being sceptically analysed.
Elsewhere, Piers Morgan referred to Harry as “a bitter, delusional, paranoid, family-trashing halfwit … a village idiot … he’s pathetic”; while Brendan O’Neill said that whatever harm William inflicted on Harry in his kitchen, his sympathies lay with the elder brother; Harry’s actions were, in comparison, “unforgiveable”. Right-leaning publications like Spiked and The Spectator shared in a gush of anti-Harry write-ups, though the latter did offer a surprising defence of the Prince’s Taliban comments (as have various other war veterans).
Not taking sides
Some claim Harry has mental health problems stemming from his traumatic childhood and seriously requires help. Whether that’s true or not, he’s already been at the receiving end of a huge amount of therapy, and he sounded quite sane and sorted on Tom Bradby’s ITV interview – relaxed, intelligent, reasonable. It can come over simply as another condescending put down to simply say, ‘he needs help’.
Some of his revelations and blame-gaming will have made it much harder for him to achieve the reconciliation he claims to seek.
I’m not here to defend what Harry has said in these interviews – his appearance on Monday’s US laidback The Late Show was in particularly bad taste – nor the revelations in his heavily publicised memoir, Spare – the fastest selling non-fiction book in British history, apparently. Clearly, he has shared private conversations and anecdotes that ought not to have been made public. And some of his revelations and blame-gaming will have made it much harder for him to achieve the reconciliation he claims to seek.
But oh, the hypocrisy of the British Press. One Irish journalist railed against their “obsessively ranting, raving and tearing him and his wife apart for six years – then telling him to 'shut up' when he dares to tell his own story.”
Public reaction
No doubt the media’s dislike of Harry has been in part prompted by him having held a vendetta against the tabloid press ever since the horrific death of his mother, surrounded by camera-clicking paparazzi. Certainly, the media have not been so quick to stick up for the Royal Family in the past – hasty instead to report on every tittle-tattle of gossip that gets leaked to them, with no care as to how it may affect members of the Royal household.
No doubt the media’s dislike of Harry has been in part prompted by him having held a vendetta against the tabloid press ever since the horrific death of his mother, surrounded by camera-clicking paparazzi.
One might say the media is simply paralleling public reaction. Certainly, Harry’s popularity has plummeted in recent months. Almost two-thirds (64%) of Britons have a negative view of the renegade Prince, up from 58% in May. What surprises me is that over a quarter (26%) of Britons retain a positive view of him, according to the latest YouGov poll conducted between January 5-6. We certainly don’t see that reflected in the media – where he is given next to zero favourable coverage.
Media narrative
It is apparent that a very black and white ‘narrative’ has been established by the Press. A ‘narrative’ showing Harry (and to a lesser extent Meghan) as the ‘baddie’; William and Kate (and the rest of the Royal Family) as the ‘goodies’. The public, almost wholescale, has bought into this narrative. Few go against the flow.
Does all that sound familiar? In recent years, there have been repeated claims that the media has constructed (often in tandem with other agencies) an overtly simplistic and one-sided ‘narrative’ – for example, on the Covid pandemic, on the ‘safe and effective’ vaccines, on man-made climate change, and even, some are convinced, on the war in Ukraine.
Quality investigative journalism appears to be on the wane. It’s a sad day when our mainstream media can no longer be trusted to report impartially.
Clearly, the reality on any of these hugely complex issues is not anything like as straightforward as that. Quality investigative journalism appears to be on the wane. It’s a sad day when our mainstream media can no longer be trusted to report impartially. Glaring bias is bad enough; but when the media is resorting to promulgating propaganda, we are in a more precarious situation still.
Digging deeper
What we need are enquiring minds, with an ability to read between the headlines and dig deeper in attempt to uncover what is really going in regard to the big stories affecting our world at large (Acts 17:10-11; Prov 25:2-3).
And all the while, like David of old (1 Sam 23:2, 30:8; 2 Sam 5:19), may we continually be withdrawing to enquire of the Lord (2 Chron 34:21; Jer 10:21), the only One in whom we can truly put our trust.