Meghan Markle learning that the British media's irresponsible behavior is its "normal" behavior

The non-stop shenanigans between the British press and the American-born Duchess of Sussex continues unabated, as Meghan Markle’s refusal to play by the strictures imposed on her after it wasn’t enough to stop the unfair and probably racially-motivated bad press. Currently in the Duchess’ lawsuit against the publisher of The Daily Mail, the judge dismissed claims that the Mail’s “unlawful” use of a private letter to her father—which she claims was cherry-picked for publication to put her in the worst possible light—was part of an ongoing effort by the Mail to defame her, although the judge implied that such a claim could be reapplied if put in a “proper” legal context. Currently living in Los Angeles, we have heard all kinds of stories now that Harry and Meghan are somewhat “mismatched,” with Harry missing hanging around with his Army buddies and dressing-up in nice uniforms, while Meghan didn’t like not being able to lead the “normal” life of a supposed celebrity (I have never seen a single episode of Suits—although admittedly I don’t watch much television at all anymore). 

Meghan’s lawsuit also charges that the Mail (among other tabloids) was engaged in an ongoing campaign to write embarrassing stories about her and her father, Thomas Markle, and causing a rift between them. Markle had been expected to walk his daughter down the aisle for her wedding, but he repeatedly made excuses not to do so, claiming he didn’t feel “welcome,” despite repeated attempts by both Prince Harry and Meghan to get him to show up. The last text to him from Harry before the wedding was "Speaking to the press WILL backfire, trust me Tom. Only we can help you, as we have been trying from day one." 

Unfortunately, Thomas Markle didn’t listen. Mikhaila Friel wrote recently in the Insider that Meghan was having a “good” relationship with her father until the British tabloid media began giving him unwanted attention, taking paparazzi shots of him in Mexico, and asking him leading questions to feed negative gossip. He was then embarrassed with staged fake photos of him “preparing” for a wedding he never attended, claiming heart trouble.  Naturally, Markle—shamed and feeling sorry for himself—allowed himself to be played by British tabloids like the Mail in order to put his daughter in the worst possible light, which has been an on-going issue since, with the Mail (and other such publications) hypocritically criticizing Meghan for the very same things that it spins positive for Princess Kate (for example, complaining about why “Meghan can’t keep her hands off her baby bump” while Kate “tenderly cradles” her baby bump). While the Mail may deny playing on the racism of certain of its low-brow readership in its coverage of Meghan, what is true is the implied racism of its reporting on immigration and the presence of non-whites in Britain, such as the number of non-white students in public schools in a way that inspires anti-immigrant paranoia, and was also the kind of fearmongering that lit the Brexit fire.

Whether or not the Mail can be accused of libeling Markle is another thing. Bradford Plumer in The New Republic suggested that publications in Britain (mostly) take care only to libel people who cannot afford to spend years in court, and threatening frivolous lawsuits against smaller entities or persons who call out false and misleading stories. Even after the infamous News of the World scandal that brought down what was at the time Britain’s most popular print “news” publication,  Plumer noted that its demise and tough libel and defamation laws did not stop the press’ behavior: “But even setting aside potential lawbreaking, many of Britain’s papers were famous for their reckless pursuit of stories at any cost, their thin regard for accuracy, their adventures in outright libel.”

And lawbreaking they did in such pursuits. To quote from the Wiki page on the NOTW scandal, “By 2002, an organized trade in confidential personal information had developed in Britain and was widely used by the British newspaper industry. Illegal means of gaining information used included hacking the private voicemail accounts on mobile phones, hacking into computers, making false statements to officials, entrapment, blackmail, burglaries, theft of mobile phones and making payments to public officials.” The police and media watchdogs undertook several sting operations which uncovered the activities of private investigators, current and former police officers who were selling information to various newspapers and tabloids. During one investigation, a “raid” on unregistered computers found receipts for payments made by 305 reporters for private information. One private investigator was found to have 13,000 requests from various newspapers and magazines for “confidential information.” 

But it wasn’t until Prince William’s phone was hacked was there a concerted effort to stop the law-breaking, or any journalists arrested or even questioned for illegally obtaining confidential information. News of the World reporter Clive Goodman’s office was searched, where 11,000 pages of notes revealed the evidence of thousands of persons whose phones had been hacked.  But this evidence would be largely hidden from prosecutors and the public. Only Goodman and one of his “investigators” eventual pleaded guilty and served a few months in prison, and the case was deemed closed until The Guardian began publishing articles questioning why investigators were not looking into evidence of a much wider scandal. A parliamentary commission was critical of police investigators limiting the information they provided to prosecutors and the public. Then new reports disclosed the extent of the NOTW “quietly” settling lawsuits with hacking victims, and then the dam broke. It was revealed that among the hacking targets were families of murder victims; knowing that the paper would be soon deluged by lawsuits that would put it out of business, Rupert Murdoch—whose media empire included ownership of the NOTW—decided to do the “right” thing and closed it after 168 years. 

All of this was blamed on “intense competition” in the British press. “As a result, the race for stories can be cutthroat,” writes Plumer. “The Columbia Journalism Review recently offered up some lurid examples of the lengths to which British tabloid reporters will go: ‘There was the tabloid freelancer who hid in a church organ for several days, defecating in a plastic bag, to get pictures of Madonna’s baby’s christening.” Tabloid newspapers far outstrip “normal” newspapers in sales in Britain. The Mail, which supposedly has the largest readership of any English “news” publication (at least online), is particularly egregious in making “the evidence fit the story rather than vice versa.”

It can be supposed that the American press is much more “cautious” in its reporting of the news even with all the claims of “fake news” going about, although Meghan Markle can't even catch a break here in the States with envious detractors such as "chick-lit" author Emily Giffin criticizing the way she hold's her son in his birthday video. It is unlikely she will win her court case, given that the average Brit prefers “news” that “entertains” rather than that which illuminates.